Creating an object at runtime from type

[AP2879]

Is it possible?

Let's say we have a list of objects. The list is of type 'parent class', but a number of 'child' classes are stored in the list.

Is there anyway to find the 'child class' type (using .GetType() ) and then use this Type to caste the list entry (of type 'parent class') into its original 'child class'?

Code examples that do not work..

foreach(baseclass bc in list)
{
	Type derivedtype = bc.GetType();
	//Here I can writline derivedtype .ToString() and get the name of the derived class, so seems to be holding it in there
	
	//Then something like..
	derivedtype derivedclassobject = new derivedtype () //Doesnt work
	
	//or


	bc = bc as derivedtype 
	
	//or
	object o = (derivedtype )bc


	//as well as things such using
	Activator.CreateInstance(...);
}

Given that C# is strongly typed, is this possible at all? I have a work around for my program, but am interested to know if this is possible.

Is there anyway to create an object from its type at runtime?
Thanks

[Alsvha]

Yes it is possible using the Activator.CreateInstance method.

[AP2879]

If possible, could you please show me a clear working example as I have had no luck at all

[Alsvha]

Feels like doing homework here but what the heck

namespace ConsoleApplication1
{
    class Program
    {
        static void Main(string[] args)
        {
            Stuff o;
            o = (Stuff)Activator.CreateInstance(System.Type.GetType("ConsoleApplication1.Stuff"));
            o.doStuff();
            Console.ReadLine();
           }
    }

    public class Stuff
    {
        public void doStuff()
        {
            Console.WriteLine("Do Stuff, created at Runtime");
        }
    }

}

[AP2879]

Hi Alsvha, many thanks for this, its going to be very useful!

I need to get home and experiment, however the thing I will be trying to do is create objects of an unknown type..i.e. "stuff" will hold type Type and that can vary.

I think i will have problems with this as c# is strongly typed

Thanks again, ill post my results here

[BigEd781]

So, this is a really nasty thing to do and indicates a deeper design flaw in your program. Why can't you simply work through the base class (or explicit) interface? That is the question you should be asking, not how to cast yourself into unmaintainable code hell.