Question regarding generics and type constraints

[Fredo]

I'm new to Generics (years and years of VS.NET 2003 development, but very
little .NET 2.0+). I have some routines for conversion from RGB to different
color spaces and back. I would like the routines to support, at least, byte,
int, and double types without having to create different versions of the
routines. Is there any way to do this with generics?

The problem is, if I do something like this:

public static void RGB_to_YIQ<T>(T[] R, T[] G, T[] B, T[] Y, T[] I, T[] Q)
{
Y[index] = 0.299 * R[index] + 0.587 * G[index] + 0.114 * B[index];
...
}

I get an error: "Operator '*' cannot be applied to operands of type 'double'
and 'T'"

Like I said, I'm a newb to the whole generics thing. I read the "Constraint s
on Type Parameters" stuff using "where" in MSDN, but I'm not sure how I can
use that, if I can.

Thanks.

[Marc Gravell]

Re: Question regarding generics and type constraints

There is an issue with using operators with generics.

If you have .NET 3.5, I have a full and easy solution to this problem here:

http://www.pobox.com/~skeet/csharp/genericoperators.html

(also briefly explains the problem)

Note the "usage" page, and the download via "MiscUtil" (the two links in the
opening lines).

Basically, you can various things involving Operator.Multip ly(x,y),
Operator.Add(x, y) - you might also need Operator.Conver t<float,T(or
something) to handle your literals (0.299 etc).

I'm about to run away for a few hours, but post back if you want more
info...

Marc

[Fredo]

Re: Question regarding generics and type constraints

Marc,

Interesting stuff. This code is generally used in performance-critical areas
and it looks like your code would add a good bit of overhead converting all
the operators to method calls, though I don't know enough about it to be
sure.

If it's going to impede performance significantly, I'll just stick to
separate versions of the code.



"Marc Gravell" <marc.gravell@g mail.comwrote in message
news:OGt9HzlbIH A.1132@TK2MSFTN GP06.phx.gbl...

There is an issue with using operators with generics.
>
If you have .NET 3.5, I have a full and easy solution to this problem
here:
>

http://www.pobox.com/~skeet/csharp/genericoperators.html

(also briefly explains the problem)
>
Note the "usage" page, and the download via "MiscUtil" (the two links in
the opening lines).
>
Basically, you can various things involving Operator.Multip ly(x,y),
Operator.Add(x, y) - you might also need Operator.Conver t<float,T(or
something) to handle your literals (0.299 etc).
>
I'm about to run away for a few hours, but post back if you want more
info...
>
Marc
>

[Rene]

Re: Question regarding generics and type constraints

Below is a link that may help you understand why you are having this
problem:

http://www.codeproject.com/KB/cs/genericnumerics.aspx

"Fredo" <fredo@hotmail. comwrote in message
news:i-OdnQiS0Ocpii7an Z2dnUVZ_tSknZ2d @giganews.com.. .

I'm new to Generics (years and years of VS.NET 2003 development, but very
little .NET 2.0+). I have some routines for conversion from RGB to
different color spaces and back. I would like the routines to support, at
least, byte, int, and double types without having to create different
versions of the routines. Is there any way to do this with generics?
>
The problem is, if I do something like this:
>
public static void RGB_to_YIQ<T>(T[] R, T[] G, T[] B, T[] Y, T[] I, T[] Q)
{
Y[index] = 0.299 * R[index] + 0.587 * G[index] + 0.114 * B[index];
...
}
>
I get an error: "Operator '*' cannot be applied to operands of type
'double' and 'T'"
>
Like I said, I'm a newb to the whole generics thing. I read the
"Constraint s on Type Parameters" stuff using "where" in MSDN, but I'm not
sure how I can use that, if I can.
>
Thanks.
>
>
>

[Marc Gravell]

Re: Question regarding generics and type constraints

Interesting stuff. This code is generally used in performance-critical areas

and it looks like your code would add a good bit of overhead converting all
the operators to method calls, though I don't know enough about it to be
sure.

It actually inlines pretty well, especially for non-nullable types -
but if this is 100% performance critical, then I'd have separate
Int32, Byte, etc methods; but in all seriousness - the slowdown isn't
as bad as you might expect, since this the expression is compiled once
(only) per type and re-used. You lose a bit of time in delegate
invoke, but thats about it.

Marc

[Marc Gravell]

Re: Question regarding generics and type constraints

"TestDecima l"

it was just the method name that was wrong; this should have been
TestDouble; results stand "as is" though.

Basically, I started with decimal and then moved to double because
that was in your list; I forgot to rename.