Why doesn't ICollection implement ICollection? [duplicate]

Answer 1

First, IList<T> does not implement IList either, probably for the same reasons. IList<T> implements: ICollection<T>, IEnumerable<T>, IEnumerable

Some parts of ICollection just aren't necessary, but changing an interface after it's out in the wild is breaking at best.

Look at ICollection:

public interface ICollection : IEnumerable
{
    void CopyTo(Array array, int index);

    int Count { get; }
    bool IsSynchronized { get; }
    object SyncRoot { get; }
}

It's just not properties you need in most cases, when I want a Collection I've never once needed this, nor would want to implement it. It got old would be the reasoning I suppose, but you'd have to ask the .Net team for the affirmative answer.

Answer 2

ICollection<T> and ICollection are actually very different interfaces that unfortunately share a name and not much else.

From https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/archive/blogs/kcwalina/system-collections-vs-system-collection-generic-and-system-collections-objectmodel

ICollection<T> seems like ICollection, but it’s actually a very different abstraction. We found that ICollection was not very useful. At the same time, we did not have an abstraction that represented an read/write non-indexed collection. ICollection<T> is such abstraction and you could say that ICollection does not have an exact corresponding peer in the generic world; IEnumerable<T> is the closest.

Answer 3

As Nick said, ICollection is pretty much useless.

These interfaces are similar only by their name, CopyTo and Count are the only properties in common. Add, Remove, Clear, Contains and IsReadOnly have been added while IsSychronized and SyncRoot have been removed.

In essence, ICollection<T> is mutable, ICollection is not.

Krzysztof Cwalina has more on this topic

ICollection<T> seems like ICollection, but it’s actually a very different abstraction. We found that ICollection was not very useful. At the same time, we did not have an abstraction that represented an read/write non-indexed collection. ICollection<T> is such abstraction and you could say that ICollection does not have an exact corresponding peer in the generic world; IEnumerable<T> is the closest.

Answer 4

Both ICollection and ICollection<T> contain at least one method that returns the collection type (GetEnumerator) and another that takes it as an argument (CopyTo).

ICollection<T>.GetEnumerator is covariant with ICollection.GetEnumerator, because T is a more specific type than System.Object. This part is OK. This is why IEnumerable<T> is able to subclass (and thus be substitutable) for IEnumerable.

But if we want ICollection<T> to be substitutable for ICollection, we also need ICollection<T>.CopyTo to be contravariant with ICollection.CopyTo, which it is not. The ICollection<T>.CopyTo method cannot accept a parameter of a less-specific type than T (the generics grammar constrains it to be T or smaller). And if ICollection<T>.CopyTo method is not contravariant in its argument, then that means the ICollection<T> interface as a whole is not substitutable for ICollection.

That might be a little hard to make sense of; it's more complicated because it deals with arrays. It's blindingly obvious in IList<T>, where implementing both interfaces could potentially break the type safety that's supposed to be guaranteed by generics (by simply invoking the non-generic IList.Add method). But that's actually just another way of saying that the IList<T>.Add method is not contravariant in its arguments with IList.Add - the generic method cannot accept the less-specific type System.Object as an argument.

Long story short: ICollection<T> simply can't be made substitutable for ICollection under all circumstances, and therefore cannot inherit from it.