Evil Code of the Day: variance and overloading

(Note that this kind of breakage was mentioned a long time ago in Eric Lippert’s blog, although not in this exact form.)


Whenever a conversion becomes available where it wasn’t before, overload resolution can change its behaviour. From C# 1 to C# 2 this happened due to delegate variance with method group conversions – now the same thing is true for generic variance for interfaces.


What does the following code print?


using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;

class Base
{
    public void Foo(IEnumerable<string> strings)
    {
        Console.WriteLine(“Strings”);
    }
}

class Derived : Base
{
    public void Foo(IEnumerable<object> objects)
    {
        Console.WriteLine(“Objects”);
    }
}

class Test
{
    static void Main()
    {
        List<string> strings = new List<string>();
        new Derived().Foo(strings);
    }
}

The correct answer is “it depends on which version of C# and .NET framework you’re using.”


If you’re using C# 4.0 and .NET 4.0, then IEnumerable<T> is covariant: there’s an implicit conversion from IEnumerable<string> to IEnumerable<object>, so the derived overload is used.


If you’re using C# 4.0 but .NET 3.5 or earlier then the compiler still knows about variance in general, but the interface in the framework doesn’t have the appropriate metadata to indicate it, so there’s no conversion available, and the base class overload is used.


If you’re using C# 3.0 or earlier then the compiler doesn’t know about generic variance at all, so again the base class overload is used.


So, this is a breaking change, and a fairly subtle one at that – and unlike the method group conversion in .NET 2.0, the compiler in .NET 4.0 beta 1 doesn’t issue a warning about it. I’ll edit this post when there’s an appropriate Connect ticket about it…


In general though, I’d say it’s worth avoiding overloading a method declared in a base class unless you really have to. In particular, overloading it using the same number of parameters but more general ones seems to be a recipe for unreadable code.

Non-review: The Data Access Handbook by John Goodson and Robert A. Steward

A while ago I agreed to write a review of this book (which the publisher sent me a free copy of) but I haven’t had time to read it fully yet. I’ve been skimming through the first couple of chapters though, and it’s pretty interesting. I’ll post a full review when I have more time (along with reviews of CLR via C# and a bunch of other books) but I thought it would be at least worth mentioning the book in advance.

It’s really a performance book – as far as I can tell that’s its sole purpose (and I’m lumping scalability in with performance) which is fine. It covers some generalities and then splits by client technology (ODBC, JDBC, .NET) for the middle section. The final chapters are general-purpose again.

I’m loathe to say much more about it yet, having only read a small amount – but I’ll definitely be reading the rest. It’s unlikely to be particularly useful in my current job, but you never know – one day I may be talking to a regular SQL database again :)

Links:

Faking COM to fool the C# compiler

C# 4 has some great features to make programming against COM components bearable fun and exciting. In particular:

  • PIA linking allows you to embed just the relevant bits of the Primary Interop Assembly into your own assembly, so the PIA isn’t actually required at execution time
  • Named arguments and optional parameters make life much simpler for APIs like Office which are full of methods with gazillions of parameters
  • "ref" removal allows you to pass an argument by value even though the parameter is a by-reference parameter (COM only, folks – don’t worry!)
  • Dynamic typing allows you to remove a load of casts by converting every parameter and return type of "object" into "dynamic" (if you’re using PIA linking)

I’m currently writing about these features for the book (don’t forget to buy it cheap on Friday) but I’m not really a COM person. I want to be able to see these compiler features at work against a really simple type. Unfortunately, these really are COM-specific features… so we’re going to have to persuade COM that the type really is a COM type.

I got slightly stuck on this first, but thanks to the power of Stack Overflow, I now have a reasonably complete demo "fake" COM type. It doesn’t do a lot, and in particular it doesn’t have any events, but it’s enough to show the compiler features:

using System;
using System.Runtime.InteropServices;

// Required for linking into another assembly (C# 4)
[assembly:Guid("86ca55e4-9d4b-462b-8ec8-b62e993aeb64")]
[assembly:ImportedFromTypeLib("fake.tlb")]

namespace FakeCom
{
    [Guid("c3cb8098-0b8f-4a9a-9772-788d340d6ae0")]
    [ComImport, CoClass(typeof(FakeImpl))]
    public interface FakeComponent
    {
        object MakeMeDynamic(object arg);
        
        void Foo([Optional] ref int x,
                 [Optional] ref string y);
    }
 
    [Guid("734e6105-a20f-4748-a7de-2c83d7e91b04")]
    public class FakeImpl {}
}

We have an interface representing our COM type, and a class which the interface claims will implement it. Fortunately the compiler doesn’t actually check that, so we can get away with leaving it entirely unimplemented. It’s also worth noting that our optional parameters can be by-reference parameters (which you can’t normally do in C# 4) and we haven’t given them any default values (as those are ignored for COM anyway).

This is compiled just like any other assembly:

csc /target:library FakeCom.cs

Then we get to use it with a test program:

using FakeCom;

class Test
{
    static void Main()
    {
        // Yes, that is calling a "constructor" on an interface
        FakeComponent com = new FakeComponent();
        
        // The boring old fashioned way of calling a method
        int i = 0;
        string j = null;
        com.Foo(ref i, ref j);
        
        // Look ma, no ref!
        com.Foo(10, "Wow!");
        
        // Who cares about parameter ordering?
        com.Foo(y: "Not me", x: 0);

        // And the parameters are optional too
        com.Foo();
        
        // The line below only works when linked rather than
        // referenced, as otherwise you need a cast.
        // The compiler treats it as if it both takes and
        // returns a dynamic value.
        string value = com.MakeMeDynamic(10);
    }
}

This is compiled either in the old "deploy the PIA as well" way (after adding a cast in the last line):

csc /r:FakeCom.dll Test.cs

… or by linking the PIA instead:

csc /l:FakeCom.dll Test.cs

(The difference is just using /l instead of /r.)

When the test code is compiled as a reference, it decompiles in Reflector to this (I’ve added whitespace for clarity):

private static void Main()
{
    FakeComponent component = (FakeComponent) new FakeImpl();

    int x = 0;
    string y = null;
    component.Foo(ref x, ref y);

    int num2 = 10;
    string str3 = "Wow!";
    component.Foo(ref num2, ref str3);

    string str4 = "Not me";
    int num3 = 0;
    component.Foo(ref num3, ref str4);

    int num4 = 0;
    string str5 = null;
    component.Foo(ref num4, ref str5);

    string str2 = (string) component.MakeMeDynamic(10);
}

Note how the compiler has created local variables to pass by reference; any changes to the parameter are ignored when the method returns. (If you actually pass a variable by reference, the compiler won’t take that away, however.)

When the code is linked instead, the middle section is the same, but the construction and the line calling MakeMeDynamic are very different:

private static void Main()
{
    FakeComponent component = (FakeComponent) Activator.CreateInstance(Type.GetTypeFromCLSID
        (new Guid("734E6105-A20F-4748-A7DE-2C83D7E91B04")));

    // Middle bit as before

    if (<Main>o__SiteContainer6.<>p__Site7 == null)
    {
        <Main>o__SiteContainer6.<>p__Site7 = CallSite<Func<CallSite, object, string>>
            .Create(new CSharpConvertBinder
                       (typeof(string), 
                        CSharpConversionKind.ImplicitConversion, false));
    }
    string str2 = <Main>o__SiteContainer6.<>p__Site7.Target.Invoke
        (<Main>o__SiteContainer6.<>p__Site7, component.MakeMeDynamic(10));
}

The interface is embedded in the generated assembly, but with a slightly different set of attributes:

[ComImport, CompilerGenerated]
[Guid("C3CB8098-0B8F-4A9A-9772-788D340D6AE0"), TypeIdentifier]
public interface FakeComponent
{
    object MakeMeDynamic(object arg);
    void Foo([Optional] ref int x, [Optional] ref string y);
}

The class isn’t present at all.

I should point out that doing this has no practical benefit in real code – but the ability to mess around with a pseudo-COM type rather than having to find a real one with the exact members I want will make it a lot easier to try a few corner cases for the book.

So, not a terribly productive evening in terms of getting actual writing done, but interesting nonetheless…

Books going cheap

I’m delighted to say that Manning is having a promotional week, with a one-day discount voucher on each of the books I’ve been working on. Here’s the list of what’s going cheap when:

This seems an appropriate time to mention that the first new content from the 2nd edition of C# in Depth became available under MEAP over the weekend. I’m looking forward to getting feedback on it.

I’ll be tweeting the relevant code each morning as well. Go nuts :)

Evil code of the day

At a glance, this code doesn’t look particularly evil. What does it do though? Compile it with the C# 4.0b1 compiler and run it…

using System;

class Base
{
    public virtual void Foo(int x, int y)
    {
        Console.WriteLine("Base: x={0}, y={1}", x, y);
    }
}

class Derived : Base
{
    public override void Foo(int y, int x)
    {
        Console.WriteLine("Derived: x={0}, y={1}", x, y);
    }
}


class PureEvil
{
    static void Main()
    {
        Derived d = new Derived();
        Base b = d;
        
        b.Foo(x: 10, y: 20);
        d.Foo(x: 10, y: 20);
    }
}

The results are:

Derived: x=20, y=10
Derived: x=10, y=20

I’m very nearly tempted to leave it there and just see what the reactions are like, but I’ll at least give you a hint as to where to look – section 21.3 of the C# 4 spec explains why this gives odd results. It does make perfect sense, but it’s hideously evil.

I feel dirty.

Bonus questions

  • What happens if you rename the parameters in Derived.Foo to yy and xx?
  • (As suggested by Mehrdad) What happens if you call it with a dynamic value?