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.
In case you happen to have a generic method that returns a generic value but doesn't have generic parameters, you can use default(T) + (T)(object) cast, together with C# 8 pattern matching/type checks (as indicated in the other recent answers).
What's the best way to call a generic method when the type parameter isn't known at compile time, but instead is obtained dynamically at runtime? Consider the following sample code - inside the Ex...
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?
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.
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?
The generic parameter type will be the same for all methods, so I would like it at the class level. I know I could make a generic version and then inherit from it for the int version, but I was just hoping to get it all in one... but I didn't know of any way to do that.
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
What keeps us from comparing the values of generic types which are known to be IComparable? Doesn't it somehow defeat the entire purpose of generic constraints?
