var dinaclass = new
            {

                DoThis = new Func(s => int.Parse(s)),
                DoThat = new Func
                    ((a, b) => 
                        {
 
                            if(a  45)
                                System.Windows.Forms.MessageBox.Show(“Oh god!!!!”);

                            return a + b;

                        }
                    )

            };

            UseDinaClass(dinaclass);
        
        }

        void UseDinaClass(dynamic AnonClass)
        {

            AnonClass.DoThis(“33″);
            AnonClass.DoThat(12,89);
        
        }
So, doesn’t this works like a Java anonymous class?There’s no need for an interface with the dynamic keyword and witha multiline lambda expression a function can be created.I know it’s an old post but I wanted to show this way of creatinganonymous classes with a very similar functionality to Java anonymousclasses.I hate the anonymous classes in Java, i had to program during two yearswith it and really hated the inner classes. And that’s not because C#doesn’t have them, it’s because the readability of the code gets killed.In a function where you hook to multiple events, the code becomes a truly mess which nobody can read without struggling his brain.

With the Reactive Extensions release, I see more people wanting to move to the Observable pattern, and that will likely have us wanting a lot of these features in C#.

no, no, no. that’s not what i’m saying at all. i’m saying what you’re saying. i don’t think anyone was unclear on the difference between the language constructs. we were unclear on what problem it was trying to solve. i actually chose the word “seen” very deliberately in my post above. because that gets right to the point. the question we were all asking is “why do you want this thing?” not “what is this thing that you want?”

hope that clears it up (it made so much sense in my head). sorry for the confusion

I own two compact cars (one for me, one for my wife). I have to rent a truck every time I want to buy anything larger than half a cubic meter. what you’re saying is that i shouldn’t wish my car was bigger when i need to buy something that won’t fit in it… that i shouldn’t want to a bigger vehicle so that i can be larger things.

you’ve only ever seen your neighbor drive himself to work… is that because that’s all he ever does? or is that because that’s all his car will let him do? perhaps there are times when your neighbor really needed a large van, but only had a compact car and therefore was only able to drive to work instead of being able to do all the things a large van would let them do.

… don’t confuse “can’t” with “don’t need to”.

My neighbor and I both drive compact cars. The other day we were standing outside and someone drove by in a big van. My neighbor started lamenting about how he wished he had a big van. So I said to my neighbor, “Neighbor, the only thing I’ve ever seen you use your compact car for is driving yourself, and only yourself, to work. Why would you need a big van?”

Please note that I did not ask him to explain the difference between a compact car and a big van.

Got that?

Of course, as a consumer of such a stupid class, the functionality you suggest is desperately wanted.

By the way, why are you so angry?

Depressing that so many people miss the point. You cannot do a method-inline implementation in C#. You can in Java.

Some times, for interfaces with 2 or 3 methods, it would be real handy to be able to implement it inline in C#. But you can’t. You can in Java.

Support for delegates is not the same thing.

Can you implement an interface inline in C#? No, you can’t. But in Java you can.

Got that?

Idiots.

(9-year MS developer, but that doesn’t cause me to turn off my brain).