Using Case/Switch and GetType to determine the object

> Possible Duplicate:
> C# - Is there a better alternative than this to ‘switch on type’?

If you want to switch on a type of object, what is the best way to do this?

Code snippet

private int GetNodeType(NodeDTO node)
{
    switch (node.GetType())
    { 
        case typeof(CasusNodeDTO):
            return 1;
        case typeof(BucketNodeDTO):
            return 3;
        case typeof(BranchNodeDTO):
            return 0;
        case typeof(LeafNodeDTO):
            return 2;
        default:
            return -1;
    }
}

I know this doesn't work that way, but I was wondering how you could solve this. Is an if/else statement appropriate in this case?

Or do you use the switch and add .ToString() to the type?

This won't directly solve your problem as you want to switch on your own user-defined types, but for the benefit of others who only want to switch on built-in types, you can use the TypeCode enumeration:

switch (Type.GetTypeCode(node.GetType()))
{
	case TypeCode.Decimal:
		// Handle Decimal
		break;

    case TypeCode.Int32:
	    // Handle Int32
	    break;
     ...
}

If I really had to switch on type of object, I'd use .ToString(). However, I would avoid it at all costs: IDictionary<Type, int> will do much better, visitor might be an overkill but otherwise it is still a perfectly fine solution.

In the MSDN blog post Many Questions: switch on type is some information on why .NET does not provide switching on types.

As usual - workarounds always exists.

This one isn't mine, but unfortunately I have lost the source. It makes switching on types possible, but I personally think it's quite awkward (the dictionary idea is better):

  public class Switch
  {
      public Switch(Object o)
      {
          Object = o;
      }

      public Object Object { get; private set; }
  }


  /// <summary>
  /// Extensions, because otherwise casing fails on Switch==null
  /// </summary>
  public static class SwitchExtensions
  {
      public static Switch Case<T>(this Switch s, Action<T> a)
            where T : class
      {
          return Case(s, o => true, a, false);
      }

      public static Switch Case<T>(this Switch s, Action<T> a,
           bool fallThrough) where T : class
      {
          return Case(s, o => true, a, fallThrough);
      }

      public static Switch Case<T>(this Switch s,
          Func<T, bool> c, Action<T> a) where T : class
      {
          return Case(s, c, a, false);
      }

      public static Switch Case<T>(this Switch s,
          Func<T, bool> c, Action<T> a, bool fallThrough) where T : class
      {
          if (s == null)
          {
              return null;
          }

          T t = s.Object as T;
          if (t != null)
          {
              if (c(t))
              {
                  a(t);
                  return fallThrough ? s : null;
              }
          }

          return s;
      }
  }

Usage:

 new Switch(foo)
     .Case<Fizz>
         (action => { doingSomething = FirstMethodCall(); })
     .Case<Buzz>
         (action => { return false; })

I'm faced with the same problem and came across this post. Is this what's meant by the IDictionary approach:

Dictionary<Type, int> typeDict = new Dictionary<Type, int>
{
    {typeof(int),0},
    {typeof(string),1},
    {typeof(MyClass),2}
};

void Foo(object o)
{
    switch (typeDict[o.GetType()])
    {
        case 0:
            Print("I'm a number.");
            break;
        case 1:
            Print("I'm a text.");
            break;
        case 2:
            Print("I'm classy.");
            break;
        default:
            break;
    }
}

If so, I can't say I'm a fan of reconciling the numbers in the dictionary with the case statements.

This would be ideal but the dictionary reference kills it:

void FantasyFoo(object o)
{
    switch (typeDict[o.GetType()])
    {
        case typeDict[typeof(int)]:
            Print("I'm a number.");
            break;
        case typeDict[typeof(string)]:
            Print("I'm a text.");
            break;
        case typeDict[typeof(MyClass)]:
            Print("I'm classy.");
            break;
        default:
            break;
    }
}

Is there another implementation I've overlooked?

I'd just use an if statement. In this case:

Type nodeType = node.GetType();
if (nodeType == typeof(CasusNodeDTO))
{
}
else ... 

The other way to do this is:

if (node is CasusNodeDTO)
{
}
else ...

The first example is true for exact types only, where the latter checks for inheritance too.

You can do this:

function void PrintType(Type t) {
 var t = true;
 new Dictionary<Type, Action>{
   {typeof(bool), () => Console.WriteLine("bool")},
   {typeof(int),  () => Console.WriteLine("int")}
 }[t.GetType()]();
}

It's clear and its easy. It a bit slower than caching the dictionary somewhere.. but for lots of code this won't matter anyway..

You can do this:

if (node is CasusNodeDTO)
{
    ...
}
else if (node is BucketNodeDTO)
{
    ...
}
...

While that would be more elegant, it's possibly not as efficient as some of the other answers here.

One approach is to add a pure virtual GetNodeType() method to NodeDTO and override it in the descendants so that each descendant returns actual type.

Depending on what you are doing in the switch statement, the correct answer is polymorphism. Just put a virtual function in the interface/base class and override for each node type.

I actually prefer the approach given as the answer here: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/298976/c-sharp-is-there-a-better-alternative-than-this-to-switch-on-type

There is however a good argument about not implementing any type comparison methids in an object oriented language like C#. You could as an alternative extend and add extra required functionality using inheritance.

This point was discussed in the comments of the authors blog here: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/jaredpar/archive/2008/05/16/switching-on-types.aspx#8553535

I found this an extremely interesting point which changed my approach in a similar situation and only hope this helps others.

Kind Regards, Wayne