Yeah, you need to recheck the design, just like upside down. But if you said that the additional property is 2 in the derived, it means that you know it. Then use overridable that is virtual or abstract depend on the design.
On Mar 9, 4:36 am, Joe Enos <[email protected]> wrote: > Serialization...Didn't think of that one. I think that just might > work. > > Thanks > > On Mar 8, 8:25 am, "Lee Gunn" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > Yeah sounds like there is mayeb a flaw in the design as I cant think why > > you would want to do this... > > > But, you could also perhaps look into serialisation/deserialisation... > > > I.e. serialise Foo and then deserialise to Bar (and the properties which > > are not int the serialised Foo will just default in the deserialised Bar) > > > lee > > >http://www.jiba-jaba.com > > -- The Home of Public Microblogging > > >http://www.secretorange.co.uk > > -- Glasgow based software development > > > ________________________________ > > > From: [email protected] on behalf of Tanvir Faraj > > Sent: Sun 08/03/2009 15:21 > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: [DotNetDevelopment] Re: Convert base type into derived type > > > Hi, I would recommend you to double check your design, since, may be > > there are flaws whichs why you need to convert a base type to > > inherited type. However, I would prefer the static way to to do this. > > > cheers... > > tfr > > > On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 11:25 AM, Charles A. Lopez > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > i am thinking inheritance and operator overloading over here. > > > > On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 6:09 PM, Joe Enos <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> I've got a scenario that I'm hoping to find a shortcut for. I have a > > >> base class and a derived class - the derived class adds additional > > >> properties. For example: > > > >> public class Foo { > > >> public int Prop1 { get; set; } > > >> public int Prop2 { get; set; } > > >> } > > > >> public class Bar : Foo { > > >> public int Prop3 { get; set; } > > >> } > > > >> Suppose I have a Foo, and want to convert it to a Bar (obviously Prop3 > > >> would be empty) - I don't care if it's a cast or a convert. I can > > >> think of several ways of doing this: > > >> - create a constructor in Bar that accepts a Foo, then one-by-one > > >> assign the values of Prop1 and Prop2 to the new instance's Prop1 and > > >> Prop2. > > >> - create a static method ConvertToBar(Foo foo) that does the same > > >> thing > > >> - use reflection to retrieve the values of all properties of the Foo > > >> and assign to a new Bar. > > > >> I can't put an explicit or implicit conversion operator in Foo, > > >> because Bar derives from Foo, and for some reason (which I'm sure > > >> makes a lot of sense to someone) the compiler won't let me do that. > > > > The logic would become cyclical and collapse on it's own weight. > > > >> Even if I could, I'd still have to assign the properties one at a > > >> time. > > > >> Any ideas? I'd rather not use reflection, but that seems to be the > > >> only way to do this using the smallest amount of code and allowing for > > >> new properties to be added to Foo without a code change to Bar - there > > >> are a couple dozen properties in Foo, and only one or two extra > > >> properties in Bar, so I'm hoping there's some trick out there that > > >> would save me from doing this. > > > >> Thanks > > > >> Joe > > > winmail.dat > > 9KViewDownload
