Linq and C# 3.0

Yesterday, the C# team (among others) announced Linq and C# 3.0, and put up a great page of information. I haven't had a chance to look at things in detail to see how much they've changed since the last time I saw them in detail (about this time last year), but I do have a few things I'd like to comment on.

On first look, Linq looks great. I'm really happy at what you'll be able to do, and I think the language changes aren't too intrusive. Having spent some time recently writing a bunch of tedious DB stuff for a side project, Linq will really make things easier.

On the language side, there are a few cool enhancements.

The first is implicitly typed variables. This seems a bit out of place in a language like C#, but perhaps an example will better demonstrate why they're there. This is one of the Linq examples:

    List products = GetProductList();

    var productInfos =
        from p in products
        select new {p.ProductName, p.Category, Price = p.UnitPrice};

In this example, we're trying to select out 3 columns from the products table. The problem we have is that productInfos will end up being a List<X>, but there's no name for X - it's a compiler-generated type that has the three columns as members. One option is to require somebody to define a type with fields ProductName, Category, and Price in it, but that's tedious busywork at best. A second option is to require the user to name the type at some point in the "from" clause. After a fair bit of discussion, the design team decided that the best option was to add a "var" construct, where you can declare an instance of a variable without specifying a type name in it.

The use of "var" is not limited to Linq queries.

The second addition is something known as an extension method. Say that you're writing a new web-based game, and you need a way to convert from standard English to Leet Speak. You would like to be able to add a method to the string class, but because String is sealed (for some very good reasons), you can't. What you end up doing is writing a static method and calling it, but it's not very seamless.

With extension methods, you can write the following:

public static class StringExtensions
    public static string MakeLeet(this string source)
      // return the Leet string here...

You then write:

string s = "I have found the programming features of C# 3.0 to be most envigorating";
string leet = s.MakeLeet();

and you get the following as output:

y0 d00d, C# 3.0 rox0rz, w00t!!!!!!!!!!!!

The other additions - lambda expressions et al are there to support the linq work, and I know enough not to try to cover something like Lambda expressions in a short note. (or perhaps even a long note). But if you're a master of the BNF, take a look at this.

Comments (11)

  1. tzagotta says:

    The "var" thing seems kind of wierd. It makes me long for a better solution.

  2. kfarmer says:

    Can extension methods override? It’d be very interesting if they could.

    Admittedly, I doubt it.

  3. damien morton says:

    var isnt weird at all – its not like a VB variant type its more of a declaration to the compiler that sais "please figure out what this type declaration should be"

  4. Ricky Dhatt says:

    Gee – var, lambda expressions, extension methods – sounds a lot like Jscript/JavaScript.

  5. Pascal Naber says:

    Eric Gunnerson blogt the link to the&amp;nbsp;C# 3.0 specifications

  6. Pascal Naber says:

    Eric Gunnerson blogged the link to the&amp;nbsp;C# 3.0 specifications

  7. Matt says:

    what happens when you have a name conflict on extension methods?

    both in the same dll (obviously easy to spot and prevent) but when you have them in another dll…

    I assume public/ internal is enforced?

    Suppose I should read the spec. just a bit of a pain if theird party library changes break your extensions (because lets face it the utiltiy methods people want are likely to coincide…

    third part libraries would have to avoid using public if that can seemlessly break you code due to an upgrade even if you never reference they type involved…

    Don’t get me wrong I like the idea but and interested as to how the conflict case will work

  8. Matt says:

    Ahh – having read the spec I see how namespaces define it.

    that said does the compiler warn if their are multiple candiates in the same namespace?

Skip to main content