Is there any feasible way of using generics to create a Math library that does not depend on the base type chosen to store data?
In other words, let's assume I want to write a Fraction class. The fraction can be represented by two ints or two doubles or whatnot. The important thing is that the basic four arithmetic operations are well defined. So, I would like to be able to write Fraction<int> frac = new Fraction<int>(1,2) and/or Fraction<double> frac = new Fraction<double>(0.1, 1.0).
Unfortunately there is no interface representing the four basic operations (+,-,*,/). Has anybody found a workable, feasible way of implementing this?
Here is a way to abstract out the operators that is relatively painless.
abstract class MathProvider<T>
{
public abstract T Divide(T a, T b);
public abstract T Multiply(T a, T b);
public abstract T Add(T a, T b);
public abstract T Negate(T a);
public virtual T Subtract(T a, T b)
{
return Add(a, Negate(b));
}
}
class DoubleMathProvider : MathProvider<double>
{
public override double Divide(double a, double b)
{
return a / b;
}
public override double Multiply(double a, double b)
{
return a * b;
}
public override double Add(double a, double b)
{
return a + b;
}
public override double Negate(double a)
{
return -a;
}
}
class IntMathProvider : MathProvider<int>
{
public override int Divide(int a, int b)
{
return a / b;
}
public override int Multiply(int a, int b)
{
return a * b;
}
public override int Add(int a, int b)
{
return a + b;
}
public override int Negate(int a)
{
return -a;
}
}
class Fraction<T>
{
static MathProvider<T> _math;
// Notice this is a type constructor. It gets run the first time a
// variable of a specific type is declared for use.
// Having _math static reduces overhead.
static Fraction()
{
// This part of the code might be cleaner by once
// using reflection and finding all the implementors of
// MathProvider and assigning the instance by the one that
// matches T.
if (typeof(T) == typeof(double))
_math = new DoubleMathProvider() as MathProvider<T>;
else if (typeof(T) == typeof(int))
_math = new IntMathProvider() as MathProvider<T>;
// ... assign other options here.
if (_math == null)
throw new InvalidOperationException(
"Type " + typeof(T).ToString() + " is not supported by Fraction.");
}
// Immutable impementations are better.
public T Numerator { get; private set; }
public T Denominator { get; private set; }
public Fraction(T numerator, T denominator)
{
// We would want this to be reduced to simpilest terms.
// For that we would need GCD, abs, and remainder operations
// defined for each math provider.
Numerator = numerator;
Denominator = denominator;
}
public static Fraction<T> operator +(Fraction<T> a, Fraction<T> b)
{
return new Fraction<T>(
_math.Add(
_math.Multiply(a.Numerator, b.Denominator),
_math.Multiply(b.Numerator, a.Denominator)),
_math.Multiply(a.Denominator, b.Denominator));
}
public static Fraction<T> operator -(Fraction<T> a, Fraction<T> b)
{
return new Fraction<T>(
_math.Subtract(
_math.Multiply(a.Numerator, b.Denominator),
_math.Multiply(b.Numerator, a.Denominator)),
_math.Multiply(a.Denominator, b.Denominator));
}
public static Fraction<T> operator /(Fraction<T> a, Fraction<T> b)
{
return new Fraction<T>(
_math.Multiply(a.Numerator, b.Denominator),
_math.Multiply(a.Denominator, b.Numerator));
}
// ... other operators would follow.
}
If you fail to implement a type that you use, you will get a failure at runtime instead of at compile time (that is bad). The definition of the MathProvider<T> implementations is always going to be the same (also bad). I would suggest that you just avoid doing this in C# and use F# or some other language better suited to this level of abstraction.
Edit: Fixed definitions of add and subtract for Fraction<T>.
Another interesting and simple thing to do is implement a MathProvider that operates on an abstract syntax tree. This idea immediately points to doing things like automatic differentiation: http://conal.net/papers/beautiful-differentiation/