Comments on: Trivia Friday

By: bogardj

bogardj — Fri, 11 Feb 2011 15:44:41 +0000

@Jeremy Omer and Mikael

ding ding ding you are correct!

By: Benjamin Wegman

Benjamin Wegman — Fri, 11 Feb 2011 15:34:46 +0000

So you can do something like this:

var expr = this.Expr(x => x + “Test”);

And have implicit typing of the expression?

By: Mikael Östberg

Mikael Östberg — Fri, 11 Feb 2011 15:15:34 +0000

+ 1 on the anonymous type or any type for that matter.

var anon = new {Number = 1};
var expr = anon.Expr(a => a.Number + 1);

By: Harry

Harry — Fri, 11 Feb 2011 15:00:39 +0000

You can write something like:

42.Expr(x => x * x)

and thus do not have to specify T or TResult

By: Omer Mor

Omer Mor — Fri, 11 Feb 2011 14:56:35 +0000

So you could declare expressions that take anonymous types?

By: Jeremy Skinner

Jeremy Skinner — Fri, 11 Feb 2011 14:55:53 +0000

I’m guessing so you can get a reference to an expression for a property on an anonymous type. Because you can’t declare the type directly, this will allow type inference to kick in.

By: Christopher Bennage

Christopher Bennage — Fri, 11 Feb 2011 14:32:43 +0000

So you can convert a lamda into an expression explicitly.

By: bogardj

bogardj — Fri, 11 Feb 2011 14:20:10 +0000

@thinkbeforecoding

Nice side effect, but check my hint – it’s not directly what I was trying to achieve.

By: thinkbeforecoding

thinkbeforecoding — Fri, 11 Feb 2011 14:05:53 +0000

Using this code, you can
declare a var that will receive the expression instead of declaring it with Expression>
ensure that that expression input is of expected type, without having to give lambda parameter type…

By: bogardj

bogardj — Fri, 11 Feb 2011 13:51:03 +0000

@Rob

Getting warmer…

@Jason

Not intentionally, but I did find that it’s a nice side effect