18
My question is somewhat related to this one: Explicitly implemented interface and generic constraint.
My question, however, is how the compiler enables a generic constraint to eliminate the need for boxing a value type that explicitly implements an interface.
I guess my question boils down to two parts:
What is going on with the behind-the-scenes CLR implementation that requires a value type to be boxed when accessing an explicitly implemented interface member, and
What happens with a generic constraint that removes this requirement?
Some example code:
internal struct TestStruct : IEquatable<TestStruct>
{
bool IEquatable<TestStruct>.Equals(TestStruct other)
{
return true;
}
}
internal class TesterClass
{
// Methods
public static bool AreEqual<T>(T arg1, T arg2) where T: IEquatable<T>
{
return arg1.Equals(arg2);
}
public static void Run()
{
TestStruct t1 = new TestStruct();
TestStruct t2 = new TestStruct();
Debug.Assert(((IEquatable<TestStruct>) t1).Equals(t2));
Debug.Assert(AreEqual<TestStruct>(t1, t2));
}
}
And the resultant IL:
.class private sequential ansi sealed beforefieldinit TestStruct
extends [mscorlib]System.ValueType
implements [mscorlib]System.IEquatable`1<valuetype TestStruct>
{
.method private hidebysig newslot virtual final instance bool System.IEquatable<TestStruct>.Equals(valuetype TestStruct other) cil managed
{
.override [mscorlib]System.IEquatable`1<valuetype TestStruct>::Equals
.maxstack 1
.locals init (
[0] bool CS$1$0000)
L_0000: nop
L_0001: ldc.i4.1
L_0002: stloc.0
L_0003: br.