Generic is the opposite of specific. Generic and specific refer to the identification of a fact. Specific means a fact that has been specified. If you ask for (specify) a pain reliever, aspirin would be a specific pain reliever, while aspirin, acetaminophen, ibuprofen, and naproxen together would be generic pain relievers.
You can certainly define generic delegates, after all, that's exactly what Func and Action are. They are treated as generic definitions, just like generic interfaces and classes are. However, you cannot use generic definitions in method signatures, only parameterized generic types. Quite simply you cannot do what you are trying to achieve with a delegate alone.
The type 'int?' must be a non-nullable value type in order to use it as parameter 'T' in the generic type or method Is specifying a nullable type as a generic parameter at all possible?
I have a generics class, Foo<T>. In a method of Foo, I want to get the class instance of type T, but I just can't call T.class. What is the preferred way to get around it using T.class?
I am trying to combine a bunch of similar methods into a generic method. I have several methods that return the value of a querystring, or null if that querystring does not exist or is not in the
The following is a snippet on how to make a java generic class to append a single item to an array. How can I make appendToArray a static method. Adding static to the method signature results in
I have the following method with generic type: T GetValue<T> (); I would like to limit T to primitive types such as int, string, float but not class type. I know I can define generic for clas...
0 If you cannot change the generic class and use one of the method already explained on this page, then simple approach would be to get the type class based on the runtime instance class name.
Is there a clean method of mocking a class with generic parameters? Say I have to mock a class Foo<T> which I need to pass into a method that expects a Foo<Bar>. I can do the following
