I am writing two classes in C#:A Matrix class that represents a general Matrix with n-by-m dimensions A SquareMatrix class that inherits from Matrix and has the constraint of being n-by-nThe reason I designed it this way is because square matrices support additional specific operations like calculating the determinant or the inverse, so being able to guarantee that those functions are avaliable with the specific type you're using are nice things to have. Additionally it would support all the regular Matrix operations and can be used as a MatrixI have a function in Matrix called getTranspose(). It calculates the transpose of the Matrix and returns it as a new MatrixI inherited it in SquareMatrix, but because the transpose of a square matrix is guaranteed to be square matrix, I also want it to return a SquareMatrixI am unsure about the best way to do this. I can re-implement the function in SquareMatrix, but that would be code duplication because it's essentially the same calculationI can use implicit typecast operators, but if I understand correctly that would cause unnecessary allocations (upcast SquareMatrix to Matrix, create a new Matrix as the transpose, create a new SquareMatrix during typecasting and throw away the tranposed Matrix)I can use explicit typecast operators, but it would be stupid to have to typecast the transpose of a SquareMatrix explicitly, and it also has the same problem of the implicit operator with unnecessary allocationsIs there another option? Should I change the design of having SquareMatrix inherit from Matrix?This problem also applies to operators. It seems that I have to either implement typecasting operators which might cost in performance, or have to re-implement the same code.
Having an inherited function return the derived type instead of the base type
c#;inheritance;type casting
Inheritance not helping to eliminate repetition and typecasts is often a sign that generics would help.  You can do something like:public T getTranspose<T>()// or non-member functionT getTranspose<T>(T input)I haven't fully worked it out, but it seems it might get awkward on the calling side.  I know C# does some inference with generic methods, but I don't know C#, so I'm not familiar with the details.  That might be the way you have to go, though, if you want full compile-time type checking with the least amount of repetition in the implementation.Another option would be to create private helper functions, then pass in the result type you want, for the helper to populate, like:public SquareMatrix getTranspose() {    SquareMatrix result = new SquareMatrix();    transposeHelper(result);    return result;}This gives you more boilerplate on the implementation side, but at least it isn't full repetition.A third option is just to check if the result is square in the Matrix implementation, and return a SquareMatrix if it is, like:public Matrix getTranspose() {   Matrix result;    if (resultIsSquare())        result = new SquareMatrix();   else        result = new Matrix();   // calculate result   return result;}This has the advantage of not needing any implementation at all for getTranspose() in SquareMatrix, but at the expense of requiring type checking of the return value at the call site.  It also works for cases like multiplying two non-square matrices that happen to give a square result.  You give up most compile-time type checking, though.If your application happens to mostly require run-time instead of compile-time type checking anyway, you might as well just give up the different types and throw an exception if you call a method that a non-square matrix doesn't support.  I believe this is the approach most existing libraries take, especially since there are other conditions than being non-square that can cause methods like inverse() to fail.Speaking of libraries, there are a lot of good ones out there for matrix math, that are already heavily tested and optimized.  Don't reinvent the wheel if you don't have to.