On Saturday, October 12, 2013 00:54:48 luminousone wrote: > The inability to handle null is pretty big, specially considering > that at not point is the class instance itself cared about!,
No. It's expected. When you are casting to a particular object to test whether the object is of that type, you are testing the type that the object is, and if the object is null, then it is _not_ of the type that you're casting to. > Again this should be done via reflection, this method above is > hackish at best. Testing via compile-time reflection is testing for something fundamentally different than what casting is testing for. With casting, you're testing whether the object is the type that you're casting to or a type derived from the type that you're casting to. With compile-time reflection, you're testing whether a particular type is derived from another type. One is testing an instance. The other is testing a type. The two are completely different. - Jonathan M Davis