Immutable dynamic object

[WhiteBlackGoose]

Usage:

F#

Simple

letobj1=
ImmutableDynamicObj ()++("aaa",5)++("bbb","ccc")--"aaa"

(obj1 is of type ImmutableDynamicObj)

With inheritance

typeQuack(map)=inherit ImmutableDynamicObj (map)new()= Quack (Map.empty)

...

letobj1=
Quack ()++("aaa",5)--"aaa"++("bbb",5)

(obj1 is of type Quack)

C#

Simple

varobj1=newImmutableDynamicObj().With("aa",4).With("bb",10).Without("aa");

(obj1 is of type ImmutableDynamicObj)

With inheritance

publicclassMyDynamicObject:ImmutableDynamicObj{publicMyDynamicObject(FSharpMap<string,object>map):base(map){}publicMyDynamicObject():base(new(Enumerable.Empty<Tuple<string,object>>())){}}

...

varobj1=newMyDynamicObject().With("aaa",5);

(obj1 is of type MyDynamicObject)

[WhiteBlackGoose]

There should also be added CSharpTests.csproj to testing in CI

[WhiteBlackGoose]

Questions to resolve:

• Naming for With and Without (as proposed by @gsomix, it may be add and remove)
• Operators for those methods (as instead of ++ and --, if needed)
• C# naming for With and Without (in C# they're extension methods)
• Is it ok that we require the inheritor to have a paramless constructor? (that allowed for a very clean CLS-compliant solution, but there still is another way)
• ...

[kMutagene]

Naming for With and Without (as proposed by @gsomix, it may be add and remove)

Agreed on add/remove, maybe a bit more verbose addItem / removeItem? although the in F# core API for Map it is just add, so i guess thats canon and we should go for that.

C# naming for With and Without (in C# they're extension methods)

Here i would go for AddItem / RemoveItem or WithItem / WithoutItem, but you know better what C# users would expect from a fluent API so choose whatever you think fits best. When you choose AddItem it might be worth to use addItem in F# as well for consistency.

[kMutagene]

Awesome work. My comments are really minor ones, good stuff 💯

[kMutagene]

not sure if this has any effect, but this is from VS Preview right?

[WhiteBlackGoose]

Yeah. I will revert it once we understand that everything else is good enough