Develop Reference

Encapsulation and use of LINQ logic in functions using dot notation

I tried my best to explain in the title, however I am trying to achieve giving linq statements an 'alias' and still use them in dot notation. Allow me to explain further.
below we have a list that has a linq statement applied:
private List<string> _matches;
var output = _matches.Where(x => x.EntityScore == 100).ToList();
I agree that this is simple to read. However I wish to simplify it further especially when the statements start to get bigger. This is an example of linq getting longer than I care for:
private List<string> _matches;
var matchAddressList = _matches.Where(x => x.EntityDetails.Addresses.Any(x => x.Street.Equals(inputObject.Address)
&& x.StateProvinceDistrict.Equals(inputObject.State)
&& x.City.Equals(inputObject.City))).ToList();
What I am trying to do is alias certain groups of LINQ and then call that linq as a dot operator
for example:
var finalOutput = _matches.perfectMatches().addressMatches(inputObject).someOtherMatchCondition(inputObject)
I think the above line is clear and easily readable. Future devs dont necessarily have to look into the logic. They can read the business domain name and understand what it does.
I want to avoid the following line, as I believe the previous code is more clean:
var finalOutput = someOtherMatchCondition(addressMatches(perfectMatches(_matches)));
the previous line is how I feel you would go about it using functions at a basic level. However I am struggling to find a way to create an alias or encapsulate the linq logic into a business domain name and then use that as a dot operator.
I have tried expression body definitions:
public List<string> perfectMatches => _matches.Where(x => x.EntityScore == 100).ToList();
is this going to require extensions of another class? or the writing of generics? or am I perhaps unaware of a standard way of doing this?

Update: maybe this is helpfull too:
How to add custom methods for LINQ queries (C#)
It has to be an extension method to make use of the dot notation.
Do you mean something like that. It is rather pseudo code than working. You may have to play around with the types or try out some kind of generic approach:
public class ProductionCode
{
public void MyMain()
{
var myList = new List<EntityThingType>() { .... };
var newList = myList.PerfectMatches().AddressMatches(myInputObject).ToList();
}
}
public static class test
{
public static IEnumerable<EntityThingType> PerfectMatches(this IEnumerable<EntityThingType> myList)
{
return myList.Where(x => x.EntityScore == 100);
}
public static IEnumerable<EntityThingType> AddressMatches(this IEnumerable<EntityThingType> myList, MyObjectType inputObject)
{
return myList.Where(x => x.EntityDetails.Addresses.Any(x => x.Street.Equals(inputObject.Address)
&& x.StateProvinceDistrict.Equals(inputObject.State)
&& x.City.Equals(inputObject.City)));
}
}

I think what you are looking for is Extension Methods. You can have the perfectMatches() method be an extension method that takes an IEnumerable<string> and return the same. Then you can chain those together.

Optional Design Pattern, Advantages [closed]

Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
So, it's pretty well known that the infamous NullReferenceException is the most common exception in software products. I've been reading some articles, and found myself with the Optional approach.
Its aim is to create some kind of encapsulation around a nullable value
public sealed class Optional<T> where T : class {
private T value;
private Optional(T value) {
this.value = value;
}
//Used to create an empty container
public static Optional<T> Empty() {
return new Optional(null);
}
//Used to create a container with a non-null value
public static Optional<T> For(T value) {
return new Optional(value);
}
//Used to check if the container holds a non-null value
public bool IsPresent {
get { return value != null; }
}
//Retrieves the non-null value
public T Value {
get { return value; }
}
}
Afterwards, the now optional value can be returned like this:
public Optional<ICustomer> FindCustomerByName(string name)
{
ICustomer customer = null;
// Code to find the customer in database
if(customer != null) {
return Optional.Of(customer);
} else {
return Optional.Empty();
}
}
And handled like this:
Optional<ICustomer> optionalCustomer = repository.FindCustomerByName("Matt");
if(optionalCustomer.IsPresent) {
ICustomer foundCustomer = optionalCustomer.Value;
Console.WriteLine("Customer found: " + customer.ToString());
} else {
Console.WriteLine("Customer not found");
}
I don't see any improvement, just shifted complexity.
The programmer must remember to check if a value IsPresent, in the same way he must remember to check if a value != null.
And if he forgets, he would get a NullReferenceException on both approaches.
What am I missing? What advantages (if any) does the Optional pattern provide over something like Nullable<T> and the null coalescing operator?

Free your mind
If you think of Option as Nullable by a different name then you are absolutely correct - Option is simply Nullable for reference types.
The Option pattern makes more sense if you view it as a monad or as a specialized collection that contain either one or zero values.
Option as a collection
Consider a simple foreach loop with a list that cannot be null:
public void DoWork<T>(List<T> someList) {
foreach (var el in someList) {
Console.WriteLine(el);
}
}
If you pass an empty list to DoWork, nothing happens:
DoWork(new List<int>());
If you pass a list with one or more elements in it, work happens:
DoWork(new List<int>(1));
// 1
Let's alias the empty list to None and the list with one entry in it to Some:
var None = new List<int>();
var Some = new List(1);
We can pass these variables to DoWork and we get the same behavior as before:
DoWork(None);
DoWork(Some);
// 1
Of course, we can also use LINQ extension methods:
Some.Where(x => x > 0).Select(x => x * 2);
// List(2)
// Some -> Transform Function(s) -> another Some
None.Where(x => x > 0).Select(x => x * 2);
// List()
// None -> None
Some.Where(x => x > 100).Select(x => x * 2);
// List() aka None
// Some -> A Transform that eliminates the element -> None
Interesting side note: LINQ is monadic.
Wait, what just happened?
By wrapping the value that we want inside a list we were suddenly able to only apply an operation to the value if we actually had a value in the first place!
Extending Optional
With that consideration in mind, let's add a few methods to Optional to let us work with it as if it were a collection (alternately, we could make it a specialized version of IEnumerable that only allows one entry):
// map makes it easy to work with pure functions
public Optional<TOut> Map<TIn, TOut>(Func<TIn, TOut> f) where TIn : T {
return IsPresent ? Optional.For(f(value)) : Empty();
}
// foreach is for side-effects
public Optional<T> Foreach(Action<T> f) {
if (IsPresent) f(value);
return this;
}
// getOrElse for defaults
public T GetOrElse(Func<T> f) {
return IsPresent ? value : f();
}
public T GetOrElse(T defaultValue) { return IsPresent ? value: defaultValue; }
// orElse for taking actions when dealing with `None`
public void OrElse(Action<T> f) { if (!IsPresent) f(); }
Then your code becomes:
Optional<ICustomer> optionalCustomer = repository.FindCustomerByName("Matt");
optionalCustomer
.Foreach(customer =>
Console.WriteLine("Customer found: " + customer.ToString()))
.OrElse(() => Console.WriteLine("Customer not found"));
Not much savings there, right? And two more anonymous functions - so why would we do this? Because, just like LINQ, it enables us to set up a chain of behavior that only executes as long as we have the input that we need. For example:
optionalCustomer
.Map(predictCustomerBehavior)
.Map(chooseIncentiveBasedOnPredictedBehavior)
.Foreach(scheduleIncentiveMessage);
Each of these actions (predictCustomerBehavior, chooseIncentiveBasedOnPredictedBehavior, scheduleIncentiveMessage) is expensive - but they will only happen if we have a customer to begin with!
It gets better though - after some study we realize that we cannot always predict customer behavior. So we change the signature of predictCustomerBehavior to return an Optional<CustomerBehaviorPrediction> and change our second Map call in the chain to FlatMap:
optionalCustomer
.FlatMap(predictCustomerBehavior)
.Map(chooseIncentiveBasedOnPredictedBehavior)
.Foreach(scheduleIncentiveMessage);
which is defined as:
public Optional<TOut> FlatMap<TIn, TOut>(Func<TIn, Optional<TOut>> f) where TIn : T {
var Optional<Optional<TOut>> result = Map(f)
return result.IsPresent ? result.value : Empty();
}
This starts to look a lot like LINQ (FlatMap -> Flatten, for example).
Further possible refinements
In order to get more utility out of Optional we should really make it implement IEnumerable. Additionally, we can take advantage of polymorphism and create two sub-types of Optional, Some and None to represent the full list and the empty list case. Then our methods can drop the IsPresent checks, making them easier to read.
TL;DR
The advantages of LINQ for expensive operations are obvious:
someList
.Where(cheapOp1)
.SkipWhile(cheapOp2)
.GroupBy(expensiveOp)
.Select(expensiveProjection);
Optional, when viewed as a collection of one or zero values provides a similar benefit (and there's no reason it couldn't implement IEnumerable so that LINQ methods would work on it as well):
someOptional
.FlatMap(expensiveOp1)
.Filter(expensiveOp2)
.GetOrElse(generateDefaultValue);
Further suggested reading
Option (F#)
When null is not enough (C#)
The neophytes guide to Scala Part 5: The Option type
The Marvel of Monads (C#)
Eric Lippert's series on LINQ and monads

it would probally make more sense if you used something like this
interface ICustomer {
String name { get; }
}
public class OptionalCustomer : ICustomer {
public OptionalCustomer (ICustomer value) {
this.value = value;
}
public static OptionalCustomer Empty() {
return new OptionalCustomer(null);
}
ICustomer value;
public String name { get {
if (value == null ) {
return "No customer found";
}
return value.Name;
}
}
}
now if your pass an "empty" optional customer object you can still call the .Name property (without getting nullpointers)

The advantage of Optional is you know if something may not exist.
The problem with many types of queries that return a null is that that could mean 2 things:
The query didn't return a result
The query returned a result whose value was null.
I know you're asking specifically about C# but Java just introduced Optionals in Java 8 so there are a lot of articles about it so I'll use Java as an example. but it's completely the same idea as in C#:
Consider the Java Map.get(key) method
Object value = map.get(key);
if(value ==null){
//is there an entry in the map key =>null or does key not exist?
}
to get around that you have to have an additional method containsKey( k)
With optional, you only need one method
Optional<Object> result = map.get(key);
if(result.isPresent()){
Object value = result.get();
//if value is null, then we know that key =>null
}
More info see this Java article : http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/articles/java/java8-optional-2175753.html

Did you mean: Null Object pattern
The article linked to me in the comments contains a conclusion section explained this programming tool.
... The purpose of Optional is not to replace every single null reference in your codebase but rather to help design better APIs in which—just by reading the signature of a method—users can tell whether to expect an optional value. .... deal with the absence of a value; as a result, you protect your code against unintended null pointer exceptions.
Anyway, let it crash and find the reason. If you do not want endlessly embedded if statements than use an implementation pattern Guard Clause pattern, which says the following:
While programs have a main flow, some situations require deviations from the
main flow. The guard clause is a way to express simple and local exceptional
situations with purely local consequences.

Creating an object via lambda factory vs direct "new Type()" syntax

For example, consider a utility class SerializableList:
public class SerializableList : List<ISerializable>
{
public T Add<T>(T item) where T : ISerializable
{
base.Add(item);
return item;
}
public T Add<T>(Func<T> factory) where T : ISerializable
{
var item = factory();
base.Add(item);
return item;
}
}
Usually I'd use it like this:
var serializableList = new SerializableList();
var item1 = serializableList.Add(new Class1());
var item2 = serializableList.Add(new Class2());
I could also have used it via factoring, like this:
var serializableList = new SerializableList();
var item1 = serializableList.Add(() => new Class1());
var item2 = serializableList.Add(() => new Class2());
The second approach appears to be a preferred usage pattern, as I've been lately noticing on SO. Is it really so (and why, if yes) or is it just a matter of taste?

Given your example, the factory method is silly. Unless the callee requires the ability to control the point of instantiation, instantiate multiple instances, or lazy evaluation, it's just useless overhead.
The compiler will not be able to optimize out delegate creation.
To reference the examples of using the factory syntax that you gave in comments on the question. Both examples are trying (albeit poorly) to provide guaranteed cleanup of the instances.
If you consider a using statement:
using (var x = new Something()) { }
The naive implementation would be:
var x = new Something();
try
{
}
finally
{
if ((x != null) && (x is IDisposable))
((IDisposable)x).Dispose();
}
The problem with this code is that it is possible for an exception to occur after the assignment of x, but before the try block is entered. If this happens, x will not be properly disposed, because the finally block will not execute. To deal with this, the code for a using statement will actually be something more like:
Something x = null;
try
{
x = new Something();
}
finally
{
if ((x != null) && (x is IDisposable))
((IDisposable)x).Dispose();
}
Both of the examples that you reference using factory parameters are attempting to deal with this same issue. Passing a factory allows for the instance to be instantiated within the guarded block. Passing the instance directly allows for the possibility of something to go wrong along the way and not have Dispose() called.
In those cases, passing the factory parameter makes sense.

Caching
In the example you have provided it does not make sense as others have pointed out. Instead I will give you another example,
public class MyClass{
public MyClass(string file){
// load a huge file
// do lots of computing...
// then store results...
}
}
private ConcurrentDictionary<string,MyClass> Cache = new ....
public MyClass GetCachedItem(string key){
return Cache.GetOrAdd(key, k => new MyClass(key));
}
In above example, let's say we are loading a big file and we are calculating something and we are interested in end result of that calculation. To speedup my access, when I try to load files through Cache, Cache will return me cached entry if it has it, only when cache does not find the item, it will call the Factory method, and create new instance of MyClass.
So you are reading files many times, but you are only creating instance of class that holds data just once. This pattern is only useful for caching purpose.
But if you are not caching, and every iteration requires to call new operator, then it makes no sense to use factory pattern at all.
Alternate Error Object or Error Logging
For some reason, if creation fails, List can create an error object, for example,
T defaultObject = ....
public T Add<T>(Func<T> factory) where T : ISerializable
{
T item;
try{
item = factory();
}catch(ex){
Log(ex);
item = defaultObject;
}
base.Add(item);
return item;
}
In this example, you can monitor factory if it generates an exception while creating new object, and when that happens, you Log the error, and return something else and keep some default value in list. I don't know what will be practical use of this, but Error Logging sounds better candidate here.

No, there's no general preference of passing the factory instead of the value. However, in very particular situations, you will prefer to pass the factory method instead of the value.
Think about it:
What's the difference between passing the parameter as a value, or
passing it as a factory method (e.g. using Func<T>)?
Answer is simple: order of execution.
In the first case, you need to pass the value, so you must obtain it before calling the target method.
In the second case, you can postpone the value creation/calculation/obtaining till it's needed by the target method.
Why would you want to postpone the value creation/calculation/obtaining? obvious things come to mind:
Processor-intensive or memory-intensive creation of the value, that you want to happen only in case the value is really needed (on-demand). This is Lazy loading then.
If the value creation depends on parameters that are accessible by the target method but not from outside of it. So, you would pass Func<T, T> instead of Func<T>.

The question compares methods with different purposes. The second one should be named CreateAndAdd<T>(Func<T> factory).
So depending what functionality is required, should be used one or another method.

Scope of string inside lambda

I have an interesting scenario in which I've built a validation checking system that maintains a series of requirements in the form List<Tuple<Func<bool>, string>> where the Func should return true if validation failed and false otherwise. The string is a corresponding rejection description that describes the condition should the test fail.
In more simple tests like the following the validation system is quite simple:
validationChecks.Add(Tuple.Create<Func<bool>, string>(() =>
value1 == requiredValue, "value 1 did not have the required value"));
I'm struggling to understand the scope of variables within the lambda for the Func in a more advanced scenario in which the rejection string is calculated in a call to another part of the system. The scenario looks something like this:
string rejectionString = null;
validationChecks.Add(Tuple.Create<Func<bool>, string>(() => {
rejectionString = CallToAnotherMethodThatReturnsString(parameter);
if (rejectionString != null) {
return true;
} else {
return false;
}
}, rejectionString));
EDIT: As observed through testing, when this check fails the rejectionString from the Tuple is still null. I want the rejectionString that was generated by the CallToAnotherMethod to be used instead, is there any way I can do this using ref or otherwise? I need the Func's code to be able to affect the value of the string inside Item2 of the Tuple.
The problem is that the code inside of CallToAnotherMethodThatReturnsString might be code that I only want executed ONCE. However should the check fail I want to use the string that would have been returned from it as my rejection description in the Tuple. I'm unable to tell at this point what the effect of my use of rejectionString in this second example will accomplish? Will rejectionString inside the Tuple always be null? Or if CallToAnotherMethodThatReturnsString returns a different value will it be updated?

Just an idea that might work. I think if you change your second Tuple parameter to a Func that returns string instead of string value, you could come close to what you need.
string rejectionString = null;
validationChecks.Add(Tuple.Create<Func<bool>, Func<string>>(() =>
{
rejectionString = CallToAnotherMethodThatReturnsString(parameter);
if (rejectionString != null) {
return true;
} else {return false;}
},
()=>rejectionString));
In the first case your validation check would be set as
validationChecks.Add(Tuple.Create<Func<bool>, Func<string>>(() => value1 == requiredValue, ()=>"value 1 did not have the required value"));
And your validation is logic is then
if(validationChecks[0].Item1()==false)
var error = validationChecks[0].Item2();

Anonymous type scoping issue

What is the proper way to create a variable that will house a list of anonymous objects that are generated through a LINQ query while keeping the variable declaration outside of a try/catch and the assignment being handled inside of a try/catch?
At the moment I'm declaring the variable as IEnumberable<object>, but this causes some issues down the road when I'm trying to use it later...
i.e.
var variableDeclaration;
try{
...
assignment
...
}catch...
EDIT:
If it's relevant (don't think it is) the list of objects is being returned as a Json result from an MVC3 action. I'm trying to reduce the time that some using statements are open with the DB as I'm having some performance issues that I'm trying to clear up a bit. In doing some of my testing I came across this issue and can't seem to find info on it.
EDIT 2:
If I could request the avoidance of focusing on LINQ. While LINQ is used the question is more specific to the scoping issues associated with Anonymous objects. Not the fact that LINQ is used (in this case) to generate them.
Also, a couple of answers have mentioned the use of dynamic while this will compile it doesn't allow for the usages that I'm needing later on the method. If what I'm wanting to do isn't possible then at the moment the answer appears to be to create a new class with the definition that I'm needing and to use that.

It's possible to get around this by creating a generic Cast method as outlined by Jon Skeet here. It will work and give you the intellisense you want. But, at this point, what's wrong with creating a custom type for your linq method?
public class MyClass
{
public int MyInt { get; set; }
}
IEnumerable<MyClass> myClass =
//Some Linq query that returns a collection of MyClass

Well, if you're using LINQ, the query is not evaluated unless materialized...
So, you might be able to:
var myQuery = //blah
try
{
myQuery = myQuery.ToList(); //or other materializing call
}
catch
{
}

Could you perhaps get away with using dynamic ??
dynamic variableDeclaration;
try
{
variableDeclaration = SomeList.Where(This => This == That);
}
catch { }
Not sure what this will affect further in your code block, but just a thought :)

If you are declaring the variable ahead of using it like a try/catch you can't use [var] as it is intendend. Instead you have to type the the variable.
var x = 0;
try{
x = SomethingReturningAnInt();
}
or
int x;
try{
x = SomethingReturningAnInt();
}
However in your case you don't really "know" what the method returns
var x = ...;
try{
x = Something();
}
catch{}
won't work
Option you have when you don't know the type in advance is use of dynamic:
dynamic x;
try{
x = Something();
}
catch{}
(But that feels like going back to VB4)

Another cheat: you can define variable locally (similarly to Jon's hack in Dave Zych answer) and than use it inside try/catch. As long as you can create the same anonymous item type before try-catch you are OK (as anonymous types wit the same field names and types are considered the same):
var myAnonymouslyType = Enumerable.Repeat(
new {Field1 = (int)1, Field2 = (string)"fake"}, 0);
try
{
myAnonymouslyType = ...(item =>
new {Field1 = item.Id, Field2=item.Text})...
}
...
This is safer option than covered in Jon's casting of anonymous types between functions because compiler will immediately find errors if types don't match.
Note: I'd vote for non-anonymous type if you have to go this way...
Note 2: depending on your actual need consider simply returning data from inside try/catch and having second return of default information outside.

This has vexed me for a while. In the end I've build some Generic helper methods where I can pass in the code that generates the anonymous objects, and the catch code as lamdas as follows
public static class TryCatch
{
public static T Expression<T>(Func<T> lamda, Action<Exception> onException)
{
try
{
return lamda();
}
catch(Exception e)
{
onException(e);
return default(T);
}
}
}
//and example
Exception throwexception = null;
var results = TryCatch.Expression(
//TRY
() =>
{
//simulate exception happening sometimes.
if (new Random().Next(3) == 2)
{
throw new Exception("test this");
}
//return an anonymous object
return new { a = 1, b = 2 };
} ,
//CATCH
(e) => { throwexception = e;
//retrow if you wish
//throw e;
}
);
https://gist.github.com/klumsy/6287279