I mean strictly speaking it d probably be something like ``` inline fun lt reified T gt Any castTo = this as T ``` but a that probably won t work b why do you need this as a function

in your case usage would be ``` holder castTo lt NetworkStateViewHolder gt bindTo networkState ```

I mean strictly speaking it d probably be something like ``` kotlinlang #announcements

11/29/2018, 2:56 AM

I mean, strictly speaking it’d probably be something like

inline fun <reified T> Any.castTo() = this as T

but a) that probably won’t work, b) why do you need this as a function?

11/29/2018, 3:02 AM

Plain curiosity. And maybe

holder.castTo(NetworkStateViewHolder).bindTo(networkState)

looks more fluid to me than

(holder as NetworkStateViewHolder).bindTo(networkState)

Later is more idiomatic though.

And yes, it doesn’t work

11/29/2018, 3:15 AM

fixed the syntax

in your case, usage would be

holder.castTo<NetworkStateViewHolder>()
    .bindTo(networkState)

still don’t recommend it, but it works in my scratch file

11/29/2018, 3:32 AM

Thanks, it works! Can you please elaborate on why you think it’s a bad idea? Apart from being not idiomatic?

11/29/2018, 3:35 AM

mostly just that it’s not idiomatic, and that also if you’re ever in a situation where you’re okay with returning

null

if the class cast fails, you’ll just have to switch from the function to

(foo as? bar)?.baz()...

anyhow or add an additional

castToOrNull<>()

It’s just, kinda clumsy to replicate an existing language feature, but I suppose there’s nothing inherently bad about it

11/29/2018, 4:21 AM

Thanks for your help. Anyways, it helped me to learn something new about language features))