New features in C# 4.

0
Mads Torgersen, C# Language PM

Contents
Contents..................................................................................................................... 1
Introduction................................................................................................................ 1
Dynamic Binding........................................................................................................ 2
Named Arguments and Optional Parameters.............................................................6
Features for COM interop............................................................................................8
Variance................................................................................................................... 11
Relationship with Visual Basic..................................................................................12

Introduction
The major theme for C# 4.0 is dynamic programming. Increasingly, objects are
“dynamic” in the sense that their structure and behavior is not captured by a static
type, or at least not one that the compiler knows about when compiling your
program. Some examples include

• objects from dynamic programming languages, such as Python or Ruby

• COM objects accessed through IDispatch

• ordinary .NET types accessed through reflection

• objects with changing structure, such as HTML DOM script objects

• data readers and other user defined dynamic objects

While C# remains a statically typed language, we aim to vastly improve the

interaction with such objects.

A secondary theme is co-evolution with Visual Basic. Going forward we will aim to
maintain the individual character of each language, but at the same time important
new features should be introduced in both languages at the same time. They should
be differentiated more by style and feel than by feature set.

The new features in C# 4.0 fall into four groups:

[1]
Dynamic binding
Dynamic binding allows you to write method, operator and indexer calls, property
and field accesses, and even object invocations which bypass the C# static type
checking and instead gets resolved at runtime.

Named and optional arguments

Parameters in C# can now be specified as optional by providing a default value for
them in a member declaration. When the member is invoked, optional arguments
can be omitted. Furthermore, any argument can be passed by parameter name
instead of position.

COM specific interop features

Dynamic binding as well as named and optional arguments help making
programming against COM less painful than today. On top of that, however, we are
adding a number of other features that further improve the interop experience
specifically with COM.

Variance
It used to be that an IEnumerable<string> wasn’t an IEnumerable<object>. Now it is –
C# embraces type safe “co-and contravariance,” and common BCL types are
updated to take advantage of that.

Dynamic Binding
Dynamic binding offers a unified approach to invoking things dynamically. With
dynamic binding, when you have an object in your hand, you do not need to worry
about whether it comes from COM, IronPython, the HTML DOM, reflection or
elsewhere; you just apply operations to it and leave it to the runtime to figure out
what exactly those operations mean for that particular object.

This affords you enormous flexibility, and can greatly simplify your code, but it does
come with a significant drawback: Static typing is not enforced for these operations.
A dynamic object is assumed at compile time to support any operation, and only at
runtime will you get an error if it wasn’t so. Oftentimes this will be no loss, because
the object wouldn’t have a static type anyway, in other cases it is a tradeoff
between brevity and safety. In order to facilitate this tradeoff, it is a design goal of
C# to allow you to opt in or opt out of dynamic behavior on every single call.

The dynamic type

C# 4.0 introduces a new static type called dynamic. When you have an object of
type dynamic you can “do things to it” that are resolved only at runtime:

dynamic d = GetDynamicObject(…);
d.M(7);

[2]
The C# compiler allows you to call a method with any name and any arguments on
d because it is of type dynamic. At runtime the actual object that d refers to will be
examined to determine what it means to “call M with an int” on it.

The type dynamic can be thought of as a special version of the type object, which
signals that the object can be used dynamically. It is easy to opt in or out of
dynamic behavior: any object can be implicitly converted to dynamic, “suspending
belief” until runtime. Conversely, expressions of type dynamic can be implicitly
converted to object, or indeed any other type, as long as there exists a conversion at
runtime:

dynamic d = 7; // compile-time implicit conversion

int i = d; // runtime implicit conversion

Dynamic operations
Not only method calls, but also field and property accesses, indexer and operator
calls and even delegate invocations and constructor calls can be dispatched
dynamically:

dynamic d = GetDynamicObject(…);
d.M(7); // calling methods
d.f = d.P; // getting and settings fields and properties
d[“one”] = d[“two”]; // getting and setting through indexers
int i = d + 3; // calling operators
string s = d(5,7); // invoking as a delegate
var c = new C(d); // calling a constructor

The role of the C# compiler here is simply to package up the necessary information
about “what is being done to d”, so that the runtime can pick it up and determine
what the exact meaning of it is given an actual object d. Think of it as deferring part
of the compiler’s job to runtime.

The result of any dynamic operation is itself of type dynamic, with two exceptions:

• The type of a dynamic constructor call is the constructed type

• The type of a dynamic implicit or explicit conversion is the target type of the
conversion.

Runtime lookup
At runtime a dynamic operation is dispatched according to the nature of its target
object d:

Dynamic objects
If d implements the interface IDynamicMetaObjectProvider, it is a so-called dynamic
object, which means that it will itself be asked to bind and perform the operation.
Thus by implementing IDynamicMetaObjectProvider a type can completely redefine

[3]
the meaning of operations such as method calls, member access etc. This is used
intensively by dynamic languages such as IronPython and IronRuby to implement
their own dynamic object models. It is also used by APIs, e.g. by the Silverlight
HTML DOM to allow direct access to the object’s properties and methods using
member access and method call syntax instead of string-based accessor methods
such as SetProperty or Invoke.

COM objects
If d is a COM object, the operation is dispatched dynamically through COM IDispatch.
This allows calling to COM types that don’t have a Primary Interop Assembly (PIA),
and relying on COM features that don’t have a counterpart in C#, such as default
properties.

Plain objects
Otherwise d is a standard .NET object, and the operation will be dispatched using
reflection on its type and a C# “runtime binder” which implements C#’s lookup and
overload resolution semantics at runtime. This is essentially a part of the C#
compiler running as a runtime component to “finish the work” on dynamic
operations that was deferred by the static compiler.

Example
Assume the following code:

dynamic d1 = new Foo();

dynamic d2 = new Bar();
string s;

d1.M(s, d2, 3, null);

Because the receiver and an argument of the call to M are dynamic, the C# compiler
does not try to resolve the meaning of the call. Instead it stashes away information
for the runtime about the call. This information (often referred to as the “payload”)
is essentially equivalent to:

“Perform an instance method call of a method called M with the following

arguments:

1. a string

2. a dynamic

3. a literal int 3

4. a literal object null”

At runtime, assume that the actual type Foo of d1 is not a dynamic object. In this
case the C# runtime binder picks up to finish the overload resolution job based on
runtime type information, proceeding as follows:

[4]
 1. Reflection is used to obtain the actual runtime types of the two objects, d1
and d2, that did not have a static type (or rather had the static type dynamic).
The result is Foo for d1 and Bar for d2.

2. Method lookup and overload resolution is performed on the type Foo with the
call M(string,Bar,3,null) using ordinary C# semantics.

3. If the method is found it is invoked; otherwise a runtime exception is thrown.

Overload resolution with dynamic arguments

Even if the receiver of a method call is of a static type, overload resolution can still
happen at runtime. This will happen if one or more of the arguments have the type
dynamic:

Foo foo = new Foo();

dynamic d = new Bar();

var result = foo.M(d);

The C# runtime binder will choose between the statically known overloads of M on
Foo, based on the runtime type of d, namely Bar. The result is again of type dynamic.

The Dynamic Language Runtime

An important component in the underlying implementation of dynamic binding is
the Dynamic Language Runtime (DLR), which is a new API in .NET 4.0.

The DLR provides most of the infrastructure behind not only C# dynamic binding
but also the implementation of several dynamic programming languages on .NET,
such as IronPython and IronRuby. Through this common infrastructure a high
degree of interoperability is ensured, but just as importantly the DLR provides
excellent caching mechanisms which serve to greatly enhance the efficiency of
runtime dispatch.

To the user of dynamic binding in C#, the DLR is invisible except for the improved
efficiency. However, if you want to implement your own dynamically dispatched
objects, the IDynamicMetaObjectProvider interface allows you to interoperate with the
DLR and plug in your own behavior. Doing this directly is a rather advanced task,
which requires you to understand a good deal more about the inner workings of the
DLR. Fortunately .NET 4.0 provides several helper classes to make this task a lot
easier, and for API writers, it can definitely be worth the trouble as you can
sometimes vastly improve the usability of libraries representing an inherently
dynamic domain.

Limitations
There are a few limitations and things that might work differently than you would
expect.

[5]
 • The DLR allows objects to be created from objects that represent classes.
However, the current implementation of C# doesn’t have syntax to support
this.

• Dynamic binding will not be able to find extension methods. Whether

extension methods apply or not depends on the static context of the call (i.e.
which using clauses occur), and this context information is not kept as part of
the payload.

• Anonymous functions (i.e. lambda expressions) cannot appear as arguments

to a dynamic operation. The compiler cannot bind (i.e. “understand”) an
anonymous function without knowing what type it is converted to.

One consequence of these limitations is that you cannot easily use LINQ queries
over dynamic objects:

dynamic collection = …;

var result = collection.Select(e => e + 5);

If the Select method is an extension method, dynamic binding will not find it. Even if
it is an instance method, the above does not compile, because a lambda expression
cannot be passed as an argument to a dynamic operation.

Named Arguments and Optional Parameters

Named arguments and optional parameters are really two distinct features, but are
often useful together. Optional parameters allow you to omit arguments to member
invocations, whereas named arguments is a way to provide an argument using the
name of the corresponding parameter instead of relying on its position in the
parameter list.

Some APIs, most notably COM interfaces such as the Office automation APIs, are
written specifically with named and optional parameters in mind. Up until now it has
been very painful to call into these APIs from C#, with sometimes as many as thirty
arguments having to be explicitly passed, most of which have reasonable default
values and could be omitted.

Even in APIs for .NET however you sometimes find yourself compelled to write many
overloads of a method with different combinations of parameters, in order to
provide maximum usability to the callers. Optional parameters are a useful
alternative for these situations.

Optional parameters
A parameter is declared optional simply by providing a default value for it:

public void M(int x, int y = 5, int z = 7);

[6]
Here y and z are optional parameters and can be omitted in calls:

M(1, 2, 3); // ordinary call of M

M(1, 2); // omitting z – equivalent to M(1, 2, 7)
M(1); // omitting both y and z – equivalent to M(1, 5, 7)

Default argument values are somewhat restricted. They must be given as constant
expressions, or default value expressions default(T).

Named and optional arguments

C# 4.0 does not permit you to omit arguments between commas as in M(1,,3). This
could lead to highly unreadable comma-counting code. Instead if you want to omit
arguments in the middle, any argument can be passed by name. Thus if you want to
omit only y from a call of M you can write:

M(1, z: 3); // passing z by name

or

M(x: 1, z: 3); // passing both x and z by name

or even

M(z: 3, x: 1); // reversing the order of arguments

All forms are equivalent, except that arguments are always evaluated in the order
they appear, so in the last example the 3 is evaluated before the 1.

Optional and named arguments can be used not only with methods but also with
indexers and constructors.

Overload resolution
Named and optional arguments affect overload resolution, but the changes are
relatively simple:

A signature is applicable if all its parameters are either optional or have exactly one
corresponding argument (by name or position) in the call which is convertible to the
parameter type.

Betterness rules on conversions are only applied for arguments that are explicitly
given – omitted optional arguments are ignored for betterness purposes.

If two signatures are equally good, one that does not omit optional parameters is
preferred.

M(string s, int i = 1);

M(object o);
M(int i, string s = “Hello”);
M(int i);

[7]
 M(5);

Given these overloads, we can see the working of the rules above. M(string,int) is not
applicable because 5 doesn’t convert to string. M(int,string) is applicable because its
second parameter is optional, and so, obviously are M(object) and M(int).

M(int,string) and M(int) are both better than M(object) because the conversion from 5
to int is better than the conversion from 5 to object.

Finally M(int) is better than M(int,string) because no optional arguments are omitted.

Thus the method that gets called is M(int).

Features for COM interop

Dynamic binding as well as named and optional parameters greatly improve the
experience of interoperating with COM APIs such as the Office Automation APIs. In
order to remove the remaining speed bumps, a couple of small COM-specific
features are also added to C# 4.0.

Compiling without PIAs

Primary Interop Assemblies are large .NET assemblies generated from COM
interfaces to facilitate strongly typed interoperability. They provide great support at
design time, where your experience of the interop is as good as if the types where
really defined in .NET. However, at runtime these large assemblies can easily bloat
your program, and also cause versioning issues because they are distributed
independently of your application.

The embedded-PIA feature allows you to continue to use PIAs at design time without
having them around at runtime. Instead, the C# compiler will bake the small part of
the PIA that a program actually uses directly into its assembly. At runtime the PIA
does not have to be loaded.

Dynamic import
Many COM methods accept and return “variant” types, which are represented in the
PIAs as object. In the vast majority of cases, a programmer calling these methods
already knows the static type of a returned object from context, but explicitly has to
perform a cast on the returned value to make use of that knowledge. These casts
are so common that they constitute a major nuisance.

In order to facilitate a smoother experience, if you choose to import these COM APIs
with PIA-embedding, variants are instead represented using the type dynamic. In
other words, from your point of view, COM signatures now have occurrences of
dynamic instead of object in them.

[8]
This means that you can easily access members directly off a returned object, or
you can assign it to a strongly typed local variable without having to cast. To
illustrate, you can now say

excel.Cells[1, 1].Value = "Hello";

instead of

((Excel.Range)excel.Cells[1, 1]).Value2 = "Hello";

and

Excel.Range range = excel.Cells[1, 1];

instead of

Excel.Range range = (Excel.Range)excel.Cells[1, 1];

Omitting ref
Because of a different programming model, many COM APIs contain a lot of
reference parameters. Contrary to refs in C#, these are typically not meant to
mutate a passed-in argument for the subsequent benefit of the caller, but are
simply another way of passing value parameters.

It therefore feels unreasonable to a C# programmer to have to create temporary

variables for all such ref parameters and pass these by reference. Instead,
specifically for COM methods, the C# compiler will allow you to pass arguments by
value to such reference parameters, and will automatically generate temporary
variables to hold the passed-in values, subsequently discarding these when the call
returns. In this way the caller sees value semantics, and will not experience any
side effects, but the called method still gets a reference.

Indexed properties
Many COM APIs expose “indexed properties” which are essentially properties with
parameters. C# will not allow you to declare indexed properties, but to the extent
that non-C# APIs expose them, will now allow you to access these using element
access syntax. So instead of

o.set_P(i+1, o.get_P(i) * 2);

You can now write the more intuitive

o.P[i+1] = o.P[i] * 2;

Limitations
A few COM interface features still are not surfaced in C#, most notably default
properties. As mentioned above these will be respected if you access COM
dynamically, but statically typed C# code will still not recognize them.

[9]
Larger COM Example
Here is a larger Office automation example that shows many of the new C#
features in action.

using System;
using System.Diagnostics;
using System.Linq;
using Excel = Microsoft.Office.Interop.Excel;
using Word = Microsoft.Office.Interop.Word;

class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args) {
var excel = new Excel.Application();
excel.Visible = true;

excel.Workbooks.Add(); // optional arguments omitted

excel.Cells[1, 1].Value = "Process Name"; // no casts; Value dynamically

excel.Cells[1, 2].Value = "Memory Usage"; // accessed

var processes = Process.GetProcesses()

.OrderByDescending(p =&gt; p.WorkingSet)
.Take(10);

int i = 2;
foreach (var p in processes) {
excel.Cells[i, 1].Value = p.ProcessName; // no casts
excel.Cells[i, 2].Value = p.WorkingSet; // no casts
i++;
}

Excel.Range range = excel.Cells[1, 1]; // no casts

Excel.Chart chart = excel.ActiveWorkbook.Charts.

Add(After: excel.ActiveSheet); // named and optional arguments

chart.ChartWizard(
Source: range.CurrentRegion,
Title: "Memory Usage in " + Environment.MachineName); //named+optional

chart.ChartStyle = 45;

chart.CopyPicture(Excel.XlPictureAppearance.xlScreen,
Excel.XlCopyPictureFormat.xlBitmap,
Excel.XlPictureAppearance.xlScreen);

var word = new Word.Application();

word.Visible = true;

word.Documents.Add(); // optional arguments

[10]
 word.Selection.Paste();
}
}

The code is much more terse and readable than the C# 3.0 counterpart.

Variance
An aspect of generics that often comes across as surprising is that the following is
illegal:

IList<string> strings = new List<string>();

IList<object> objects = strings;

The second assignment is disallowed because strings does not have the same
element type as objects. There is a perfectly good reason for this. If it were allowed
you could write:

objects[0] = 5;
string s = strings[0];

Allowing an int to be inserted into a list of strings and subsequently extracted as a

string. This would be a breach of type safety.

However, there are certain interfaces where the above cannot occur, notably where
there is no way to insert an object into the collection. Such an interface is
IEnumerable<T>. If instead you say:

IEnumerable<object> objects = strings;

Things are a lot safer: There is no way we can put the wrong kind of thing into
strings through objects, because objects doesn’t have a method that takes an
element as input. Variance is about allowing assignments such as this in cases
where it is safe. The result is that a lot of situations that were previously surprising
now just work.

Covariance
In .NET 4.0 the IEnumerable<T> interface will be declared in the following way:

public interface IEnumerable<out T> : IEnumerable

{
IEnumerator<T> GetEnumerator();
}

public interface IEnumerator<out T> : IEnumerator

{
bool MoveNext();
T Current { get; }
}

[11]
The “out” in these declarations is a new C# 4.0 modifier which signifies that the T
can only occur in output position in the interface – the compiler will complain
otherwise. In return for this restriction, the interface becomes “covariant” in T,
which means that an IEnumerable<A> is considered an IEnumerable<B> if A has a
reference conversion to B.

As a result, any sequence of strings is also e.g. a sequence of objects.

This is useful e.g. in many LINQ methods. Using the declarations above:

var result = strings.Union(objects); // succeeds with an IEnumerable<object>

This would previously have been disallowed, and you would have had to to some
cumbersome wrapping to get the two sequences to have the same element type.

Contravariance
Type parameters can also have an “in” modifier, restricting them to occur only in
input positions. An example is IComparer<T>:

public interface IComparer<in T>

{
public int Compare(T left, T right);
}

The somewhat baffling result is that an IComparer<object> can in fact be considered

an IComparer<string>! It makes sense when you think about it: If a comparer can
compare any two objects, it can certainly also compare two strings. So a comparer of
objects is a comparer of strings. This property is referred to as contravariance.

A generic type can have both in and out modifiers on its type parameters, as is the
case with the Func<…> delegate types:

public delegate TResult Func<in TArg, out TResult>(TArg arg);

Obviously the argument only ever comes in, and the result only ever comes out.
Therefore a Func<object,string> can in fact be used as a Func<string,object>.

Limitations
Variant type parameters can only be declared on interfaces and delegate types, due
to a restriction in the CLR. Variance only applies when there is a reference
conversion between the type arguments. For instance, an IEnumerable<int> is not an
IEnumerable<object> because the conversion from int to object is a boxing
conversion, not a reference conversion.

Relationship with Visual Basic

A number of the features introduced to C# 4.0 already exist or will be introduced in
some form or other in Visual Basic:

[12]
 • Late binding in VB is similar in many ways to dynamic binding in C#. In VB 10
(the “sister” VB version to C# 4.0), late binding has been extended to target
the DLR for dynamic objects. Thus VB has the same degree of integration
with dynamic objects as does C#.

• Named and optional arguments have been part of Visual Basic for a long
time, and the C# version of the feature is explicitly engineered with maximal
VB interoperability in mind.

• VB also already allows reference parameters to be omitted, and exposes

indexed properties.

• PIA embedding and variance are both being introduced to VB and C# at the
same time.

VB in turn is adding a number of features that have hitherto been a mainstay of C#.
As a result future versions of C# and VB will have much better feature parity, for
the benefit of everyone.

[13]