Hi, Yeah sounds like there is mayeb a flaw in the design as I cant think why you would want to do this... But, you could also perhaps look into serialisation/deserialisation... I.e. serialise Foo and then deserialise to Bar (and the properties which are not int the serialised Foo will just default in the deserialised Bar) lee http://www.jiba-jaba.com -- The Home of Public Microblogging http://www.secretorange.co.uk -- Glasgow based software development
________________________________ From: [email protected] on behalf of Tanvir Faraj Sent: Sun 08/03/2009 15:21 To: [email protected] Subject: [DotNetDevelopment] Re: Convert base type into derived type Hi, I would recommend you to double check your design, since, may be there are flaws whichs why you need to convert a base type to inherited type. However, I would prefer the static way to to do this. cheers... tfr On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 11:25 AM, Charles A. Lopez <[email protected]> wrote: > i am thinking inheritance and operator overloading over here. > > > > On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 6:09 PM, Joe Enos <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I've got a scenario that I'm hoping to find a shortcut for. I have a >> base class and a derived class - the derived class adds additional >> properties. For example: >> >> public class Foo { >> public int Prop1 { get; set; } >> public int Prop2 { get; set; } >> } >> >> public class Bar : Foo { >> public int Prop3 { get; set; } >> } >> >> Suppose I have a Foo, and want to convert it to a Bar (obviously Prop3 >> would be empty) - I don't care if it's a cast or a convert. I can >> think of several ways of doing this: >> - create a constructor in Bar that accepts a Foo, then one-by-one >> assign the values of Prop1 and Prop2 to the new instance's Prop1 and >> Prop2. >> - create a static method ConvertToBar(Foo foo) that does the same >> thing >> - use reflection to retrieve the values of all properties of the Foo >> and assign to a new Bar. >> >> I can't put an explicit or implicit conversion operator in Foo, >> because Bar derives from Foo, and for some reason (which I'm sure >> makes a lot of sense to someone) the compiler won't let me do that. > > > The logic would become cyclical and collapse on it's own weight. > > >> >> Even if I could, I'd still have to assign the properties one at a >> time. >> >> Any ideas? I'd rather not use reflection, but that seems to be the >> only way to do this using the smallest amount of code and allowing for >> new properties to be added to Foo without a code change to Bar - there >> are a couple dozen properties in Foo, and only one or two extra >> properties in Bar, so I'm hoping there's some trick out there that >> would save me from doing this. >> >> Thanks >> >> Joe > > >
<<inline: winmail.dat>>
