So I have this abstract class. Which has a list of abstract types
public abstract class BaseClass
{
public abstract List<A> History { get; set; }
and the inheritor class.
public class ConcreteClass : BaseClass
{
public override List<B> History { get; set; }
My question is simple. Why does this return an error. A is an abstract class that b inherits. So why can't I have a concrete property override an abstract property?
Note:Due to other issues I cannot use generics with the base class. Some clarity on the issue. I am using mvc and due to some problems with dynamic types I cannot say BaseClass<t>
And in some other areas methods that call a method called GetHistory() need it to return the concrete list not the abstract list. So I am stuck between a rock and a hard place.
Why does this return an error. A is an abstract class that B inherits.
Once again. This question is asked pretty much every day.
abstract class Fruit
{
public virtual List<Fruit> M() { return new List<Fruit>(); }
}
class Apple : Fruit
{
public override List<Apple> M() { return new List<Apple>(); }
}
Suppose that was legal. What goes wrong?
class Banana : Fruit { }
...
Fruit f = new Apple(); // Legal
List<Fruit> bowl = f.M(); // calls Apple.M, returns a list of apples.
bowl.Add(new Banana());
And now there is a banana in a bowl that may only contain apples.
That's why this has to be illegal. Do a search for covariance and contravariance to learn when this kind of conversion is legal in C# and when it is illegal. Briefly, it is legal only when the compiler can prove that it is safe, and when the type arguments are reference types .
Now, what about this?
abstract class Fruit
{
public virtual Fruit N() { return new Banana(); }
}
class Apple : Fruit {
public override Apple N() { return new Apple(); }
}
...
Fruit f1 = new Apple();
Fruit f2 = f1.N(); // No problem, an apple is a fruit.
This doesn't wreck the type system; this would be safe but it is still illegal. It's illegal simply because virtual return type covariance has never been implemented in C#. It is implemented in C++.
It hasn't been implemented because simply it's never been a high priority for the C# team. People have been asking for it for over a decade, but it's just not a great feature. Maybe it will get done eventually; if you feel strongly about it, join the forum on github and advocate for it.
One approach you could consider is:
public class ConcreteClass : BaseClass<ListClass>
{
public override List<ListClass> History { get; set; }
}
public abstract class BaseClass<T> where T : BaseListClass
{
public abstract List<T> History { get; set; }
}
public abstract class BaseListClass
{
}
public class ListClass : BaseListClass
{
}
By making the concrete class specify the exact generic type it wants to use (re: the base type) then it may suit your purposes.
The technical post webpages of this site follow the CC BY-SA 4.0 protocol. If you need to reprint, please indicate the site URL or the original address.Any question please contact:yoyou2525@163.com.