how to convert lambda expression to object directly?

Question

I have to do through Action like this:

Action action = () => { ..// };
object o = action;

any way to do this:

object o = () =>{};  //this doesn't compile

score 11 · Accepted Answer · answered Mar 11 '10 at 03:34

11

What about:

object o = (Action) (() => { ... });

Though I don't really know why you'd want to store it as an object in the first place...

answered Mar 11 '10 at 03:34

Dean Harding

I am implement a message queue for a thread, command can be put in the queue for execution. – Benny Mar 11 '10 at 03:38
Hi, I'm kind of new here. What's the etiquette when someone posts an identical answer while I'm writing one. Should I just delete it? It seems kinds of superfluous now. – Spike Mar 11 '10 at 03:40
@Benny - If you can, consider using a generic structure like `Queue` so that the lambda expressions don't have to be cast as objects. – Greg Mar 11 '10 at 03:40
@Greg, well, sometime, i maybe want to put other object in the queue. so not just action. – Benny Mar 11 '10 at 03:42
@Spike - I'd leave your answer in place. It probably got more upvotes because you explained that delegates are objects. – Greg Mar 11 '10 at 03:43
@Spike, you don't have to delete it. that's how you get upvote. :) – Benny Mar 11 '10 at 03:43

score 11 · Answer 2 · answered Mar 11 '10 at 03:36

11

Weeeell, delegates are objects, but lambdas aren't.

This object o = (Action)(() => {}); will compile, but I don't know if it looks any better.

answered Mar 11 '10 at 03:36

Spike

score 6 · Answer 3 · answered Mar 11 '10 at 04:24

6

Another option, not all that different:

object o = new Action(() => { });

answered Mar 11 '10 at 04:24

Dan Tao

Actually, I like this one better. I mentally imagine the other solution as a constructor anyway. Might as well make it explicit. – Spike Mar 19 '10 at 14:07

3 Answers3