Develop Reference

Can a class inherit from a collection and still efficiently interact with LINQ?

I have a C# class that inherits from a collection. I make heavy use of LINQ, so calls to my class methods are intermingled with LINQ calls. Unfortunately this means that I frequently cast the IEnumerable<> returned by LINQ back into my class type in the middle of a pipeline. This results in excess code, and it is computationally inefficient.
Another solution is to implement the class methods as extension methods. This is more efficient, but in this case I will end up having to reproduce functionality that I could inherit from a collection.
Is there a way to inherit from collections, but still efficiently interact with LINQ?
The following program contains two queries. The first query calls a method from a derived class, but it also requires an O(n) call to ToMyList(). The second query is more efficient, but it is not making use of a derived class.
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Linq;
namespace StackOverflow
{
// A custom list that can multiply every element by a constant integer.
public class MyList : List<int>
{
public MyList() : base() { }
public MyList(IEnumerable<int> items) : base(items) { }
public MyList Multiply(int n)
{
for(int i = 0; i < Count; ++i)
this[i] *= n;
return this;
}
}
public static class Extensions
{
// Convert from IEnumerable<int> to MyList.
public static MyList ToMyList(this IEnumerable<int> items)
{
return new MyList(items);
}
// An extension version of the multipy method.
public static IEnumerable<int> Multiply(this IEnumerable<int> items, int n)
{
foreach (var item in items)
yield return n * item;
}
}
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
// Create a large list.
var myList = new MyList();
for (int i = 0; i < 1000000; ++i) myList.Add(i);
// Call the MyList.Multiply method.
var query1 = myList.Skip(100).ToMyList().Multiply(5);
// Call the extension version of the Multiply method.
var query2 = myList.Skip(100).Multiply(5);
}
}
}

The short answer is no. On the one hand, a list (and any derivative) is necessarily managing its own copy of the data. On the other hand, Linq transforms data without storing it. So if you perform a Linq operation and you want it back in the MyList instance then you necessarily have to incur the O(N) cost of storing it.
What you could do, depending on your intended use, is modify MyList so that instead of deriving from list, it holds an enumerable, and stores transformations on that enumerable. This would allow the following:
public class MyNonList : IEnumerable<int>
{
IEnumerable<int> _inner;
public MyNonList(IEnumerable<int> inner)
{
_inner = inner;
}
public MyNonList Multiply(int n)
{
return new MyNonList(_inner.Select(i => i * n));
}
public IEnumerator<int> GetEnumerator() => _inner.GetEnumerator();
IEnumerator IEnumerable.GetEnumerator() => ((IEnumerable)_inner).GetEnumerator();
}
public static class Extensions
{
// Convert from IEnumerable<int> to MyList.
public static MyNonList ToMyNonList(this IEnumerable<int> items)
{
return new MyNonList(items);
}
}
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
// Create a large list.
var list = new List<int>();
for (int i = 0; i < 1000000; ++i)
list.Add(i);
var myList = new MyNonList(list);
// Call the MyList.Multiply method.
MyNonList myList2 = myList.Skip(100).ToMyNonList().Multiply(5);
}
}
But in this trivial example, this really offers very little over just implementing the static extension method. (Which, by the way is a perfectly reasonable thing to do).
You could also split MyList out to two separate classes: one that derives from List, and actually holds data; and a second in the manner here that contains the transformation methods of interest, finishing with its own ToMyList implementation that finally realises and stores the enumerable data.

What is the "type" of a generic IList<T>?

Imagine an extension like this..
public static Blah<T>(this IList<T> ra)
{
..
}
Imagine you want to make a note of the most recently-called one.
private static IList recent;
public static Blah<T>(this IList<T> ra)
{
recent = ra;
..
}
You actually can not do that:
error CS0266: Cannot implicitly convert type System.Collections.Generic.IList<T> to System.Collections.IList.
1- You can simply make recent an object and that seems to work fine, but it seems like a poor solution.
2- It seems if you do have recent as an IList, you can actually cast the "ra" to that...
recent = (System.Collections.IList)ra;
and it seems to work. Seems strange though?? So,
3- Actually, what type should recent be so that you don't have to cast to it?? How can you make recent the same type as ra? You can't say this ....
private static System.Collections.Generic.IList recent;
it's not meaningful. So what the heck is the type of "ra"? What should recent "be" so that you can simply say recent=ra ?
(I mention this is for Unity, since you constantly use generic extensions in Unity.)
4- Consider a a further difficulty the case if you want to have a Dictionary of them all.
private static Dictionary<object,int> recents = new Dictionary<object,int>();
I can really only see how to do it as an object.
USE CASE EXAMPLE.
Here's an extension you use constantly, everywhere, in game engineering,
public static T AnyOne<T>(this IList<T> ra)
{
int k = ra.Count;
if (k<=0) {Debug.Log("Warn!"+k);}
int r = UnityEngine.Random.Range(0,k);
return ra[r];
}
no problem so far. So,
explosions.AnyOne();
yetAnotherEnemyToDefeat = dinosaurStyles.AnyOne();
and so on. However. Of course, actual random selections feel bad; in practice what you want is a fairly non-repeating order, more like a shuffle. Usually the best thing to do with any list or array is shuffle them, and serve them in that order; perhaps shuffle again each time through. Simple example, you have 20 random sound effects roars , being for when the dino roars. Each time you need one, if you do this
roars.AnyOne();
its OK, but not great. It will sound sort of suck. (Most players will report it as "not being random" or "repeating a lot".) This
roars.NextOne();
is much better. So, NextOne() should, on its own, (a) if we're at the start shuffle the list, (b) serve it in that order, (c) perhaps shuffle it again each time you use up the list. {There are further subtleties, eg, try not to repeat any near the end/start of the reshuffle, but irrelevant here.}
Note that subclassing List (and/or array) would suck for many obvious reasons, it's a job for a simple self-contained extension.
So then, here's a beautiful way to implement NextOne() using a simple stateful extension.
private static Dictionary<object,int> nextOne = new Dictionary<object,int>();
public static T NextOne<T>(this IList<T> ra)
{
if ( ! nextOne.ContainsKey(ra) )
// i.e., we've never heard about this "ra" before
nextOne.Add(ra,0);
int index = nextOne[ra];
// time to shuffle?
if (index==0)
{
Debug.Log("shuffling!"); // be careful to mutate, don't change the ra!
IList<T> temp = ra.OrderBy(r => UnityEngine.Random.value).ToList();
ra.Clear(); foreach(T t in temp) ra.Add(t);
}
T result = ra[index];
++index;
index=index%ra.Count;
nextOne[ra] = index;
return result;
}
This is surely the perfect example of a "stateful extension".
Notice indeed, I just used "object".
I guess in a way, the fundamental question in this QA is, is it best to use the Dictionary of "object" there, or, would something else more typey be better? Really that's the question at hand. Cheers!

If you want a single globally most recent IList<T> where T potentially varies each time, then your only options are to use object or dynamic. Both require casting; the latter just casts automatically.
I think your confusion stems from thinking that IList<T> inherits IList - it doesn't:
public interface IList<T> : ICollection<T>, IEnumerable<T>, IEnumerable
So arguably you could do this, although I don't see any advantage really:
private static IEnumerable recent;
public static void Blah<T>(this IList<T> ra)
{
recent = ra;
...
}

The simplest, and most type-safe, solution is to store a separate value for each T:
private static class RecentHolder<T> {
public static IList<T> Value { get; set; }
}
public static Blah<T>(this IList<T> ra) {
RecentHolder<T>.Value = ra;
}

What is the “type” of a generic IList< T >?
The base type..
Console.WriteLine( new List<int>().GetType().BaseType);
System.Object
The Generic Type definition ...
Console.WriteLine( new List<int>().GetType().GetGenericTypeDefinition());
System.Collections.Generic.List`1[T]
And to expand on SLAKS Answer
Not really. In the absence of a separate common non-generic base class
You can also use interfaces. So you could do...
public interface IName
{
string Name { get; set; }
}
public class Person : IName
{
public string Name { get; set; }
}
public class Dog : IName
{
public string Name { get; set; }
}
Then you could
private static List<IName> recent;
public static Blah<T>(this List<IName> ra)
{
recent = ra;
..
}
and it won't matter if you put Dog or Person in the list.
OR
I can't believe I didn't think about this last night; LINQ to the rescue using object.
using System;
using System.Linq;
using System.Collections.Generic;
public class Program
{
private static class WonkyCache
{
private static List<object> cache = new List<object>();
public static void Add(object myItem)
{
cache.Add(myItem);
}
public static IEnumerable<T> Get<T>()
{
var result = cache.OfType<T>().ToList();
return result;
}
}
public static void Main()
{
WonkyCache.Add(1);
WonkyCache.Add(2);
WonkyCache.Add(3);
WonkyCache.Add(Guid.NewGuid());
WonkyCache.Add("George");
WonkyCache.Add("Abraham");
var numbers = WonkyCache.Get<int>();
Console.WriteLine(numbers.GetType());
foreach(var number in numbers)
{
Console.WriteLine(number);
}
var strings = WonkyCache.Get<string>();
Console.WriteLine(strings.GetType());
foreach(var s in strings)
{
Console.WriteLine(s);
}
}
}
Results:
System.Collections.Generic.List`1[System.Int32]
1
2
3
System.Collections.Generic.List`1[System.String]
George
Abraham
Try:
public static class StatefulRandomizer<T>
// Use IEquatable<T> for Intersect()
where T : IEquatable<T>
{
// this could be enhanced to be a percentage
// of elements instead of hardcoded
private static Stack<T> _memory = new Stack<T>();
private static IEnumerable<T> _cache;
public static void UpdateWith(IEnumerable<T> newCache)
{
_cache = newCache.ToList();
// Setup the stack again, keep only ones that match
var matching = _memory.Intersect(newCache);
_memory = new Stack<T>(matching);
}
public static T GetNextNonRepeatingRandom()
{
var nonrepeaters = _cache
.Except(_memory);
// Not familar with unity.. but this should make
// sense what I am doing
var next = nonrepeaters.ElementAt(UnityEngine.Random(0, nonrepeaters.Count()-1));
// this fast, Stack will know it's count so no GetEnumerator()
// and _cache List is the same (Count() will call List.Count)
if (_memory.Count > _cache.Count() / 2)
{
_memory.Pop();
}
_memory.Push(next);
return next;
}
}

Indexer in Generic Array

Hi
i have created a Generic Array that works fine for Int,String, Float or even my Own type named Customers.
Generic Array has functions Add(), Sort(), ShowAll() thats working fine for Int, String, and even Customer Type
except when i try to showAll() method for CustomerType that shows all the values that i have added through ADD() method.
output is something like
GenericArray.Customer
not the values where as i wanted to have the values .
i have solved it through
public class GArray<T> where T : Customer
but now i cant create Generic Array of type Int,Float .
here is the ADD and ShowAll method of Class
public void Add(T temp)
{
if (index >= values.Length)
{
T[] tempArray = new T[values.Length + 1];
Array.Copy(values, tempArray, values.Length);
values = tempArray;
}
values[index] = temp;
index++;
}
public void ShowAll()
{
for (int i = 0; i < values.Length; i++)
{
Console.WriteLine(values[i]);
}
}
the values m adding
static void Main(string[] args)
{
GArray<Customer> customers = new GArray<Customer>(3);
customers.Add(new Customer(101, "xyz"));
customers.Add(new Customer(59, "abc"));
customers.ShowAll();
}
i have talked with my frnd and he said that i have to create indexer my self . can some one help me how can i create indexer in this case that works fine for customerType or any Type.

I think,If I understand the question (output is something like GenericArray.Customer, not the values where as i wanted to have the values) you should add in Customer definition:
public override string ToString()
{
// return something you want to show to identify your customer
// e.g. return Name;
return ...
}
I explain: when you use Console.WriteLine(values[i]) you tell C# to write to console Customer object... and it writes out then name of the class, as it's the default behaviour.
Defining in Customer class the default string to be converted to makes what you please...

public T this[int index]
{
get {return values[index]; }
}

I think your problem is that you have not overridden ToString in your customer class. Do that -- it will define how the objects should be displayed in the console.

Your actual problem aside for a moment, I would like to mention that there is no place for a ShowAll method in an array implementation. Why should an array be tied to a console application? Wouldn't you want to reuse it for a Windows Forms application oneday without the need to rewrite it?
Next, .NET already has a List<T> which does dynamic allocation as necessary. If you do want to write it again yourself, at least allocate the array in bigger steps (n*2 each time).
To remove the ShowAll method from the array (where it doesn't belong), you should consider taking one of the following approaches:
a) Create an extension method which works for any IEnumerable<T> (a List, Array, Collection, whatever):
public static class EnumExt
{
public static void ShowAll<T>(this IEnumerable<T> list)
{
foreach (T item in list)
Console.WriteLine(item);
}
}
Usage:
int[] array = new int[] { 1,2,3};
array.ShowAll();
b) Or, be even more abstract and create a ForEach extension method where you will pass an arbitrary delegate to perform actual work:
public static class EnumExt
{
public static void ForEach<T>(this IEnumerable<T> list, Action<T> action)
{
foreach (T item in list)
action(item);
}
}
Usage:
int[] array = new int[] { 1,2,3};
// now you are reusing the iterator
// for any action you want to execute
array.ForEach(Console.WriteLine);
// or
array.ForEach(item => Console.WriteLine("My item is: " + item));

How to specify a list selection method?

I've got a method that computes a list. At certain points in the algorithm a single element from the list needs to be chosen. It doesn't really matter which element is chosen, but I'd like to leave it up to the user to decide.
Right now, I've added an extension method IList<T>.Random() which simply takes a random element. .First() would have worked equally as well. Supposing I want to let the user pick which method is used, or perhaps an entirely different method, how would that look?
I was thinking about using an enum with limited options, and then I could wrap each of these calls in a switch and call the appropriate function. But maybe some sort of lambda function would be more appropriate?
This method needs to be used in two different places, once on a List<char> and once on a List<string>. I want to use the same method for both.
This isn't a GUI app. I'm trying to decide how to design the API.
Specifically, I want to have a field like
public Func<IList<T>, T> SelectElement = list => list.First();
Which would then be used in the method,
public string Reverse(string pattern, IList<object> args = null, IDictionary<string, object> kwargs = null)
But generic fields aren't possible. So I'm looking for an alternative solution. One would be to make the SelectElement method an argument to Reverse(), then I could make it generic... but I was hoping to keep it at a class-level for re-usability. Don't want to pass any more args to the function if I can help it.
Edit: full source code

how about this:
public class MyClass
{
public static class C<T>
{
public static Func<IList<T>, T> SelectElement;
}
public int Test(IList<int> list)
{
return C<int>.SelectElement(list);
}
}
static class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
MyClass.C<char>.SelectElement = xs => xs.First();
MyClass.C<int>.SelectElement = xs => xs.First();
var list = new List<int>(new int[] { 1, 2, 3 });
var c = new MyClass();
var v = c.Test(list);
Console.WriteLine(v);
}
}

Here's an extremely basic example I put together using a generic method that takes in a Func<IEnumerable<T>, T> for selecting an item from the list and then returns the result. I've done a few examples of how to call it:
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Linq;
namespace Test
{
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
//Simple list.
var list = new List<int> { 1, 2, 3, 4 };
// Try it with first
var result = DoItemSelect(list, Enumerable.First);
Console.WriteLine(result);
// Try it with last
result = DoItemSelect(list, Enumerable.Last);
Console.WriteLine(result);
// Try it with ElementAt for the second item (index 1) in the list.
result = DoItemSelect(list, enumerable => enumerable.ElementAt(1));
Console.WriteLine(result);
}
public static T DoItemSelect<T>(IEnumerable<T> enumerable, Func<IEnumerable<T>, T> selector)
{
// You can do whatever you method does here, selector is the user specified func for
// how to select from the enumerable. Here I just return the result of selector directly.
return selector(enumerable);
}
}
}
If you want to limit the choices a user has you could follow the route of an enum and make this method a private method and then have a way to convert the enum to the appropriate selector delegate to pass to the underlying private method.

public Func<IList<object>, object> SelectElement = list => list.First();
private T _S<T>(IEnumerable<T> list)
{
return (T)SelectElement(list.Cast<object>().ToList());
}
I can make the anonymous method work on objects, thereby avoiding generics, and then add a helper method which is what I'll actually use to call it. A little ugly, but seems to work.

This works for chars and strings. Haven't tested with other types. Built this before I saw Ralph's code, which is practically the same.
LINQPad code:
void Main()
{
var chars = new List<char>();
var strings = new List<string>();
chars.AddRange(new char[] {'1','2','4','7','8','3'});
strings.AddRange(new string[] {"01","02","09","12","28","52"});
chars.Dump();
strings.Dump();
Func<IList<object>, string> SelectFirst = ( list )
=> list.First().ToString();
Func<IList<object>, string> SelectLast = ( list )
=> list.Last().ToString();
Func<IList<object>, string> SelectRandom = ( list )
=> list.ElementAt( new Random().Next(0, list.Count())).ToString();
SelectBy(SelectFirst, strings.Cast<object>().ToList()).Dump();
SelectBy(SelectFirst, chars.Cast<object>().ToList()).Dump();
SelectBy(SelectLast, strings.Cast<object>().ToList()).Dump();
SelectBy(SelectLast, chars.Cast<object>().ToList()).Dump();
SelectBy(SelectRandom, strings.Cast<object>().ToList()).Dump();
SelectBy(SelectRandom, chars.Cast<object>().ToList()).Dump();
}
private string SelectBy(Func<IList<object>, string> func, IList<object> list)
{
return func(list);
}

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",
});