Using Case/Switch and GetType to determine the object

Question

Possible Duplicate:
C# - Is there a better alternative than this to ‘switch on type’?

If you want to switch on a type of object, what is the best way to do this?

Code snippet

private int GetNodeType(NodeDTO node)
{
    switch (node.GetType())
    { 
        case typeof(CasusNodeDTO):
            return 1;
        case typeof(BucketNodeDTO):
            return 3;
        case typeof(BranchNodeDTO):
            return 0;
        case typeof(LeafNodeDTO):
            return 2;
        default:
            return -1;
    }
}

I know this doesn't work that way, but I was wondering how you could solve this. Is an if/else statement appropriate in this case?

Or do you use the switch and add .ToString() to the type?

Answer 1

This won't directly solve your problem as you want to switch on your own user-defined types, but for the benefit of others who only want to switch on built-in types, you can use the TypeCode enumeration:

switch (Type.GetTypeCode(node.GetType()))
{
    case TypeCode.Decimal:
        // Handle Decimal
        break;

    case TypeCode.Int32:
        // Handle Int32
        break;
     ...
}

Answer 2

If I really had to switch on type of object, I'd use .ToString(). However, I would avoid it at all costs: IDictionary<Type, int> will do much better, visitor might be an overkill but otherwise it is still a perfectly fine solution.

Answer 3

In the MSDN blog post Many Questions: switch on type is some information on why .NET does not provide switching on types.

As usual - workarounds always exists.

This one isn't mine, but unfortunately I have lost the source. It makes switching on types possible, but I personally think it's quite awkward (the dictionary idea is better):

  public class Switch
  {
      public Switch(Object o)
      {
          Object = o;
      }

      public Object Object { get; private set; }
  }


  /// <summary>
  /// Extensions, because otherwise casing fails on Switch==null
  /// </summary>
  public static class SwitchExtensions
  {
      public static Switch Case<T>(this Switch s, Action<T> a)
            where T : class
      {
          return Case(s, o => true, a, false);
      }

      public static Switch Case<T>(this Switch s, Action<T> a,
           bool fallThrough) where T : class
      {
          return Case(s, o => true, a, fallThrough);
      }

      public static Switch Case<T>(this Switch s,
          Func<T, bool> c, Action<T> a) where T : class
      {
          return Case(s, c, a, false);
      }

      public static Switch Case<T>(this Switch s,
          Func<T, bool> c, Action<T> a, bool fallThrough) where T : class
      {
          if (s == null)
          {
              return null;
          }

          T t = s.Object as T;
          if (t != null)
          {
              if (c(t))
              {
                  a(t);
                  return fallThrough ? s : null;
              }
          }

          return s;
      }
  }

Usage:

 new Switch(foo)
     .Case<Fizz>
         (action => { doingSomething = FirstMethodCall(); })
     .Case<Buzz>
         (action => { return false; })

Answer 4

I'm faced with the same problem and came across this post. Is this what's meant by the IDictionary approach:

Dictionary<Type, int> typeDict = new Dictionary<Type, int>
{
    {typeof(int),0},
    {typeof(string),1},
    {typeof(MyClass),2}
};

void Foo(object o)
{
    switch (typeDict[o.GetType()])
    {
        case 0:
            Print("I'm a number.");
            break;
        case 1:
            Print("I'm a text.");
            break;
        case 2:
            Print("I'm classy.");
            break;
        default:
            break;
    }
}

If so, I can't say I'm a fan of reconciling the numbers in the dictionary with the case statements.

This would be ideal but the dictionary reference kills it:

void FantasyFoo(object o)
{
    switch (typeDict[o.GetType()])
    {
        case typeDict[typeof(int)]:
            Print("I'm a number.");
            break;
        case typeDict[typeof(string)]:
            Print("I'm a text.");
            break;
        case typeDict[typeof(MyClass)]:
            Print("I'm classy.");
            break;
        default:
            break;
    }
}

Is there another implementation I've overlooked?

Answer 5

I'd just use an if statement. In this case:

Type nodeType = node.GetType();
if (nodeType == typeof(CasusNodeDTO))
{
}
else ... 

The other way to do this is:

if (node is CasusNodeDTO)
{
}
else ...

The first example is true for exact types only, where the latter checks for inheritance too.

Answer 6

You can do this:

function void PrintType(Type t) {
 var t = true;
 new Dictionary<Type, Action>{
   {typeof(bool), () => Console.WriteLine("bool")},
   {typeof(int),  () => Console.WriteLine("int")}
 }[t.GetType()]();
}

It's clear and its easy. It a bit slower than caching the dictionary somewhere.. but for lots of code this won't matter anyway..

Answer 7

You can do this:

if (node is CasusNodeDTO)
{
    ...
}
else if (node is BucketNodeDTO)
{
    ...
}
...

While that would be more elegant, it's possibly not as efficient as some of the other answers here.

Answer 8

One approach is to add a pure virtual GetNodeType() method to NodeDTO and override it in the descendants so that each descendant returns actual type.

Answer 9

Depending on what you are doing in the switch statement, the correct answer is polymorphism. Just put a virtual function in the interface/base class and override for each node type.

Answer 10

I actually prefer the approach given as the answer here: Is there a better alternative than this to 'switch on type'?

There is however a good argument about not implementing any type comparison methids in an object oriented language like C#. You could as an alternative extend and add extra required functionality using inheritance.

This point was discussed in the comments of the authors blog here: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/jaredpar/archive/2008/05/16/switching-on-types.aspx#8553535

I found this an extremely interesting point which changed my approach in a similar situation and only hope this helps others.

Kind Regards, Wayne