could you not just do `is_hungry(

[vast mulch]

I can't pass that around though

I want to be able to store that and run it later

[ornate siren]

You can, store it in a func which was your question.
On mobile and I dont remember the exact syntax but you can use the lambda expression

[vast mulch]

I guess my ask isn't coming across clearly enough

[vast mulch]

@ornate siren here's what I was looking to make

using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Linq;

public static class FuncUtils<X, Y> {
    public static Func<X, Y, bool> OR(IEnumerable<Func<X, Y, bool>> funcs) {
        return (x, y) => funcs.Any(f => f(x,y));
    }

    public static Func<X, Y, bool> AND(IEnumerable<Func<X, Y, bool>> funcs) {
        return (x, y) => funcs.All(f => f(x,y));
    }
}

I haven't tested it out yet, but this is hte idea

the only thing that this doesn't yet achieve for me is, I want the templatized type to be generic enough that it represents the set of all arguments, regardless of what the function parameter signature ends up looking like

[ornate siren]

you could make it more generic by doing

public static Func<T, bool> AND<T>(IEnumerable<Func<T, bool>> funcs) 
{
    return val => funcs.All(f => f(val));
}

[vast mulch]

Hmm, how does val represent multiple values? I don't understand that

[manic vortex]

You can use value tuple.

[ornate siren]

sorry yea i was thinking you would have to use a tuple there. i dont know if theres another option here

[radiant spindle]

Actually this kinda goes against the design principles of C# as a strongly typed language. What you could do is box the value as a C# object, but you'll need to know what type it was when you need to get the value out of it.

A way compatible with C# design principles would be to have some kind of class container for your value with polymorphism.

[vast mulch]

Is strong typing not already violated with type templating?

I think the strategy of passing a tuple is fine, I'll just go with that

[radiant spindle]

If you're talking about generics, no. They are actually strongly typed at compile type. The compiler creates specific types for each generic specialization.

Just to make it clear: generics are not the same as C++ templates. There are huge differences between the two.

[vast mulch]

oh interesting

I don't know anything about that

[ornate siren]

actually it doesnt have to be a tuple, it could be a class/struct. either way i do find it kinda questionable on how often you'd be using this method

[vast mulch]

listen, getting this down will give me some super expressive code, so it's worth it

[radiant spindle]

Honestly, generics are usually a rabbit hole you don't want to go down. I usually try to avoid. Because halfway throw the implementation you discover a limitation that is not possible to overcome.