Category Archives: Wacky Ideas

A different approach to inappropriate defaults

I’ve had a couple of bug reports about my Protocol Buffers port – both nicely detailed, and one including a patch to fix it. (It’s only due to my lack of timeliness in actually submitting the change that the second bug report occurred. Oops.)

The bug was in text formatting (although it also affected parsing). I was using the default ToString behaviour for numbers, which meant that floats and doubles were being formatted as "50,15" in Germany instead of "50.15". The unit tests caught this, but only if you ran them on a machine with an appropriate default culture.

Aaargh. I’ve been struggling with a similar problem in a library I can’t change, which uses the system default time zone for various calculations in Java. When you’re running server code, the default time zone is almost never the one you want to use, and it certainly isn’t in my case.

A similar problem is Java’s decision to use the system default encoding in all kinds of bizarre places – FileReader doesn’t even let you specify the encoding, which makes it almost entirely useless in my view.

So I’ve been wondering how we could fix this and problems like it. One option is to completely remove the defaults. If you always had to pass in a CultureInfo/Locale, TimeZoneInfo/TimeZone, Encoding/Charset when you call any method which might be culturally sensitive.

Making life easier (in .NET)

It strikes me that .NET has a useful abstraction here: the assembly as the unit of deployment. (Java’s closest equivalent is probably a jar file, which probably gets messier.)

Within one assembly, I suspect in many cases you always want to make the same decision. For example, in protocol buffers I would like to use the invariant culture all the time. It would be nice if I could say that, and then get the right behaviour by default. Here are the options I’d like to be able to apply (for each of culture, time zone and character encoding – there may be others):

  • Use a culture-neutral default (the invariant culture, UTF-8, UTC)
  • Use a specific set of values (e.g. en-GB, Windows-1252, "Europe/London")
  • Use the system default values
  • Use whatever the calling assembly is using

Of course you should still have the option of specifying overrides on a per call basis, but I think this might be a way forward.

Thoughts? I realise it’s almost certainly too late for this to actually be implemented now, but would it have been a good idea? Or is it just an alternative source of confusion?

Go on, ask me anything

This afternoon, I found a comment which had been trapped in the spam bin for this blog. It was from Andrew Rimmer, in reply to my “micro-celebrity” post, pointing me at

The world has officially become extremely silly. The surprising thing is, it’s actually useful – at least for me. A number of times I’ve wanted to find my old answers to questions, so I can either just refer to them in a new answer or mark the new question as a dupe. You might have thought that a simple search such as

exceptions “jon skeet”

would suffice – but that finds what other people have said about exceptions in the same questions that I’ve been active in, and it also picks up any questions which happened to get one of the FinalBuilder adverts when the spider fetched them. The equivalent search on gets good results.

I’ve no idea how useful it will be for anyone else, but personally I love it. Ego? What ego?

Side note to self, puncturing ego slightly: don’t blog on the tube. It’s way too easy to miss your stop…

Breaking Liskov

Very recently, Barbara Liskov won the Turing award, which makes it a highly appropriate time to ponder when it’s reasonable to ignore her most famous piece of work, the Liskov Substitution (or Substitutability) Principle. This is not idle speculation: I’ve had a feature request for MiscUtil. The request makes sense, simplifies the code, and is good all round – but it breaks substitutability and documented APIs.

The substitutability principle is in some ways just common sense. It says (in paraphrase) that if your code works for some base type T, it should be able to work with subtype of T, S. If it doesn’t, S is breaking substitutability. This principle is at the heart of inheritance and polymorphism – I should be able to use a Stream without knowing the details of what its underlying storage is, for example.

Liskov’s formulation is:

Let q(x) be a property provable about objects x of type T. Then q(y) should be true for objects y of type S where S is a subtype of T.

So, that’s the rule. Sounds like a good idea, right?

Breaking BinaryReader’s contract

My case in point is EndianBinaryReader (and EndianBinaryWriter, but the arguments will all be the same – it’s better to focus on a single type). This is simply an equivalent to System.IO.BinaryReader, but it lets you specify the endianness to use when converting values.

Currently, EndianBinaryReader is a completely separate class to BinaryReader. They have no inheritance relationship. However, as it happens, BinaryReader isn’t sealed, and all of the appropriate methods are virtual. So, can we make EndianBinaryReader derive from BinaryReader and use it as a drop-in replacement? Well… that’s where the trouble starts.

There’s no difficulty technically in doing it. The implementation is fairly straightforward – indeed, it means we can drop a bunch of methods from EndianBinaryReader and let BinaryReader handle it instead. (This is particularly handy for text, which is fiddly to get right.) I currently have the code in another branch, and it works fine.

And I would have gotten away with it if it weren’t for that pesky inheritance…

The problem is whether or not it’s the right thing to do. To start with, it breaks Liskov’s substitutability principle, if the “property” we consider is “the result of calling ReadInt32 when the next four bytes of the underlying stream are 00, 00, 00, 01” for example. Not having read Liskov’s paper for myself (I really should, some time) I’m not sure whether this is the intended kind of use or not. More on that later.

The second problem is that it contradicts the documentation for BinaryReader. For example, the docs for ReadInt32 state: “BinaryReader reads this data type in little-endian format.” That’s a tricky bit of documentation to understand precisely – it’s correct for BinaryReader itself, but does that mean it should be true for all subclasses too?

When I’ve written in various places about the problems of inheritance, and why if you design a class to be unsealed that means doing more design work, this is the kind of thing I’ve been talking about. How much detail does it make sense to specify here? How much leeway is there for classes overriding ReadInt32? Could a different implementation read a “compressed” Int32 instead of always reading four bytes, for example? Should the client care, if they make sure they’ve obtained an appropriate BinaryReader for their data source in the first place? This is basically the same as asking how strictly we should apply Liskov’s substitutability principle. If two types are the same in every property, surely we can’t distinguish between them at all.

I wonder whether most design questions of inheritance basically boil down to defining which properties should obey Liskov’s substitutability principle and which needn’t, for the type you’re designing. Of course, it’s not just black and white – there will always be exceptions and awkward points. Programming is often about nuance, even if we might wish that not to be the case.

Blow it, let’s do it anyway…

Coming back to BinaryReader, I think (unless I can be persuaded otherwise) that the benefits from going against the documentation (and strict substitutability) outweigh the downsides. In particular, BinaryReaders don’t tend to be passed around in my experience – the code which creates it is usually the code which uses it too, or it’s at least closely related. The risk of breaking code by passing it a BinaryReader using an unexpected endianness is therefore quite low, even though it’s theoretically possible.

So, am I miles off track? This is for a class library, after all – should I be more punctilious about playing by the rules? Or is pragmatism the more important principle here?

RFID: What I really want it for

This isn’t really coding related, but it’s technology related at least. There’s been a lot of fuss made about how great or awful RFID is and will be in the future, in terms of usefuless and privacy invasion respectively. There’s one use which I haven’t seen discussed, but which seems pretty obvious to me – but with further enhancements available.

Basically, I want RFID on clothes to tell me useful stuff. Suppose each item of clothing were uniquely tagged, and you had a bunch of scanners in your home linked up to one system which stored metadata about the clothes. Suddenly the following tasks become easier:

  • Working out which wash cycle to use for a whole washing basket. Can’t see the dark sock hidden in the white wash? The RFID scanner could alert you to it. Likewise tumbledrying – no need to check each item separately, just attach the scanner over the tumbledryer door and wait for it to beep as you try to put something in which shouldn’t be tumbled.
  • Separating clothes to put them away after they’re clean and dry. Admittedly this is more of a chore for our household than others (with twin boys and an older brother, where some items of clothing could belong to any of them) but it would be really, really useful for us.
  • Remembering who you’ve borrowed which clothes from. Kids grow out of clothes very quickly; we have a number of friends who lend us clothes from their children, and likewise we lend plenty of clothes to them and others. You’ve then got to remember what you borrowed from who, which can become tricky when you’ve got a loft full of bags of clothing. Wouldn’t it be nice to just “label” all the clothes in a bag with the owner’s name when you first receive them, and then just pass a scanner near everything quickly later on?

The privacy issues of all of this would have to be worked out carefully (as the simplest solution would allow your movements to be traced just by which clothes you’re wearing) but if it does end up being possible, I’ll be hugely grateful for this.

(Next up, benchmarking of for vs foreach in various situations. In other words, back to our regular schedule :)

Quick rant: why isn’t there an Exception(string, params object[]) constructor?

This Stack Overflow question has reminded me of something I often wish existed in common exception constructors – an overload taking a format string and values. For instance, it would be really nice to be able to write:

throw new IOException(“Expected to read {0} bytes but only {1} were available”,
                      requiredSize, bytesRead);

Of course, with no way of explicitly inheriting constructors (which I almost always want for exceptions, and almost never want for anything else) it would mean yet another overload to copy and paste from another exception, but the times when I’ve actually written it in my own exceptions it’s been hugely handy, particularly for tricky cases where you’ve got a lot of data to include in the message. (You’d also want an overload taking a nested exception first as well, adding to the baggage…)

Horrible grotty hack: returning an anonymous type instance

One of the reasons I don’t view anonymous types as being too bad is that they’re nicely confined to methods. You can’t declare the type that you’re returning from a method if it’s anonymous (or if one of its type arguments is generic, e.g. a List<T> where T is an anonymous type and T isn’t a type parameter to the method itself). However, you can get around this if you’re sneaky.

I’ve always known that it’s perfectly easy to return an instance of an anonymous type by declaring that the method will return object. However, it hadn’t occurred to me before today that you can actually cast back to that type afterwards. Of course, you can’t just use a normal cast expression – that requires the name of the type to be known at compile-time. But you can do a cast in a generic method… and you can use type inference to supply a type argument… and two anonymous type instance creation expressions will use the same type within the same assembly if the order, names and types of the properties are the same.

Behold the evil cheesecake factory!

using System;

static class GrottyHacks
    internal static T Cast<T>(object target, T example)
        return (T) target;

class CheesecakeFactory
    static object CreateCheesecake()
        return new { Fruit=“Strawberry”, Topping=“Chocolate” };
    static void Main()
        object weaklyTyped = CreateCheesecake();
        var stronglyTyped = GrottyHacks.Cast(weaklyTyped,
            new { Fruit=“”, Topping=“” });
        Console.WriteLine(“Cheesecake: {0} ({1})”,
            stronglyTyped.Fruit, stronglyTyped.Topping);           

The important thing to note here is that the stronglyTyped variable really is of the same anonymous type as the one used in the CreateCheesecake method. When we use the Fruit and Topping properties in the last statement, that’s checked at compile-time.

Of course, it all goes pear-shaped if you make the slightest of errors when giving the Cast method an example of what you want to cast to – if you got the order of the properties wrong, for example, the code would still compile, but the cast would throw an exception at execution time.

How useful is this? Ooh, probably not at all. Please do not use this “technique” in your code. If you do, at least don’t mention my name anywhere near it. It’s all fun though, isn’t it?

Value types and parameterless constructors

There have been a couple of questions on StackOverflow about value types and parameterless constructors:

I learned quite a bit when answering both of these. When a further question about the default value of a type (particularly with respect to generics) came up, I thought it would be worth delving into a bit more depth. Very little of this is actually relevant most of the time, but it’s interesting nonetheless.

I won’t go over most of the details I discovered in my answer to the first question,  but if you’re interested in the IL generated by the statement “x = new Guid();” then have a look there for more details.

Let’s start off with the first and most important thing I’ve learned about value types recently:

Yes, you can write a parameterless constructor for a value type in .NET

I very carefully wrote “in .NET” there – “in C#” would have been incorrect. I had always believed that the CLI spec prohibited value types from having parameterless constructors. (The C# spec used the terminology in a slightly different way – it treats all value types as having a parameterless constructor. This makes the language more consistent for the most part, but it does give rise to some interesting behaviour which we’ll see later on.)

It turns out that if you write your value type in IL, you can provide your own parameterless constructor with custom code without ilasm complaining at all. It’s possible that other languages targeting the CLI allow you to do this as well, but as I don’t know any, I’ll stick to IL. Unfortunately I don’t know IL terribly well, so I thought I’d just start off with some C# and go from there:

public struct Oddity
    public Oddity(int removeMe)
        System.Console.WriteLine(“Oddity constructor called”);

I compiled that into its own class library, and then disassembled it with ildasm / Oddity.dll. After changing the constructor to be parameterless, removing a few comments, and removing some compiler-generated assembly attributes) I ended up with this IL:

.assembly extern mscorlib
  .publickeytoken = (B7 7A 5C 56 19 34 E0 89 )  
  .ver 2:0:0:0
.assembly Oddity
  .hash algorithm 0x00008004
  .ver 0:0:0:0
.module Oddity.dll
.imagebase 0x00400000
.file alignment 0x00000200
.stackreserve 0x00100000
.subsystem 0x0003
.corflags 0x00000001

.class public sequential ansi sealed beforefieldinit Oddity
       extends [mscorlib]System.ValueType
  .pack 0
  .size 1
  .method public hidebysig specialname rtspecialname 
          instance void  .ctor() cil managed
    .maxstack  8
    IL_0000:  nop
    IL_0001:  ldstr      "Oddity constructor called"
    IL_0006:  call       void [mscorlib]System.Console::WriteLine(string)
    IL_000b:  nop
    IL_000c:  ret

I reassembled this with ilasm /dll /out:Oddity.dll So far, so good. We have a value type with a custom constructor in a class library. It doesn’t do anything particularly clever – it just logs that it’s been called. That’s enough for our test program.

When does the parameterless constructor get called?

There are various things one could investigate about parameterless constructors, but I’m mostly interested in when they get called. The test application is reasonably simple, but contains lots of cases – each writes to the console what it’s about to do, then does something which might call the constructor. Without further ado:

using System;
using System.Runtime.CompilerServices;

class Test
    static Oddity staticField;
    Oddity instanceField;
    static void Main()
        Report(“Declaring local variable”);
        Oddity localDeclarationOnly;
        // No variables within the value, so we can use it
        // without inializing anything
        object o = localDeclarationOnly;
        // Just make sure it’s really done it
        Report(“new Oddity() – set local variable”);
        Oddity local = new Oddity();
        Report(“Create instance of Test – contains instance variable”);
        Test t = new Test();
        Report(“new Oddity() – set instance field”);
        t.instanceField = new Oddity();
        Report(“new Oddity() – set static field”);
        staticField = new Oddity();
        Report(“new Oddity[10]”);
        o = new Oddity[10];
        Report(“Passing argument to method”);
    static void MethodWithParameter(Oddity oddity)
        // No need to do anything
    static void GenericMethod<T>() where T : new()
        Report(“default(T) in generic method with new() constraint”);
        T t = default(T);
        Report(“new T() in generic method with new() constraint”);
        t = new T();
    static void GenericMethod2<T>() where T : struct
        Report(“default(T) in generic method with struct constraint”);
        T t = default(T);
        Report(“new T() in generic method with struct constraint”);
        t = new T();

    static void Report(string text)

And here are the results:

Declaring local variable
new Oddity() – set local variable
Oddity constructor called
Create instance of Test – contains instance variable
new Oddity() – set instance field
Oddity constructor called
new Oddity() – set static field
Oddity constructor called
new Oddity[10]
Passing argument to method
default(T) in generic method with new() constraint
new T() in generic method with new() constraint
default(T) in generic method with struct constraint
new T() in generic method with struct constraint
Oddity constructor called
Oddity constructor called

So, to split these out:

Operations which do call the constructor

  • new Oddity() – whatever we’re storing the result in. This isn’t much of a surprise. What may surprise you is that it gets called even if you compile Test.cs against the original Oddity.dll (without the custom parameterless constructor) and then just rebuild Oddity.dll.
  • Activator.CreateInstance<T>() and Activator.CreateInstance(Type). I wouldn’t be particular surprised by this either way.

Operations which don’t call the constructor

  • Just declaring a variable, whether local, static or instance
  • Boxing
  • Creating an array – good job, as this could be a real performance killer
  • Using default(T) in a generic method - this one didn't surprise me
  • Using new T() in a generic method – this one really did surprise me. Not only is it counterintuitive, but in IL it just calls Activator.CreateInstance<T>(). What’s the difference between this and calling Activator.CreateInstance<Oddity>()? I really don’t understand.


Well, I’m still glad that C# doesn’t let us define our own parameterless constructors for value types, given the behaviour. The main reason for using it – as far as I’ve seen – it to make sure that the “default value” for a type is sensible. Given that it’s possible to get a usable value of the type without the constructor being called, this wouldn’t work anyway. Writing such a constructor would be like making a value type mutable – almost always a bad idea.

However, it’s nice to know it’s possible, just on the grounds that learning new things is always a good thing. And at least next time someone asks a similar question, I’ll have somewhere to point them…

Redesigning System.Object/java.lang.Object

I’ve had quite a few discussions with a colleague about some failures of Java and .NET. The issue we keep coming back to is the root of the inheritance tree. There’s no doubt in my mind that having a tree with a single top-level class is a good thing, but it’s grown a bit too big for its boots.

Pretty much everything in this post applies to both .NET and Java, sometimes with a few small changes. Where it might be unclear, I’ll point out the changes explicitly – otherwise I’ll just use the .NET terminology.

What’s in System.Object?

Before we work out what we might be able to change, let’s look at what we’ve got. I’m only talking about instance methods. At the moment:

Life-cycle and type identity

There are three members which I believe really need to be left alone.

We need a parameterless constructor because (at least with the current system of chaining constructors to each other) we have to have some constructor, and I can’t imagine what parameter we might want to give it. I certainly find it hard to believe there’s a particular piece of state which really deserves to be a part of every object but which we’re currently missing.

I really don’t care that much about finalizers. Should the finalizer be part of Object itself, or should it just get handled automatically by the CLR if and only if it’s defined somewhere in the inheritance chain? Frankly, who cares. No doubt it makes a big difference to the implementation somewhere, but that’s not my problem. All I care about when it comes to finalizers is that when I have to write them it’s as easy as possible to do it properly, and that I don’t have to write them very often in the first place. (With SafeHandle, it should be a pretty rare occurrence in .NET, even when you’re dealing directly with unmanaged resources.)

GetType() or (getClass() in Java) is pretty important. I can’t see any particular alternative to having this within Object, unless you make it a static method somewhere else with an Object parameter. In fact, that would have the advantage of freeing up the name for use within your own classes. The functionality is sufficiently important (and really does apply to every object) that I think it’s worth keeping.

Comparison methods

Okay, time to get controversial. I don’t think every object should have to be able to compare itself with another object. Of course, most types don’t really support this anyway – we just end up with reference equality by default.

The trouble with comparisons is that everyone’s got a different idea of what makes something equal. There are some types where it really is obvious – there’s only one natural comparison. Integers spring to mind. There are other types which have multiple natural equality comparisons – floating point numbers (exact, within an absolute epsilon, and within a relative epsilon) and strings (ordinal, culture sensitive and/or case sensitive) are examples of this. Then there are composite types where you may or may not care about certain aspects – when comparing URLs, do I care about case? Do I care about fragments? For http, if the port number is explicitly specified as 80, is that different to a URL which is still http but leaves the port number implicit?

.NET represents these reasonably well already, with the IEquatable<T> interface saying “I know how to compare myself with an instance of type T, and how to produce a hashcode for myself” and IEqualityComparer<T> interface saying “I know how to compare two instances of T, and how to produce a hashcode for one instance of T.” Now suppose we didn’t have the (nongeneric!) Equals() method and GetHashCode() in System.Object. Any type which had a natural equality comparison would still let you compare it for equality by implementing IEquatable<T>.Equals – but anything else would either force you to use reference equality or an implementation of IEqualityComparer<T>.

Some of the principle consumers of equality comparisons are collections – particularly dictionaries (which is why it’s so important that the interfaces should include hashcode generation). With the current way that .NET generics work, it would be tricky to have a constraint on a constructor such that if you only specified the types, it would only work if the key type implemented IEquatable<T>, but it’s easy enough to do with static methods (on a non-generic type). Alternatively you could specify any type and an appropriate IEqualityComparer<T> to use for the keys. We’d need an IdentityComparer<T> to work just with references (and provide the equivalent functionaliy to Object.GetHashCode) but that’s not hard – and it would be absolutely obvious what the comparison was when you built the dictionary.

Monitors and threading

This is possibly my biggest gripe. The fact that every object has a monitor associated with it was a mistake in Java, and was unfortunately copied in .NET. This promotes the bad practice of locking on “this” and on types – both of which are typically publicly accessible references. I believe that unless a reference is exposed explicitly for the purpose of locking (like ICollection.SyncRoot) then you should avoid locking on any reference which other code knows about. I typically have a private read-only variable for locking purposes. If you’re following these guidelines, it makes no sense to be able to lock on absolutely any reference – it would be better to make the Monitor class instantiable, and make Wait/Pulse/PulseAll instance members. (In Java this would mean creating a new class and moving Object.wait/notify/notifyAll members to that class.)

This would lead to cleaner, more readable code in my view. I’d also do away with the “lock” statement in C#, making Monitor.Enter return a token implementing IDisposable – so “using” statements would replace locks, freeing up a keyword and giving the flexibility of having multiple overloads of Monitor.Enter. Arguably if one were redesigning all of this anyway, it would be worth looking at whether or not monitors should really be reentrant. Any time you use lock reentrancy, you’re probably not thinking hard enough about the design. Now there’s a nice overgeneralisation with which to end this section…

String representations

This is an interesting one. I’m genuinely on the fence here. I find ToString() (and the fact that it’s called implicitly in many circumstances) hugely useful, but it feels like it’s attempting to satisfy three different goals:

  • Giving a developer-readable representation when logging and debugging
  • Giving a user-readable representation as part of a formatted message in a UI
  • Giving a machine-readable format (although this is relatively rare for anything other than numeric types)

It’s interesting to note that Java and .NET differ as to which of these to use for numbers – Java plumps for “machine-readable” and .NET goes for “human-readable in the current thread’s culture”. Of course it’s clearer to explicitly specify the culture on both platforms.

The trouble is that very often, it’s not immediately clear which of these has been implemented. This leads to guidelines such as “don’t use ToString() other than for logging” on the grounds that at least if it’s implemented inappropriately, it’ll only be a log file which ends up with difficult-to-understand data.

Should this usage be explicitly stated – perhaps even codified in the name: “ToDebugString” or something similar? I will leave this for smarter minds to think about, but I think there’s enough value in the method to make it worth keeping.


Again, I’m not sure on this one. It would perhaps be better as a static (generic!) method somewhere in a class whose name indicated “this is for sneaky runtime stuff”. After all, it constructs a new object without calling a constructor, and other funkiness. I’m less bothered by this than the other items though.


To summarise, in an ideal world:

  • Equals and GetHashCode would disappear from Object. Types would have to explicitly say that they could be compared
  • Wait/Pulse/PulseAll would become instance methods in Monitor, which would be instantiated every time you want a lock.
  • ToString might be renamed to give clearer usage guidance.
  • MemberwiseClone might be moved to a different class.

Obviously it’s far too late for either Java or .NET to make these changes, but it’s always interesting to dream. Any more changes you’d like to see? Or violent disagreements with any of the above?

Jaffa bugs

Currently I’m working on a problem found by one of our testers. Unfortunately, it’s hard to reproduce. Inspired by the fact that yesterday our micro-kitchen had jaffa cakes in, I propose that if we’re going to be frustrated by bugs like this, we might as well at least mock them.

I propose that we call them jaffa bugs, and will work hard to promote this jargon until it takes over the world. Insert evil laugh here.

(Just in case the etymology here isn’t clear, see the Wikipedia “Only Fools and Horses” entry.)

C# 4.0: dynamic ?

I’ve not played with the VS2010 CTP much yet, and I’ve only looked briefly at the documentation and blogs about the new C# 4.0 dynamic type, but a thought occurred to me: why not have the option of making it generic as a way of saying “I will dynamically support this set of operations”?

As an example of what I mean, suppose you have an interface IMessageRouter like this:

public interface IMessageRouter
    void Send(string message, string destination);

(This is an arbitrary example, by the way. The idea isn’t specifically more suitable for message routing than anything else.)

I may have various implementations, written in various languages (or COM) which support the Send method with those parameters. Some of those implementations actually implement IMessageRouter but some don’t. I’d like to be able to do the following:

dynamic<IMessageRouter> router = GetRouter();

// This is fine (but still invoked dynamically)
router.Send(“message”, “”);
// Compilation error: no such overload
router.Send(“message”, “”, 20);

Intellisense would work, and we’d still have some of the benefits of static typing but without the implementations having to know about your interface. Of course, it would be quite easy to create an implementation of the interface which did exactly this – but now imagine that instead of IMessageRouter we had MessageRouter – a concrete class. In this case the compiler would still restrict the caller to the public API of the class, but it wouldn’t have to be the real class. No checking would be performed by the compiler that your dynamic type actually supported the operations – given that we’re talking about dynamic invocation, that would be impossible to do. It would instead be an “opt-in” restriction the client places on themselves. It could also potentially help with performance – if the binding involved realised that the actual type of the dynamic object natively implemented the interface or was/derived from the class, then no real dynamic calls need be made; just route all directly.

This may all sound a bit fuzzy – I’m extremely sleepy, to be honest – but I think it’s a potentially interesting idea. Thoughts?


Apparently this post wasn’t as clear as it might be. I’m quite happy to keep the currently proposed dynamic type idea as well – I’d like this as an additional way of using dynamic objects.