I may have misunderstood the formalism here. If a method is declared as taking a T, I don't understand the point of setting the constraint of checking that the argument is really a T. The compiler already does this, if I am not mistaken. I am interested in checking that the argument is actually of type U, where U derives from T.
Does this make sense ? On Sep 14, 8:45 pm, bill richards <[email protected]> wrote: > Surely you want > > T TypeOf<T> > > and not > > U TypeOf<T> > > The first one says "when I say give me an object of type T I expect to > be given an object of type T." > The second one says "when I say give me an object of type T, I expect > to be given an objecct of type U" > > I know which one makes sense to me. > > Or have I missed something? > > On Sep 14, 12:41 pm, Timores <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > In RhinoMocks 3.6 there is the TypeOf property in Arg<T>. It checks > > that the argument is really of type T. I am new to mocks, so I am a > > bit hesitant to ask if this is really useful. The compiler will not > > let us pass anything else than a T as the argument. > > > What I'd like instead is what I think is in the docs, i.e. a TypeOf<U> > > property, like this: > > > public T TypeOf<U> > > : where U : T > > { > > get > > { > > ArgManager.AddInArgument(Is.TypeOf<U>()); > > return default(T); > > } > > } > > > When a method accepts an abstract class as a parameter, it is useful > > in a unit test to check that an argument is of a more derived type. > > > What do you think ? > > > Regards, > > Jean-Marie --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Rhino.Mocks" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rhinomocks?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
