Business
Jobs
  • About Us
  • Solutions
    • Job Postings
      Post your job and receive qualified candidates in 48h.
    • Candidate Assessments
      500+ technical and psychological tests, plus anti-fraud.
    • Headhunting
      Tailor-made executive search from start to finish.
    • Payroll + EOR
      Payroll dispersal and EOR across 15+ LATAM countries.
  • Pricing
  • Jobs

0

370
Views
Why is this cast redundant?

I have a method with the following overloads:

string Call(string function, Dictionary<string, object> parameters, object body)
string Call(string function, Dictionary<string, object> parameters, JObject body)

Now I added another overload:

string Call(string function)
{
    return Call(function, null, (JObject) null);
}

I added a cast to JObject so the compiler knows which overload it should use. But Visual Studio tells me that the cast is redundant. But why isn't my call ambiguous without the cast?

over 4 years ago · Santiago Trujillo
1 answers
Answer question

0

But why isn't my call ambiguous without the cast?

Because the overload with the JObject parameter is "better" than the overload with the object parameter... because the conversion from null to JObject is "better" than the conversion from null to object.

JObject is more specific than object, because there's an implicit conversion from JObject to object, but not vice versa.

If the final parameter for the first method were string instead (for example) then neither overload would be better than the other, and the call would be ambiguous without the cast.

See section 7.5.3 of the C# 5 specification for all the intricate details. In particular, section 7.5.3.5 ("better conversion target") is relevant here.

over 4 years ago · Santiago Trujillo Report
Answer question
Find remote jobs

Discover the new way to find a job!

Top jobs
Top job categories
Business
Post vacancy Pricing Sales
Legal
Terms and conditions Privacy policy
© 2026 PeakU Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Andres GPT
Show me some job opportunities
There's an error!