Generic and specific refer to the identification of a fact In a method of foo, i want to get the class instance of type t, but i just can't call t.class Specific means a fact that has been specified
generic.egirl photos and videos from OnlyFans | Honey Affair
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.
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 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). 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. Why do we observe this weird behaviour 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
How do i resolve this, or at least work around it? But that doesn't compile, so is there any way to achieve creating this alias while leaving the type as generic? I have a generics class, foo<t>
