目前还没有“好的”解决方案。但是，您可以显著地缩小类型参数，以排除许多与您假设的“INumeric”约束不匹配的情况，如上面haacks所示。

static bool IntegerFunction<T>(T值)where T: IComparable, iformatable, IConvertible, IComparable<T>， IEquatable<T>， struct {…

十多年后，这个特性终于出现在。net 7中。最通用的接口是INumber<TSelf>而不是innumeric(在系统中。数字名称空间)，它不仅包含整数类型。要只接受整数类型，可以考虑使用IBinaryInteger<TSelf>。以你的原型，神秘的IntegerFunction为例:

static bool IntegerFunction<T>(T value) where T : IBinaryInteger<T> {
    return value > T.Zero;
}

Console.WriteLine(IntegerFunction(5));         // True
Console.WriteLine(IntegerFunction((sbyte)-5)); // False
Console.WriteLine(IntegerFunction((ulong)5));  // True

下面的答案(现在已经过时了)是作为一个历史的角度。

c#不支持这一点。在接受Bruce Eckel的采访时，Hejlsberg描述了没有实现该功能的原因:

And it's not clear that the added complexity is worth the small yield that you get. If something you want to do is not directly supported in the constraint system, you can do it with a factory pattern. You could have a Matrix<T>, for example, and in that Matrix you would like to define a dot product method. That of course that means you ultimately need to understand how to multiply two Ts, but you can't say that as a constraint, at least not if T is int, double, or float. But what you could do is have your Matrix take as an argument a Calculator<T>, and in Calculator<T>, have a method called multiply. You go implement that and you pass it to the Matrix.

然而，这会导致相当复杂的代码，用户必须为他们想要使用的每个T提供自己的Calculator<T>实现。只要它不需要是可扩展的，也就是说，如果你只想支持固定数量的类型，比如int和double，你可以使用一个相对简单的接口:

var mat = new Matrix<int>(w, h);

(GitHub Gist中的最小实现。)

然而，一旦您希望用户能够提供他们自己的自定义类型，您就需要打开这个实现，以便用户能够提供他们自己的Calculator实例。例如，要实例化一个使用自定义十进制浮点数实现DFP的矩阵，你必须编写以下代码:

var mat = new Matrix<DFP>(DfpCalculator.Instance, w, h);

实现DfpCalculator的所有成员:ICalculator<DFP>。

正如Sergey Shandar的回答中所讨论的那样，另一种选择(不幸的是，它也有同样的局限性)是使用策略类。

. net数字基元类型不共享任何允许它们用于计算的公共接口。可以定义自己的接口(例如ISignedWholeNumber)来执行这样的操作，定义包含单个Int16、Int32等的结构并实现这些接口，然后有方法接受受ISignedWholeNumber约束的泛型类型，但是必须将数值转换为你的结构类型可能是一个麻烦。

An alternative approach would be to define static class Int64Converter<T> with a static property bool Available {get;}; and static delegates for Int64 GetInt64(T value), T FromInt64(Int64 value), bool TryStoreInt64(Int64 value, ref T dest). The class constructor could use be hard-coded to load delegates for known types, and possibly use Reflection to test whether type T implements methods with the proper names and signatures (in case it's something like a struct which contains an Int64 and represents a number, but has a custom ToString() method). This approach would lose the advantages associated with compile-time type-checking, but would still manage to avoid boxing operations and each type would only have to be "checked" once. After that, operations associated with that type would be replaced with a delegate dispatch.

我创建了一个小库功能来解决这些问题:

而不是:

public T DifficultCalculation<T>(T a, T b)
{
    T result = a * b + a; // <== WILL NOT COMPILE!
    return result;
}
Console.WriteLine(DifficultCalculation(2, 3)); // Should result in 8.

你可以这样写:

public T DifficultCalculation<T>(Number<T> a, Number<T> b)
{
    Number<T> result = a * b + a;
    return (T)result;
}
Console.WriteLine(DifficultCalculation(2, 3)); // Results in 8.

你可以在这里找到源代码:https://codereview.stackexchange.com/questions/26022/improvement-requested-for-generic-calculator-and-generic-number

我会使用一个通用的，你可以处理外部…

/// <summary>
/// Generic object copy of the same type
/// </summary>
/// <typeparam name="T">The type of object to copy</typeparam>
/// <param name="ObjectSource">The source object to copy</param>
public T CopyObject<T>(T ObjectSource)
{
    T NewObject = System.Activator.CreateInstance<T>();

    foreach (PropertyInfo p in ObjectSource.GetType().GetProperties())
        NewObject.GetType().GetProperty(p.Name).SetValue(NewObject, p.GetValue(ObjectSource, null), null);

    return NewObject;
}

这个练习的意义是什么?

正如人们已经指出的，你可以让一个非泛型函数取最大的项，编译器会自动为你转换较小的整型。

static bool IntegerFunction(Int64 value) { }

如果您的函数处于性能关键的路径上(在我看来，这是不太可能的)，您可以为所有需要的函数提供重载。

static bool IntegerFunction(Int64 value) { }
...
static bool IntegerFunction(Int16 value) { }