I am still learning the basics of C# and found a task where you have to implement the method below, it is supposed to return the same sequence of strings but uppercase, and I assume by sequence it means an array.
But I am also somehow supposed to use IEnumerable for this.
I thought IEnumerable was an interface, how is it a type and a parameter in that method I am supposed to add logic into?
I searched and found that return type IEnumerable means it has to return something that can implement IEnumerable, but the parameters still confuse me, how do I use them to return uppercase? Do I use a foreach ?
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
namespace EnumerableTask
{
public class EnumerableManipulation
{
/// <summary> Transforms all strings to upper case.</summary>
/// <param name="data">Source string sequence.</param>
public IEnumerable<string> GetUppercaseStrings(IEnumerable<string> data)
{
}
}
You can use Linq Select() which would return an IEnumerable. ie:
public IEnumerable<string> GetUppercaseStrings(IEnumerable<string> data)
{
return data.Select(d => d.ToUpper());
}
EDIT: You can check Linq documentation or my blog starting from the oldest post (Feb 2009) at:
FoxSharp
You can also use foreach and yield:
public IEnumerable<string> GetUppercaseStrings(IEnumerable<string> data)
{
foreach (var item in data)
yield return item?.ToUpper();
}
IEnumerable<T> is a generic interface. It represents a collection of objects of type T. In your case, data is a collection of string that can be enumerated.
Enumerate a IEnumerable
To enumerate through the 'data' and acccess the elements one after the others, there is several possibilities. Here are two examples.
GetEnumerator()
GetEnumerator() gives you a way to enumerate through the IEnumerable<T>. enumerator.Current allows you to access the current element and enumerator.MoveNext() gives you a way to move to the next element in the collection.
At first use call MoveNext() method to place the enumerator at the first element of the IEnumerable<T>. While there is still elements to enumerate, MoveNext() will return true. When the end is reached, MoveNext() returns false.
Here is an example of how it is typically used.
IEnumerator<string> enumerator = data.GetEnumerator();
while(enumerator.MoveNext())
{
string text = data.Current;
/* Do something */
}
enumerator.Dispose();
foreach
Using foreach takes care of all the complexity of the enumerator process. It is in fact recommended to use foreach instead of directly manipulating the enumerator (see Microsoft Docs, in Remarks).
foreach(string text in data)
{
/* Do something */
}
Return a IEnumerable
Because IEnumerable<T> is an interface, you cannot "construct" it as you would with a class or a struct. Hence to return a IEnumerable<T>, you have to instanciate an actual class or a struct that implements this interface. For example:
public IEnumerable<string> Foo()
{
List<string> list = new List<string>();
/* Do something on the list*/
return list;
}
or
public IEnumerable<string> Foo(int count)
{
string[] array = new string[count];
/* Do something on the array*/
return array;
}
You can do this because List<T> and Array implement the interface IEnumerable<string>.
I was wondering if someone could help me understand the following behavior. In the following code, I am creating a CustomObject instance, which contains a single Property of type IEnumerable<IEnunumerable>>.
I also have an extension Method on IEnumerable<T> called AsDataTable.
public class CustomObject
{
public IEnumerable<IEnumerable> Collection {get;set;}
}
public static class ExtensionMethods
{
public static bool AsDataTable<T>(this IEnumerable<T> list)
{
Console.Write("In extension method");
return default(bool);
}
}
void Main()
{
var ttObject = new CustomObject()
{
Collection = new List<IEnumerable>
{
new List<int>{1,2,3},
new [] {new{A="abc",B="def"}}
}
};
var dummy = new []{new {a='r'}}.AsDataTable();
foreach(var item in ttObject.Collection)
{
var temp = item.AsDataTable();
Console.WriteLine($"Item is IEnumerable : {item is IEnumerable}");
}
}
What makes me wonder if the following line of code works (or rather compiles)
var dummy = new []{new {a='r',b='3'}}.AsDataTable();
while when I loop over the Collection Property of CustomObject and then do the same it doesn't allow me to compile.
var temp = item.AsDataTable(); // this doesn't work
Curiously the following line returns true reconfirming 'item' is indeed IEnumerable.
Console.WriteLine($"Item is IEnumerable : {item is IEnumerable}");
I guess it is because the extension method is written over Generic version IEnumerable<T>, but then how is it that it works over the anonymous type array (outside the CustomObject).
IEnumerable<T> implements IEnumerable, not vice versa.
Through a bit of runtime hacking, SomeType[] actually does implement IEnumerable<SomeType>. On the other hand, IEnumerable doesn't - and overload resolution is done at compile time, so the compiler has no idea that your IEnumerable items in the collection actually also implement IEnumerable<int>.
If you need to work with IEnumerable, you need to use that in your extension method.
I was looking into the IEnumerable and trying the example given in this link. I understand that when we iterate using foreach the GetEnumerator() method gets call because my List class has implemented IEnumerable (or may be I am wrong).
public class List<T> : IEnumerable
{
private T[] _collection;
public List(T[] inputs)
{
_collection = new T[inputs.Length];
for (int i = 0; i < inputs.Length; i++)
{
_collection[i] = inputs[i];
}
}
IEnumerator IEnumerable.GetEnumerator()
{
return (IEnumerator)GetEnumerator();
}
public CollectionEnum<T> GetEnumerator()
{
return new CollectionEnum<T>(_collection);
}
}
public class CollectionEnum<T> : IEnumerator
{
public T[] _collection ;
int position = -1;
public CollectionEnum(T[] list)
{
_collection = list;
}
public bool MoveNext()
{
position++;
return (position < _collection.Length);
}
//implementation on Current and Reset
}
Then, it is also mentioned that implementation of IEnumerable is not required to iterate using foreach. So, in the above code if I remove the implementation of IEnumerable the foreach must work. So my List<> class looks like
public class List<T>
{
private T[] _collection;
public List(T[] persons)
{
_collection = new T[persons.Length];
for (int i = 0; i < persons.Length; i++)
{
_collection[i] = persons[i];
}
}
public CollectionEnum<T> GetEnumerator()
{
return new CollectionEnum<T>(_collection);
}
}
And which does work. Now I did not understand how foreach knows my class has a method call GetEnumerator() which returns a IEnumerator type.
The article you linked to provided the explanation to you already in the remarks.
If your collection does not implement IEnumerable, you must still
follow the iterator pattern to support this syntax by providing a
GetEnumerator method that returns an interface, class or struct....that contains a Current property, and MoveNext and Reset methods as
described by IEnumerator, but the class does not have to implement
IEnumerator.
As Nkosi mentions, in interpreting foreach, the compiler looks for a pattern originally represented in IEnumerable and IEnumerator.
Earlier versions of the C# compiler required the implementation of these interfaces. However, with the advent of LINQ, the language and compiler have been adjusted to do more of recognizing patterns.
For instance, you can create a LINQ query around an object that has a Where method but doesn't implement IEnumerable.
Similarly, you can await any object that follows the Awaitable Pattern not just Task or Task.
Once you understand the particular methods the compiler is looking for to satisfy a pattern it becomes easier to wrap your head around why IEnumerable is not required for foreach. Remember also that foreach is really just syntactic sugar for traversing a collection of objects.
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
I am writing a custom ConfigurationElementCollection for a custom ConfigurationHandler in C#.NET 3.5 and I am wanting to expose the IEnumerator as a generic IEnumerator.
What would be the best way to achieve this?
I am currently using the code:
public new IEnumerator<GenericObject> GetEnumerator()
{
var list = new List();
var baseEnum = base.GetEnumerator();
while(baseEnum.MoveNext())
{
var obj = baseEnum.Current as GenericObject;
if (obj != null)
list.Add(obj);
}
return list.GetEnumerator();
}
Cheers
I don't believe there's anything in the framework, but you could easily write one:
IEnumerator<T> Cast<T>(IEnumerator iterator)
{
while (iterator.MoveNext())
{
yield return (T) iterator.Current;
}
}
It's tempting to just call Enumerable.Cast<T> from LINQ and then call GetEnumerator() on the result - but if your class already implements IEnumerable<T> and T is a value type, that acts as a no-op, so the GetEnumerator() call recurses and throws a StackOverflowException. It's safe to use return foo.Cast<T>.GetEnumerator(); when foo is definitely a different object (which doesn't delegate back to this one) but otherwise, you're probably best off using the code above.
IEnumerable<T> already derives from IEnumerable so there's no need to do any conversion. You can simply cast to it...well actually it's implicit no cast necessary.
IEnumerable<T> enumerable = GetGenericFromSomewhere();
IEnumerable sadOldEnumerable = enumerable;
return sadOldEnumerable.GetEnumerator();
Going the other way round isn't much more difficult with LINQ:
var fancyEnumerable = list.OfType<GenericObject>();
return fancyEnumerable.GetEnumerator();
You can use OfType<T> and Cast<T>.
public static IEnumerable Digits()
{
return new[]{1, 15, 68, 1235, 12390, 1239};
}
var enumerable = Digits().OfType<int>();
foreach (var item in enumerable)
// var is here an int. Without the OfType<int(), it would be an object
Console.WriteLine(i);
To get an IEnumerator<T> instead of an IEnumerable<T> you can just make a call to GetEnumerator()
var enumerator = Digits().OfType<int>().GetEnumerator();
I was running into the same Stack Overflow problem mentioned is some of the comments. In my case it was due to the fact that the GetEnumerator call needed to be to the base.GetEnumerator otherwise you loop within your own GetEnumerator redefinition.
This is the code that was Throwing the Stack Overflow. The use of the foreach statement call the same GetEnumerator function I'm trying to overload:
public new IEnumerator<T> GetEnumerator()
{
foreach (T type in this)
{
yield return type;
}
}
I've ended up with a simplified version of the original post as you don't need to use a List holder.
public class ElementCollection<T> : ConfigurationElementCollection, IList<T>
...
public new IEnumerator<T> GetEnumerator()
{
var baseEnum = base.GetEnumerator();
while (baseEnum.MoveNext())
{
yield return baseEnum.Current as T;
}
}
...
}
This works for me.
IEnumerator<DataColumn> columnEnumerator = dt.Columns.Cast<DataColumn>().GetEnumerator();