I have several methods that return the value of a querystring, or null if that querystring does not exist or is not in the I can do the following Generic is the opposite of specific
Egirl Nude OnlyFans Leaks - Photo #3053887 - Fapopedia
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. 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 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? 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? 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>
