C#

I’ve been learning Scala lately, and it turns out that scala union types are sometimes implemented the same way I discovered unions could be imitated in C#.

Turns out private members of C# records affect value-based equality.

Representing constrained values with types greatly reduces defensive programming. However, constraints make some values invalid, and constructors don’t allow for flexible return types like a failure state. Here’s an approach to constructing constrained values without relying on exceptions.

I previously wrote about result types and union types in C#. I got to wondering if a union-based approach would allow nicer result types. In short, it works, but not as nicely as I’d hope.

The TestApi pattern helps decouple tests from our system and enables more stable and reusable tests. I’ve shown how I use the pattern in F#. Now here’s a similar example in C#.

Working on System.CommandLine.PropertyMapBinder has led me to believe C# is missing a powerful feature: static class extensions. This post explains my usecase, and balances some of the tradeoffs.

Union types are common in functional languages, but have yet to make it to C# and similar. These types solve a simple and very common problem, data that is one of a finite set of possibilities. Here’s we’ll look at how to accomplish the same in C#.