Develop Reference

How to simulate method overloading based on generic return type in c#

I have a read model as IQueryable<CustomType>, I use this inside my Web application. A lot of time I need to extract from this read model different View Model.
I use to write extension method like:
public static ViewModelA AsViewModelA(this IQueryable<CustomType> query)
{
var vm = view
.Select(x => new ViewModelA
{
Something = x.Something
}).FirstOrDefault();
return vm;
}
public static ViewModelB AsViewModelB(this IQueryable<CustomType> query)
{
var vm = view
.Select(x => new ViewModelB
{
SomethingElse = x.SomethingElse
}).FirstOrDefault();
return vm;
}
This do the job but I don't like the mess generated with method names; a more generic way, something like this would be preferable:
query.AsViewModel<ViewModelA>()
I know that return type is not intended as method signature (so no overload applies) and I know that generic type is not sufficient to make an overload.
What I would is a mechanism to just simulate overloading based on generic type. This mechanism should avoid a main method with cascading if/then/else. There is a way? Maybe with dynamics?

One option is to have a map from the type to a conversion of CustomType to that type. So it would look something like:
private static readonly Dictionary<Type, Expression> Mappings =
new Dictionary<Type, Expression>
{
{ typeof(ViewModelA),
Helper<ViewModelA>(x => new ViewModelA { Something = x.Something }) },
{ typeof(ViewModelB),
Helper<ViewModelB>(x => new ViewModelB { SomethingElse = x.SomethingElse }) },
...
}
// This method just helps avoid casting all over the place.
// In C# 6 you could use an expression-bodied member - or add a
private static Expression<Func<CustomType, T>> Helper<T>
(Expression<Func<CustomType, T>> expression)
{
return expression;
}
public static T AsViewModel<T>(this IQueryable<CustomType> query)
{
Expression rawMapping;
if (!Mappings.TryGetValue(typeof(T), out rawMapping))
{
throw new InvalidOperationException("Or another exception...");
}
// This will always be valid if we've set up the dictionary properly
var mapping = (Expression<Func<CustomType, T>>) rawMapping;
return view.Select(mapping).FirstOrDefault();
}
You can make the dictionary construction a bit cleaner with a bit more up-front code.

Well, yes, you can use dynamic:
private static ViewModelA AsViewModelInternal(this IQueryable<CustomType> query,
ViewModelA dummy) { ... }
private static ViewModelB AsViewModelInternal(this IQueryable<CustomType> query,
ViewModelB dummy) { ... }
public static T AsViewModel<T>(this IQueryable<CustomType> query)
{
return (T)query.AsViewModelInternal(default(T));
}
Make sure to handle a non-existing overload, of course :) The easiest way is to add an overload that takes object as the last argument, so that you basically have a "fallback overload".
However, I wouldn't recommend that. One of the great benefits of generics is you get great compile-time checks. This generic method pretends to accept all possible T's, but it actually doesn't. It's the equivalent of taking object instead of ViewModelA/ViewModelB.
It's not like there's a world's difference between
query.AsViewModelB()
and
query.AsViewModel<ViewModelB>()
I'd only use the alternative if you often find yourself having to use a generic type argument when calling AsViewModel, i.e. when you don¨t know the specific 'type in advance.

C# Extension Method for Object

Is it a good idea to use an extension method on the Object class?
I was wondering if by registering this method if you were incurring a performance penalty as it would be loaded on every object that was loaded in the context.

In addition to another answers:
there would be no performance penalty because extension methods is compiler feature. Consider following code:
public static class MyExtensions
{
public static void MyMethod(this object) { ... }
}
object obj = new object();
obj.MyMethod();
The call to MyMethod will be actually compiled to:
MyExtensions.MyMethod(obj);

There will be no performance penalty as it doesn't attach to every type in the system, it's just available to be called on any type in the system. All that will happen is that the method will show on every single object in intellisense.
The question is: do you really need it to be on object, or can it be more specific. If it needs to be on object, the make it for object.

If you truly intend to extend every object, then doing so is the right thing to do. However, if your extension really only applies to a subset of objects, it should be applied to the highest hierarchical level that is necessary, but no more.
Also, the method will only be available where your namespace is imported.
I have extended Object for a method that attempts to cast to a specified type:
public static T TryCast<T>(this object input)
{
bool success;
return TryCast<T>(input, out success);
}
I also overloaded it to take in a success bool (like TryParse does):
public static T TryCast<T>(this object input, out bool success)
{
success = true;
if(input is T)
return (T)input;
success = false;
return default(T);
}
I have since expanded this to also attempt to parse input (by using ToString and using a converter), but that gets more complicated.

Is it a good idea to use an extension method on the Object class?
Yes, there are cases where it is a great idea in fact.Tthere is no performance penalty whatsoever by using an extension method on the Object class. As long as you don't call this method the performance of your application won't be affected at all.
For example consider the following extension method which lists all properties of a given object and converts it to a dictionary:
public static IDictionary<string, object> ObjectToDictionary(object instance)
{
var dictionary = new Dictionary<string, object>(StringComparer.OrdinalIgnoreCase);
if (instance != null)
{
foreach (var descriptor in TypeDescriptor.GetProperties(instance))
{
object value = descriptor.GetValue(instance);
dictionary.Add(descriptor.Name, value);
}
}
return dictionary;
}

The following example demonstrates the extension method in use.
namespace NamespaceName
{
public static class CommonUtil
{
public static string ListToString(this IList list)
{
StringBuilder result = new StringBuilder("");
if (list.Count > 0)
{
result.Append(list[0].ToString());
for (int i = 1; i < list.Count; i++)
result.AppendFormat(", {0}", list[i].ToString());
}
return result.ToString();
}
}
}
The following example demonstrates how this method can be used.
var _list = DataContextORM.ExecuteQuery<string>("Select name from products").ToList();
string result = _list.ListToString();

This is an old question but I don't see any answers here that try to reuse the existing find function for objects that are active. Here's a succinct extension method with an optional overload for finding inactive objects.
using System.Linq;
namespace UnityEngine {
public static class GameObjectExtensionMethods {
public static GameObject Find(this GameObject gameObject, string name,
bool inactive = false) {
if (inactive)
return Resources.FindObjectsOfTypeAll<GameObject>().Where(
a => a.name == name).FirstOrDefault();
else
return GameObject.Find(name);
}
}
}
If you use this function within the Update method you might consider changing the LINQ statement with an array for loop traversal to eliminate garbage generation.

Using a class derived from generic list with LINQ

I have two classes, CheckboxItemsList which extends a generic list, and CheckboxItems, which contains a list of objects of type CheckboxItem.
I want to use LINQ to be able to filter CheckboxItemsList based on properties of its CheckboxItems objects. The return type is always a generic list, though, but I want it to be a CheckboxItemsList.
So I guess the basic question is, can linq be made to return a list of the same type that it starts with? Since I can't cast a base class to a derived class, do I have any option other than iterating through the results of the linq query and rebuilding the derived list object row by row? Not that this is the end of the world, but I'm relatively new to linq and was wondering it there is a better way to do it.
What I want:
CheckboxItemsList newList = MyCheckboxItemsList.Where(item=>item.Changed);
(obviously doesn't work since the query will return List<CheckboxItems>, not CheckboxItemsList)
The objects, generally:
public class CheckboxItemsList: List<CheckboxItems>
{
// does not add any fields, just access methods
}
public class CheckboxItems : IEnumerable<CheckboxItem>
{
public long PrimaryKey=0;
protected CheckboxItem[] InnerList;
public bool Changed
{
get {
return (InnerList.Any(item => item.Changed));
}
}
....
}

No, this is not possible out of the box. You'll need to add code to do this.
For example, you can add a constructor like so:
public CheckboxItemsList(IEnumerable<CheckboxItems> checkboxItems) {
// something happens
}
Then you can say
CheckboxItemsList newList = new CheckboxItemsList(
MyCheckboxItemsList.Where(item => item.Changed)
);
Additionally, you could add an extension method like so
static class IEnumerableCheckboxItemsExtensions {
public static ToCheckboxItemsList(
this IEnumerable<CheckboxItems> checkboxItems
) {
return new CheckboxItemsList(checkboxItems);
}
}
and then
CheckboxItemsList newList =
MyCheckboxItemsList.Where(item => item.Changed)
.ToCheckboxItemsList();

LINQ works on IEnumerable<T> and IQueryable<T> and the result types of all LINQ operations (Where, Select) etc, will return one of those. The standard ToList function returns a concrete list of type List<T>, you may need to come up with an extension method, e.g.:
public static CheckboxItemsList ToItemList(this IEnumerable<CheckboxItem> enumerable)
{
return new CheckboxItemsList(enumerable);
}

No, there's no built-in way to do this. You have two main options:
Add a constructor to your CheckboxItemsList class that takes an IEnumerable<CheckboxItems> or similar. Pass that collection on to the base List<T> constructor that takes an IEnumerable<T>. That base constructor should then populate the list for you:
var newList =
new CheckboxItemsList(MyCheckboxItemsList.Where(item=>item.Changed));
// ...
public class CheckboxItemsList : List<CheckboxItems>
{
public CheckboxItemsList(IEnumerable<CheckboxItems> collection)
: base(collection)
{
}
}
Create an extension method that takes an IEnumerable<CheckboxItems> or similar and returns a populated CheckboxItemsList:
var newList = MyCheckboxItemsList.Where(item=>item.Changed)
.ToCheckboxItemsList();
// ...
public static class EnumerableExtensions
{
public static CheckboxItemsList ToCheckboxItemsList(
this IEnumerable<CheckboxItems> source)
{
var list = new CheckboxItemsList();
foreach (T item in source)
{
list.Add(item);
}
return list;
}
}
(Of course, for completeness you could implement both of these options. The extension method would then just pass its IEnumerable<CheckboxItems> argument on to the constructor rather than manually looping and adding each item.)

You can also use "Conversion Operator", as below:
public class CheckboxItemsList: List<CheckboxItems>
{
public static implicit operator CheckboxItems(IEnumerable<CheckboxItems> items)
{
var list = new CheckboxItemsList();
foreach (var item in items)
{
list.Add(item);
}
return list;
}
}
Now, the below code would work.
CheckboxItemsList newList = MyCheckboxItemsList.Where(item=>item.Changed);
From MSDN:
A conversion operator declaration that includes the implicit keyword introduces a user-defined implicit conversion. Implicit conversions can occur in a variety of situations, including function member invocations, cast expressions, and assignments. This is described further in Section 6.1.
A conversion operator declaration that includes the explicit keyword introduces a user-defined explicit conversion. Explicit conversions can occur in cast expressions, and are described further in Section 6.2.

Here is what I came up with, building on the various suggestions of others. A generic extension method:
public static T ToList<T>(this IEnumerable baseList) where T : IList,new()
{
T newList = new T();
foreach (object obj in baseList)
{
newList.Add(obj);
}
return (newList);
}
So now I can do what I want:
CheckboxItemsList newList = MyCheckboxItemsList.Where(item=>item.Changed)
.ToList<CheckboxItemsList>();
Another pretty obvious solution occurred to me, which is also useful for situations where the derived list class has field properties that I need to maintain in the new list.
Just create a new instance of my derived list class, and use AddRange to populate it.
// When created with a CheckboxItemsList parameter, it creates a new empty
// list but copies fields
CheckboxItemsList newList = new CheckboxItemsList(OriginalList);
newList.AddRange(OriginalList.Where(item => item.Changed));

C# Generic overloading of List<T> : How would this be done?

The StringBuilder class allows you, in what I consider to be a very intuitive way, to chain method calls to .Append(), .AppendFormat() and some others like so:
StringBuilder sb = new StringBuilder();
sb.Append("first string")
.Append("second string);
The List class' .Add() method, on the other hand, returns void - so chaining calls doesn't work. This, in my opinion and the immortal words of Jayne Cobb "just don' make no kinda sense".
I admit that my understanding of Generics is very basic, but I would like to overload the .Add() method (and others) so that they return the original object, and allow chaining. Any and all assistance will be rewarded with further Firefly quotes.

If you want to keep the same name for the Add method, you could hide the method from the base class:
public class MyList<T> : List<T>
{
public new MyList<T> Add(T item)
{
base.Add(item);
return this;
}
}
However, this will only work if you're manipulating the list with a variable explicitly typed as MyList<T> (i.e. it won't work if your variable is declared as IList<T> for instance). So I think the solutions involving an extension method are better, even if that means changing the name of the method.
Although others have already posted solutions with extension methods, here's another one, that has the advantage of conserving the actual type of the collection:
public static class ExtensionMethods
{
public static TCollection Append<TCollection, TItem>(this TCollection collection, TItem item)
where TCollection : ICollection<TItem>
{
collection.Add(item);
return collection;
}
}
Use it like that:
var list = new List<string>();
list.Append("Hello").Append("World");

use can create extension method
public static class ListExtensions
{
public static List<T> AddItem<T>(this List<T> self, T item)
{
self.Add(item);
return self;
}
}
var l = new List<int>();
l.AddItem(1).AddItem(2);
EDIT
we can also make this method generic over collection parameter
public static class ListExtensions
{
public static TC AddItem<TC, T>(this TC self, T item)
where TC : ICollection<T>
{
self.Add(item);
return self;
}
}
var c1 = new Collection<int>();
c1.AddItem(1).AddItem(2);
var c2 = new List<int>();
c2.AddItem(10).AddItem(20);
EDIT 2:
Maybe someone will find this trick useful, it is possible to utilize nested object initializer and collection initializer for setting properties and adding values into existing instances.
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Linq;
struct I<T>
{
public readonly T V;
public I(T v)
{
V = v;
}
}
class Obj
{
public int A { get; set; }
public string B { get; set; }
public override string ToString()
{
return string.Format("A={0}, B={1}", A, B);
}
}
class Program
{
static void Main()
{
var list = new List<int> { 100 };
new I<List<int>>(list)
{
V = { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 }
};
Console.WriteLine(string.Join(" ", list.Select(x => x.ToString()).ToArray())); // 100 1 2 3 4 5 6
var obj = new Obj { A = 10, B = "!!!" };
Console.WriteLine(obj); // A=10, B=!!!
new I<Obj>(obj)
{
V = { B = "Changed!" }
};
Console.WriteLine(obj); // A=10, B=Changed!
}
}

public static IList<T> Anything-not-Add*<T>(this IList<T> list, T item)
{
list.Add(item);
return list;
}
* AddItem, Append, AppendList, etc. (see comments below)
The same idea came to my mind like other guys' too, independently:
public static TList Anything<TList, TItem>(this TList list, TItem item)
where TList : IList<TItem>
{
list.Add(item);
return list;
}
And Thomas is right: as far as IList<T> inherits ICollection<T> you should use ICollection.

Have an extension method off:
public static List<T> Append(this List<T> list, T item)
{
list.Add(item);
return self;
}
Note that we have to create it with a new name, as if an instance member matches the signature (the 'Add' you are already complaining about) then the extension method won't be called.
In all though, I'd recommend against this. While I like chaining myself, it's being rare in C# libraries means it's not as idiomatic as it is in other languages where it's more common (no technical reason for this, though some differences in how properties work encourages it a bit more in some other languages, just the way things are in terms of what is common). Because of this, the constructs it enables aren't as familiar in C# as elsewhere, and your code is more likely to be misread by another dev.

You could use an extension method with a different name:
public static T Put<T, U>(this T collection, U item) where T : ICollection<U> {
collection.Add(item);
return collection;
}
To create code like this:
var list = new List<int>();
list.Put(1).Put(2).Put(3);
To retain the name Add, however, you can have a method like this:
public static T Add<T, U>(this T collection, Func<U> itemProducer)
where T : ICollection<U> {
collection.Add(itemProducer());
return collection;
}
And create code like this:
list.Add(()=>1).Add(()=>2).Add(()=>3);
It doesn't look that good though.
Maybe if we change the type we can have a better syntax.
Given this class:
public class ListBuilder<T> {
IList<T> _list;
public ListBuilder(IList<T> list) {
_list = list;
}
public ListBuilder<T> Add(T item) {
_list.Add(item);
return this;
}
}
You can have this method:
public static ListBuilder<T> Edit<T>(this IList<T> list) {
return new ListBuilder<T>(list);
}
And use code like this:
list.Edit().Add(1).Add(2).Add(3);

I'm sure you won't appreciate this answer but there's a very good reason that List<>.Add() works this way. It is very fast, it needs to be to be competitive with an array and because it is such a low-level method. It is however just a hair too big to get inlined by the JIT optimizer. It cannot optimize the return statement you'd need to return the list reference.
Writing lst.Add(obj) in your code is for free, the lst reference is available in a CPU register.
A version of Add() that returns the reference makes the code almost 5% slower. It's a lot worse for the proposed extension method, there an entire extra stack frame involved.

I like the extension approach that others have mentioned as that seems to answer the question well (although you would have to give it a different method signature than the existing Add()). Also, it does seem like there's some inconsistency about object returns on calls like this (I thought it was a mutability issue, but the stringbuilder is mutable isn't it?), so you raise an interesting question.
I'm curious, though, if the AddRange method would not work as an out-of-the-box solution? Is there a particular reason you want to chain the commands instead of passing everything in as a an array?
Would do something like this not accomplish what you need?
List<string> list = new List<string>();
list.AddRange(new string[]{
"first string",
"second string",
});

Passing a single item as IEnumerable<T>

Is there a common way to pass a single item of type T to a method which expects an IEnumerable<T> parameter? Language is C#, framework version 2.0.
Currently I am using a helper method (it's .Net 2.0, so I have a whole bunch of casting/projecting helper methods similar to LINQ), but this just seems silly:
public static class IEnumerableExt
{
// usage: IEnumerableExt.FromSingleItem(someObject);
public static IEnumerable<T> FromSingleItem<T>(T item)
{
yield return item;
}
}
Other way would of course be to create and populate a List<T> or an Array and pass it instead of IEnumerable<T>.
[Edit] As an extension method it might be named:
public static class IEnumerableExt
{
// usage: someObject.SingleItemAsEnumerable();
public static IEnumerable<T> SingleItemAsEnumerable<T>(this T item)
{
yield return item;
}
}
Am I missing something here?
[Edit2] We found someObject.Yield() (as #Peter suggested in the comments below) to be the best name for this extension method, mainly for brevity, so here it is along with the XML comment if anyone wants to grab it:
public static class IEnumerableExt
{
/// <summary>
/// Wraps this object instance into an IEnumerable<T>
/// consisting of a single item.
/// </summary>
/// <typeparam name="T"> Type of the object. </typeparam>
/// <param name="item"> The instance that will be wrapped. </param>
/// <returns> An IEnumerable<T> consisting of a single item. </returns>
public static IEnumerable<T> Yield<T>(this T item)
{
yield return item;
}
}

Well, if the method expects an IEnumerable you've got to pass something that is a list, even if it contains one element only.
passing
new[] { item }
as the argument should be enough I think

In C# 3.0 you can utilize the System.Linq.Enumerable class:
// using System.Linq
Enumerable.Repeat(item, 1);
This will create a new IEnumerable that only contains your item.

Your helper method is the cleanest way to do it, IMO. If you pass in a list or an array, then an unscrupulous piece of code could cast it and change the contents, leading to odd behaviour in some situations. You could use a read-only collection, but that's likely to involve even more wrapping. I think your solution is as neat as it gets.

In C# 3 (I know you said 2), you can write a generic extension method which might make the syntax a little more acceptable:
static class IEnumerableExtensions
{
public static IEnumerable<T> ToEnumerable<T>(this T item)
{
yield return item;
}
}
client code is then item.ToEnumerable().

This helper method works for item or many.
public static IEnumerable<T> ToEnumerable<T>(params T[] items)
{
return items;
}

I'm kind of surprised that no one suggested a new overload of the method with an argument of type T to simplify the client API.
public void DoSomething<T>(IEnumerable<T> list)
{
// Do Something
}
public void DoSomething<T>(T item)
{
DoSomething(new T[] { item });
}
Now your client code can just do this:
MyItem item = new MyItem();
Obj.DoSomething(item);
or with a list:
List<MyItem> itemList = new List<MyItem>();
Obj.DoSomething(itemList);

Either (as has previously been said)
MyMethodThatExpectsAnIEnumerable(new[] { myObject });
or
MyMethodThatExpectsAnIEnumerable(Enumerable.Repeat(myObject, 1));
As a side note, the last version can also be nice if you want an empty list of an anonymous object, e.g.
var x = MyMethodThatExpectsAnIEnumerable(Enumerable.Repeat(new { a = 0, b = "x" }, 0));

I agree with #EarthEngine's comments to the original post, which is that 'AsSingleton' is a better name. See this wikipedia entry. Then it follows from the definition of singleton that if a null value is passed as an argument that 'AsSingleton' should return an IEnumerable with a single null value instead of an empty IEnumerable which would settle the if (item == null) yield break; debate. I think the best solution is to have two methods: 'AsSingleton' and 'AsSingletonOrEmpty'; where, in the event that a null is passed as an argument, 'AsSingleton' will return a single null value and 'AsSingletonOrEmpty' will return an empty IEnumerable. Like this:
public static IEnumerable<T> AsSingletonOrEmpty<T>(this T source)
{
if (source == null)
{
yield break;
}
else
{
yield return source;
}
}
public static IEnumerable<T> AsSingleton<T>(this T source)
{
yield return source;
}
Then, these would, more or less, be analogous to the 'First' and 'FirstOrDefault' extension methods on IEnumerable which just feels right.

This is 30% faster than yield or Enumerable.Repeat when used in foreach due to this C# compiler optimization, and of the same performance in other cases.
public struct SingleSequence<T> : IEnumerable<T> {
public struct SingleEnumerator : IEnumerator<T> {
private readonly SingleSequence<T> _parent;
private bool _couldMove;
public SingleEnumerator(ref SingleSequence<T> parent) {
_parent = parent;
_couldMove = true;
}
public T Current => _parent._value;
object IEnumerator.Current => Current;
public void Dispose() { }
public bool MoveNext() {
if (!_couldMove) return false;
_couldMove = false;
return true;
}
public void Reset() {
_couldMove = true;
}
}
private readonly T _value;
public SingleSequence(T value) {
_value = value;
}
public IEnumerator<T> GetEnumerator() {
return new SingleEnumerator(ref this);
}
IEnumerator IEnumerable.GetEnumerator() {
return new SingleEnumerator(ref this);
}
}
in this test:
// Fastest among seqs, but still 30x times slower than direct sum
// 49 mops vs 37 mops for yield, or c.30% faster
[Test]
public void SingleSequenceStructForEach() {
var sw = new Stopwatch();
sw.Start();
long sum = 0;
for (var i = 0; i < 100000000; i++) {
foreach (var single in new SingleSequence<int>(i)) {
sum += single;
}
}
sw.Stop();
Console.WriteLine($"Elapsed {sw.ElapsedMilliseconds}");
Console.WriteLine($"Mops {100000.0 / sw.ElapsedMilliseconds * 1.0}");
}

As I have just found, and seen that user LukeH suggested too, a nice simple way of doing this is as follows:
public static void PerformAction(params YourType[] items)
{
// Forward call to IEnumerable overload
PerformAction(items.AsEnumerable());
}
public static void PerformAction(IEnumerable<YourType> items)
{
foreach (YourType item in items)
{
// Do stuff
}
}
This pattern will allow you to call the same functionality in a multitude of ways: a single item; multiple items (comma-separated); an array; a list; an enumeration, etc.
I'm not 100% sure on the efficiency of using the AsEnumerable method though, but it does work a treat.
Update: The AsEnumerable function looks pretty efficient! (reference)

Although it's overkill for one method, I believe some people may find the Interactive Extensions useful.
The Interactive Extensions (Ix) from Microsoft includes the following method.
public static IEnumerable<TResult> Return<TResult>(TResult value)
{
yield return value;
}
Which can be utilized like so:
var result = EnumerableEx.Return(0);
Ix adds new functionality not found in the original Linq extension methods, and is a direct result of creating the Reactive Extensions (Rx).
Think, Linq Extension Methods + Ix = Rx for IEnumerable.
You can find both Rx and Ix on CodePlex.

I recently asked the same thing on another post
Is there a way to call a C# method requiring an IEnumerable<T> with a single value? ...with benchmarking.
I wanted people stopping by here to see the brief benchmark comparison shown at that newer post for 4 of the approaches presented in these answers.
It seems that simply writing new[] { x } in the arguments to the method is the shortest and fastest solution.

This may not be any better but it's kind of cool:
Enumerable.Range(0, 1).Select(i => item);

Sometimes I do this, when I'm feeling impish:
"_".Select(_ => 3.14) // or whatever; any type is fine
This is the same thing with less shift key presses, heh:
from _ in "_" select 3.14
For a utility function I find this to be the least verbose, or at least more self-documenting than an array, although it'll let multiple values slide; as a plus it can be defined as a local function:
static IEnumerable<T> Enumerate (params T[] v) => v;
// usage:
IEnumerable<double> example = Enumerate(1.234);
Here are all of the other ways I was able to think of (runnable here):
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Linq;
public class Program {
public static IEnumerable<T> ToEnumerable1 <T> (T v) {
yield return v;
}
public static T[] ToEnumerable2 <T> (params T[] vs) => vs;
public static void Main () {
static IEnumerable<T> ToEnumerable3 <T> (params T[] v) => v;
p( new string[] { "three" } );
p( new List<string> { "three" } );
p( ToEnumerable1("three") ); // our utility function (yield return)
p( ToEnumerable2("three") ); // our utility function (params)
p( ToEnumerable3("three") ); // our local utility function (params)
p( Enumerable.Empty<string>().Append("three") );
p( Enumerable.Empty<string>().DefaultIfEmpty("three") );
p( Enumerable.Empty<string>().Prepend("three") );
p( Enumerable.Range(3, 1) ); // only for int
p( Enumerable.Range(0, 1).Select(_ => "three") );
p( Enumerable.Repeat("three", 1) );
p( "_".Select(_ => "three") ); // doesn't have to be "_"; just any one character
p( "_".Select(_ => 3.3333) );
p( from _ in "_" select 3.0f );
p( "a" ); // only for char
// these weren't available for me to test (might not even be valid):
// new Microsoft.Extensions.Primitives.StringValues("three")
}
static void p <T> (IEnumerable<T> e) =>
Console.WriteLine(string.Join(' ', e.Select((v, k) => $"[{k}]={v,-8}:{v.GetType()}").DefaultIfEmpty("<empty>")));
}

For those wondering about performance, while #mattica has provided some benchmarking information in a similar question referenced above, My benchmark tests, however, have provided a different result.
In .NET 7, yield return value is ~9% faster than new T[] { value } and allocates 75% the amount of memory. In most cases, this is already hyper-performant and is as good as you'll ever need.
I was curious if a custom single collection implementation would be faster or more lightweight. It turns out because yield return is implemented as IEnumerator<T> and IEnumerable<T>, the only way to beat it in terms of allocation is to do that in my implementation as well.
If you're passing IEnumerable<> to an outside library, I would strongly recommend not doing this unless you're very familiar with what you're building. That being said, I made a very simple (not-reuse-safe) implementation which was able to beat the yield method by 5ns and allocated only half as much as the array.
Because all tests were passed an IEnumerable<T>, value types generally performed worse than reference types. The best implementation I had was actually the simplest - you can look at the SingleCollection class in the gist I linked to. (This was 2ns faster than yield return, but allocated 88% of what the array would, compared to the 75% allocated for yield return.)
TL:DR; if you care about speed, use yield return item. If you really care about speed, use a SingleCollection.

The easiest way I'd say would be new T[]{item};; there's no syntax to do this. The closest equivalent that I can think of is the params keyword, but of course that requires you to have access to the method definition and is only usable with arrays.

Enumerable.Range(1,1).Select(_ => {
//Do some stuff... side effects...
return item;
});
The above code is useful when using like
var existingOrNewObject = MyData.Where(myCondition)
.Concat(Enumerable.Range(1,1).Select(_ => {
//Create my object...
return item;
})).Take(1).First();
In the above code snippet there is no empty/null check, and it is guaranteed to have only one object returned without afraid of exceptions. Furthermore, because it is lazy, the closure will not be executed until it is proved there is no existing data fits the criteria.

To be filed under "Not necessarily a good solution, but still...a solution" or "Stupid LINQ tricks", you could combine Enumerable.Empty<>() with Enumerable.Append<>()...
IEnumerable<string> singleElementEnumerable = Enumerable.Empty<string>().Append("Hello, World!");
...or Enumerable.Prepend<>()...
IEnumerable<string> singleElementEnumerable = Enumerable.Empty<string>().Prepend("Hello, World!");
The latter two methods are available since .NET Framework 4.7.1 and .NET Core 1.0.
This is a workable solution if one were really intent on using existing methods instead of writing their own, though I'm undecided if this is more or less clear than the Enumerable.Repeat<>() solution. This is definitely longer code (partly due to type parameter inference not being possible for Empty<>()) and creates twice as many enumerator objects, however.
Rounding out this "Did you know these methods exist?" answer, Array.Empty<>() could be substituted for Enumerable.Empty<>(), but it's hard to argue that makes the situation...better.

I'm a bit late to the party but I'll share my way anyway.
My problem was that I wanted to bind the ItemSource or a WPF TreeView to a single object. The hierarchy looks like this:
Project > Plot(s) > Room(s)
There was always going to be only one Project but I still wanted to Show the project in the Tree, without having to pass a Collection with only that one object in it like some suggested.
Since you can only pass IEnumerable objects as ItemSource I decided to make my class IEnumerable:
public class ProjectClass : IEnumerable<ProjectClass>
{
private readonly SingleItemEnumerator<AufmassProjekt> enumerator;
...
public IEnumerator<ProjectClass > GetEnumerator() => this.enumerator;
IEnumerator IEnumerable.GetEnumerator() => this.GetEnumerator();
}
And create my own Enumerator accordingly:
public class SingleItemEnumerator : IEnumerator
{
private bool hasMovedOnce;
public SingleItemEnumerator(object current)
{
this.Current = current;
}
public bool MoveNext()
{
if (this.hasMovedOnce) return false;
this.hasMovedOnce = true;
return true;
}
public void Reset()
{ }
public object Current { get; }
}
public class SingleItemEnumerator<T> : IEnumerator<T>
{
private bool hasMovedOnce;
public SingleItemEnumerator(T current)
{
this.Current = current;
}
public void Dispose() => (this.Current as IDisposable).Dispose();
public bool MoveNext()
{
if (this.hasMovedOnce) return false;
this.hasMovedOnce = true;
return true;
}
public void Reset()
{ }
public T Current { get; }
object IEnumerator.Current => this.Current;
}
This is probably not the "cleanest" solution but it worked for me.
EDIT
To uphold the single responsibility principle as #Groo pointed out I created a new wrapper class:
public class SingleItemWrapper : IEnumerable
{
private readonly SingleItemEnumerator enumerator;
public SingleItemWrapper(object item)
{
this.enumerator = new SingleItemEnumerator(item);
}
public object Item => this.enumerator.Current;
public IEnumerator GetEnumerator() => this.enumerator;
}
public class SingleItemWrapper<T> : IEnumerable<T>
{
private readonly SingleItemEnumerator<T> enumerator;
public SingleItemWrapper(T item)
{
this.enumerator = new SingleItemEnumerator<T>(item);
}
public T Item => this.enumerator.Current;
public IEnumerator<T> GetEnumerator() => this.enumerator;
IEnumerator IEnumerable.GetEnumerator() => this.GetEnumerator();
}
Which I used like this
TreeView.ItemSource = new SingleItemWrapper(itemToWrap);
EDIT 2
I corrected a mistake with the MoveNext() method.

I prefer
public static IEnumerable<T> Collect<T>(this T item, params T[] otherItems)
{
yield return item;
foreach (var otherItem in otherItems)
{
yield return otherItem;
}
}
This lets you call item.Collect() if you want the singleton, but it also lets you call item.Collect(item2, item3) if you want