45

I'm looking for a way to have a function such as:

myFunction({"Key", value}, {"Key2", value});

I'm sure there's something with anonymous types that would be pretty easy, but I'm not seeing it.

The only solution I can think of is to have a params KeyValuePair<String, object>[] pairs parameter, but that ends up being something similar to:

myFunction(new KeyValuePair<String, object>("Key", value),
           new KeyValuePair<String, object>("Key2", value));

Which is, admittedly, much uglier.

EDIT:

To clarify, I'm writing a Message class to pass between 2 different systems. It contains a ushort specifying the the Message Type, and a dictionary of string to object for "Data" associated with the message. I'd like to be able to pass all this information in the constructor, so I am able to do this:

Agent.SendMessage(new Message(MessageTypes.SomethingHappened, "A", x, "B", y, "C", z));

or similar syntax.

Olivier Jacot-Descombes
  • 104,806
  • 13
  • 138
  • 188
Quantumplation
  • 1,069
  • 1
  • 9
  • 19

12 Answers12

71

When the syntax is bad for an otherwise decent pattern, change the syntax. How about:

public void MyFunction(params KeyValuePair<string, object>[] pairs)
{
    // ...
}

public static class Pairing
{
    public static KeyValuePair<string, object> Of(string key, object value)
    {
        return new KeyValuePair<string, object>(key, value);
    }
}

Usage:

MyFunction(Pairing.Of("Key1", 5), Pairing.Of("Key2", someObject));

Even more interesting would be to add an extension method to string to make it pairable:

public static KeyValuePair<string, object> PairedWith(this string key, object value)
{
    return new KeyValuePair<string, object>(key, value);
}

Usage:

MyFunction("Key1".PairedWith(5), "Key2".PairedWith(someObject));

Edit: You can also use the dictionary syntax without the generic brackets by deriving from Dictionary<,>:

public void MyFunction(MessageArgs args)
{
    // ...
}

public class MessageArgs : Dictionary<string, object>
{}

Usage:

MyFunction(new MessageArgs { { "Key1", 5 }, { "Key2", someObject } });
Bryan Watts
  • 44,911
  • 16
  • 83
  • 88
  • Hmm, this is a clever solution, I like it. I think this is what i'll use. Thank you. I'm going to leave the question unanswered for an hour or two to see if any other solutions come up as well. – Quantumplation Aug 23 '09 at 22:41
  • Or you could go the boxing route and do `MyFunction(params object[] args)` – Cole Tobin Aug 08 '15 at 07:16
  • I am coming from C++11 and therefore I like your last suggestion. This looks for me more _native_ and I find it also more readable. – Peter VARGA Apr 23 '18 at 22:37
32

Since C# 7.0, you can use value tuples. C# 7.0 not only introduces a new type but a simplified syntax for tuple types and for tuple values. A tuple type is simply written as a list of types surrounded by braces:

(string, int, double)

The corresponding elements are named Item1, Item2, Item2. You can also specify optional aliases. These aliases are only syntactic sugar (a trick of the C# compiler); the tuples are still based on the invariant (but generic) System.ValueTuple<T1, T2, ...> struct.

(string name, int count, double magnitude)

Tuple values have a similar syntax, except that you specify expressions instead of types

("test", 7, x + 5.91)

or with the aliases

(name: "test", count: 7, magnitude: x + 5.91)

Example with params array:

public static void MyFunction(params (string Key, object Value)[] pairs)
{
    foreach (var pair in pairs) {
        Console.WriteLine($"{pair.Key} = {pair.Value}");
    }
}

It is also possible to deconstruct a tuple like this

var (key, value) = pair;
Console.WriteLine($"{key} = {value}");

This extracts the items of the tuple in two separate variables key and value.

Now, you can call MyFunction with a varying number of arguments easily:

MyFunction(("a", 1), ("b", 2), ("c", 3));

It allows us to do things like

DrawLine((0, 0), (10, 0), (10, 10), (0, 10), (0, 0));

See: New Features in C# 7.0

Olivier Jacot-Descombes
  • 104,806
  • 13
  • 138
  • 188
  • 4
    For me, this was the most elegant solution. – Mark A Johnson Feb 27 '19 at 16:41
  • Agreed! It's elegant, but I have a question -- is there any way to use it without "params"? Thank you! – user1044169 Oct 10 '22 at 15:19
  • Yes, tuples can be used anywhere value types like `int` or `DateTime` can be used. I.e., as method parameters and return types, fields, properties, local variables, generic types (did I miss any? Ohh yes, in other tuples, i.e., tuples can be nested). – Olivier Jacot-Descombes Oct 10 '22 at 15:44
10

Funny, I just created (minutes ago) a method that allows to do that, using anonymous types and reflection :

MyMethod(new { Key1 = "value1", Key2 = "value2" });


public void MyMethod(object keyValuePairs)
{
    var dic = DictionaryFromAnonymousObject(keyValuePairs);
    // Do something with the dictionary
}

public static IDictionary<string, string> DictionaryFromAnonymousObject(object o)
{
    IDictionary<string, string> dic = new Dictionary<string, string>();
    var properties = o.GetType().GetProperties();
    foreach (PropertyInfo prop in properties)
    {
        dic.Add(prop.Name, prop.GetValue(o, null) as string);
    }
    return dic;
}
Thomas Levesque
  • 286,951
  • 70
  • 623
  • 758
7

A bit of a hack, but you could have your Message class implement the IEnumerable interface and give it an Add method. You'll then be able to use collection initializer syntax:

Agent.SendMessage
(
    new Message(MessageTypes.SomethingHappened) {{ "foo", 42 }, { "bar", 123 }}
);

// ...

public class Message : IEnumerable
{
    private Dictionary<string, object> _map = new Dictionary<string, object>();

    public Message(MessageTypes mt)
    {
        // ...
    }

    public void Add(string key, object value)
    {
        _map.Add(key, value);
    }

    IEnumerator IEnumerable.GetEnumerator()
    {
        return ((IEnumerable)_map).GetEnumerator();
        // or throw a NotImplementedException if you prefer
    }
}
LukeH
  • 263,068
  • 57
  • 365
  • 409
  • This seems to have much less overhead than the Reflection method, and is really probably not a hack at all, since I want an add function in any case. – Quantumplation Aug 24 '09 at 01:13
  • 1
    Depending on how much you want your `Message` class to behave like a real collection, you could implement a "bigger" interface than `IEnumerable` instead (for example, `IDictionary`). I only chose `IEnumerable` because it allows collection initializer syntax with the minimum amount of extra work! – LukeH Aug 24 '09 at 08:48
3

Using a dictionary:

myFunction(new Dictionary<string, object>(){
  {"Key", value}, 
  {"Key2", value}});

Which is straight forward, you need only one new Dictionary<K, V>, not for each argument. It's trivial to get the keys and values.

Or with an anonymous type:

myFunction(new {
  Key = value, 
  Key2 = value});

Which is not very nice to use inside the function, you'll need reflection. This would look something like this:

foreach (PropertyInfo property in arg.GetType().GetProperties())
{
  key = property.Name;
  value = property.GetValue(arg, null);
}

(Staight from my head, probably some errors...)

Stefan Steinegger
  • 63,782
  • 15
  • 129
  • 193
2

Use a Dictionary ...

void Main()
{
    var dic = new Dictionary<string, object>();
    dic.Add( "Key1", 1 );
    dic.Add( "Key2", 2 );   

    MyFunction( dic ).Dump();
}

public static object MyFunction( IDictionary dic )
{
   return dic["Key1"];
}
JP Alioto
  • 44,864
  • 6
  • 88
  • 112
  • 1
    Well yes, but the calling of the function is complicated here by the requirement of declaring a dictionary beforehand. Also, what's the .Dump() for? – Quantumplation Aug 23 '09 at 22:24
  • Oops, Dump is from LINQPad, just think Console.Writeline. Why would you contort yourself to have everything in one statement? You should make your interface correct. Worrying about the calling convention should be a distant second. – JP Alioto Aug 23 '09 at 22:42
  • 2
    It's for the constructor of a Message class, something that's sent quite often, and an unwieldy calling convention is going to get in the way later. having to declare a dictionary, add the keys, and pass it to the constructor for many different instances where messages are sent becomes difficult to tolerate, and distracts a reader/writer away from what's happening, and thus becomes harder to maintain. – Quantumplation Aug 23 '09 at 22:54
2

Here's more of the same:

static void Main(string[] args)
{
    // http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb531208.aspx
    MyMethod(new Dictionary<string,string>()
    {
        {"key1","value1"},
        {"key2","value2"}
    });
}

static void MyMethod(Dictionary<string, string> dictionary)
{
    foreach (string key in dictionary.Keys)
    {
        Console.WriteLine("{0} - {1}", key, dictionary[key]);
    }
}

Some details on initialising a dictionary can be found here.

Chris S
  • 64,770
  • 52
  • 221
  • 239
2

With dynamic type in C# 4.0:

public class MyClass
{
    // Could use another generic type if preferred
    private readonly Dictionary<string, dynamic> _dictionary = new Dictionary<string, dynamic>();

    public void MyFunction(params dynamic[] kvps)
    {
        foreach (dynamic kvp in kvps)
            _dictionary.Add(kvp.Key, kvp.Value);
    }
}

Call using:

MyFunction(new {Key = "Key1", Value = "Value1"}, new {Key = "Key2", Value = "Value2"});
djoyce
  • 315
  • 2
  • 6
2

You could also reference the nugetpackage "valuetuple", which allows you to do the following:

public static void MyFunction(params ValueTuple<string, object>[] pairs)
{
    var pair = pairs[1];
    var stringValue = pair.item1;
    var objectValue = pair.item2;
}

You can then call the method like this:

MyFunction(("string",object),("string", object));
Rob. E
  • 21
  • 2
1

You can do that:

TestNamedMethod(DateField => DateTime.Now, IdField => 3);

where DateField and IdField are supposed to be a 'string' identifiers.

The TestNameMethod:

public static string TestNameMethod(params Func<object, object>[] args)
{
    var name = (args[0].Method.GetParameters()[0]).Name;
    var val = args[0].Invoke(null);
    var name2 = (args[1].Method.GetParameters()[0]).Name;
    var val2 = args[1].Invoke(null);
    Console.WriteLine("{0} : {1}, {2} : {3}", name, val, name2, val2);
}

Performance is 5% faster than using Dictionary. Disadvantage: you can't use variable as a key.

yeroo
  • 21
  • 4
0

You could use Tuples to achieve something similar to @Bryan Watts's Pairing.Of without the extra class:

public static void MyFunction(params Tuple<string, int>[] pairs)
{
}

MyFunction(Tuple.Create("foo", 1), Tuple.Create("bar", 2));
Pakman
  • 2,170
  • 3
  • 23
  • 41
0

So I'm new and can't currently add comments, but this is just a suggestion to improve @Bryan Watts's idea of the Pairing.of class by making it generic, allowing it to be easily used by other classes.

public class Pairing 
{
    public static KeyValuePair<TKey, TValue> of<TKey, TValue>(TKey key, TValue value)
    {
        return new KeyValuePair<TKey, TValue>(key, value);
    }
}
pumbas600
  • 1
  • 1