In C#, why can't a List object be stor

Question

It seems that a List object cannot be stored in a List variable in C#, and can't even be explicitly cast that way.

List<string> sl = new List<string>();
List<object> ol;
ol = sl;

results in Cannot implicitly convert type System.Collections.Generic.List<string> to System.Collections.Generic.List<object>

And then...

List<string> sl = new List<string>();
List<object> ol;
ol = (List<object>)sl;

results in Cannot convert type System.Collections.Generic.List<string> to System.Collections.Generic.List<object>

Of course, you can do it by pulling everything out of the string list and putting it back in one at a time, but it is a rather convoluted solution.

Answer 1

I think that this (contravariance) will actually be supported in C# 4.0. http://blogs.msdn.com/charlie/archive/2008/10/27/linq-farm-covariance-and-contravariance-in-visual-studio-2010.aspx

Answer 2

You cannot cast between generic types with different type parameters. Specialized generic types don't form part of the same inheritance tree and so are unrelated types.

To do this pre-NET 3.5:

List<string> sl = new List<string>();
// Add strings to sl

List<object> ol = new List<object>();

foreach(string s in sl)
{
    ol.Add((object)s);  // The cast is performed implicitly even if omitted
}

Using Linq:

var sl = new List<string>();
// Add strings to sl

var ol = new List<object>(sl.Cast<object>());

// OR
var ol = sl.Cast<object>().ToList();

// OR (note that the cast to object here is required)
var ol = sl.Select(s => (object)s).ToList();

Answer 3

This has a lot to do with covariance, e.g., generic types are considered as parameters, and if the parameters do not resolve properly to a more specific type then the operation fails. The implication of such is that you really cannot cast to a more general type like object. And as stated by Rex, the List object won't convert each object for you.

You might want to try the ff code instead:

List<string> sl = new List<string>();
//populate sl
List<object> ol = new List<object>(sl);

or:

List<object> ol = new List<object>();
ol.AddRange(sl);

ol will (theoretically) copy all the contents of sl without problems.

Answer 4

Mike - I believe contravariance isn't allowed in C# either

See Generic type parameter variance in the CLR for some more info.

Answer 5

The reason is that a generic class like List<> is, for most purposes, treated externally as a normal class. e.g. when you say List<string>() the compiler says ListString() (which contains strings). [Technical folk: this is an extremely plain-English-ified version of what's going on]

Consequently, obviously the compiler can't be smart enough to convert a ListString to a ListObject by casting the items of its internal collection.

That's why there's extension methods for IEnumerable like Convert() that allow you to easily supply conversion for the items stored inside a collection, which could be as simple as casting from one to another.

Answer 6

Think of it this way, if you were to do such a cast, and then add an object of type Foo to the list, the list of strings is no longer consistent. If you were to iterate the first reference, you would get a class cast exception because once you hit the Foo instance, the Foo could not be converted to string!

As a side note, I think it would be more significant whether or not you can do the reverse cast:

List<object> ol = new List<object>();
List<string> sl;
sl = (List<string>)ol;

I haven't used C# in a while, so I don't know if that is legal, but that sort of cast is actually (potentially) useful. In this case, you are going from a more general class (object) to a more specific class (string) that extends from the general one. In this way, if you add to the list of strings, you are not violating the list of objects.

Does anybody know or can test if such a cast is legal in C#?