Is Changing A Generic Parameter's Name A Breaking Change

generic parameter java
java generic method parameter
java generics
java get class of generic parameter
generic class c#
java pass class type as parameter
java interface generic parameter
java generics tutorial

When updating a library, it's important to accurately communicate any breaking changes. Unfortunately there are a number of different kinds of breaking changes in C#, and some of them are quite subtle.

The obvious ones are things like changing the names of types or type members.

The subtle ones are things like adding a new default parameter (binary compatibility is broken, but source compatibility is preserved), or renaming a parameter (binary compatibility is maintained, but source compatibility is broken).

I am unsure about renaming generic parameters.

For example, is there a case where changing:

public class Foo<T>
{
  public T Bar(){ /* something */ }
}

to

public class Foo<TMoreDescriptive>
{
  public TMoreDescriptive Bar(){ /* something */ }
}

between releases of a library could break a consumer?

No, there is no such case.

Changing the name of a generic type parameter is no more a breaking change than changing the name of a method parameter is. According to the C# Programming Guide, generic types are replaced the moment the consumer instantiates the class with a generic type argument - at no point is the consumer given the original type parameter's name except via documentation or an IntelliSense-like feature.

The guide also mentions that generic type parameters are available via reflection - this is likely the only vector by which your consumer is able to programmatically inspect the name change, similar to method parameters.

Generic Types (The Java™ Tutorials > Learning the Java Language , The type parameter section, delimited by angle brackets (<>), follows the you create a generic type declaration by changing the code "public class Box" to� The problem you are presently fighting is how to change a List<Fruit> to a sub list of type List<Apple> or a sub list of type List<Orange>, where Fruit is a base type for both Apple and Orange. The solution is not a simple and I do not have time at the moment to reproduce one for your specific example.

Generics are resolved at compile time, to allow for compile time type checks. Indeed allowing those checks to still take place is what they are there for.

While I have no information either way, I do not see how this would break anything.

Source Compability is maintained.

And binary compatibility should only care what is put there instead of the T/TMoreDescriptive/type placeholder.

It is worth pointing out that .NET is very specific about wich .dll it loads. When .NET was made, we had at least a decade of experience that just using the dll name causes issues with versioning. So .,NET uses the DLL's name, the version and a public token (think GUID) to make certain it really is the exact DLL the compiler worked against. So if you want to make a major change, you can just make sure you get another public token and it should work out.

Generic Parameters and Arguments — The Swift Programming , A generic parameter clause is enclosed in angle brackets (<>) and has the Int> is formed by replacing the generic parameters Key: Hashable and Value with� IsGenericParameter returns false for the types and true for the type parameters. The code example for the ContainsGenericParameters property demonstrates a generic class with a mixture of types and type parameters. For a list of the invariant conditions for terms used in generic reflection, see the IsGenericType property remarks. Applies to See

As you are just changing the name for the generic type place holder, this should not be a problem. However, as a generic rule you shouldn't make things overly complex. If your generic class only has one genetic type then T is just as clear as TSomething. In fact, the use of T has become standard for generics. But if the generic class uses two types then more descriptive names would be better. So,

public class Foo<T1, T2>
{
    public T1 Bar(T2 something) { return ... }
}

Would be bad. You would rather have

public class Foo<TResult, TSource>
{
    public TResult Bar(TSource something) { return ... }
}

But again, if there's just one type, stick to T. Changing the name won't matter as it's just a place holder.

How Do I Override Generic or Parameter Without Changing , Once we have declared Generics or Parameters in our code, it would be nice to pass the value from the simulator by not having to change the HDL source code. Select the + button in the Generics/Parameters dialog box. Now you will be able to type in your generic/parameter settings - see the following screenshot. In Xilinx Vivado Tcl, the following command will synthesise a design using Vivado Synthesis with the specified generics/parameters and values (plus any additional synthesis options).

Solved: Generic parameter not changing in simulation, I have some generic parameters defined in my entity Then, I changed the .vhd file to 125 like shown in the snipper, but when I reset the� This parameter only applies to batch-mode and interactive-mode components. Use the default value for this parameter. CAUTION: Do not change the value of this parameter without direct guidance Global Customer Support. For help with changing the value of this parameter, create a service request (SR) on My Oracle Support.

Changing model parameter type—Help, The generic type parameter (T) will eventually be an Integer, or a Character, to refer to an element in the bag and change them to generic type parameter, E. In Quartus, I quite often manually edit the generic parameters of simple IP's such as FIFOs or RAMs. I simply open the .VHD file generated via the IP catalog, change the desired value (for example: FIFO width) and use the modified version in my project How is it possible to do the same in

CS240 -- Lecture Notes: Generic Programming, To fix a violation of this rule, change the design to use no more than two type parameters. When to suppress warnings. Do not suppress a warning� Trying to substitute type parameter at runtime will defeat the whole purpose of type saftey , which is enforced by C# compiler.C# compiler make sures that type parameter are specified at compile time and there is no ambiguity on type arguments at runtime.I doubt you can substitue type parameter at runtime in Generic Type.Specifying type

Comments
  • Take a look at the metadata in the assembly using ILDASM. The only information about Foo is that it's a Reference Type and it has a single Type Parameter (and, it there's a where constraint (or constraints), what that/those constraint(s) are). So, no, the name of the type parameter doesn't matter
  • The IL seems to instantiate the class without care for the parameter name.
  • The public key token isn't something that normally would change. It cryptographically represents the identity of the assembly publisher, not the assembly. If you want to change the identity of a strongly named assembly, change the assembly version number. But, you want to be doing that with a plan to do it properly (with an understanding of backwards and forwards compatibility)
  • @Flydog57 My idea was about explicitly breaking compatibility without changing the name, because he wanted to make serious changes to the types. He is seriously worried about breaking code, due to it using the new version when it should the old and vice versa. I thought I point out that .NET has full support here.