Here I am using Split function to get the parts of string.
string[] OrSets = SubLogic.Split('|');
foreach (string OrSet in OrSets)
{
bool OrSetFinalResult = false;
if (OrSet.Contains('&'))
{
OrSetFinalResult = true;
if (OrSet.Contains('0'))
{
OrSetFinalResult = false;
}
//string[] AndSets = OrSet.Split('&');
//foreach (string AndSet in AndSets)
//{
// if (AndSet == "0")
// {
// // A single "false" statement makes the entire And statement FALSE
// OrSetFinalResult = false;
// break;
// }
//}
}
else
{
if (OrSet == "1")
{
OrSetFinalResult = true;
}
}
if (OrSetFinalResult)
{
// A single "true" statement makes the entire OR statement TRUE
FinalResult = true;
break;
}
}
How can I replace the Split operation , along with replacement of foreach constructs.
Hypothesis #1
Depending of the kind of your process, you can parallellize the work :
var OrSets = SubLogic.Split('|').AsParallel();
foreach (string OrSet in OrSets)
{
...
....
}
However, this can often leads to problems with multithreaded apps (locking resource, etc.).
And you have also to measure the benefits. Switching from one thread to another can be costly. If the job is small, the AsParallel will be slower than a simple sequential loop.
This is very efficient when you have latency with network resource, or any kind of I/O.
Hypothesis #2
Your SubLogic variable is very very very big
You can, in this case, walk sequentially the file :
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var SubLogic = "darere|gfgfgg|gfgfg";
using (var sr = new StringReader(SubLogic))
{
var str = string.Empty;
int charValue;
do
{
charValue = sr.Read();
var c = (char)charValue;
if (c == '|' || (charValue == -1 && str.Length > 0))
{
Process(str);
str = string.Empty; // Reset the string
}
else
{
str += c;
}
} while (charValue >= 0);
}
Console.ReadLine();
}
private static void Process(string str)
{
// Your actual Job
Console.WriteLine(str);
}
Also, depending of the length of each chunk between |, you may want to use a StringBuilder and not a simple string concatenation.
Chances are that if you need to optimize to improve the performance of your application, that the code inside of the foreach loop is what needs to be optimized, not the string.Split method.
[EDIT:]
There are a number of good answers elsewhere on StackOverflow related to optimized string parsing:
Fastest Way to Parse Large Strings (multi threaded)
Fast string parsing in C#
String.Split() likely does more than you can do on your own to actually split the string up in a well-optimized manner. That assumes that you are interesting in returning true or false for each split section of your input, of course. Otherwise, you can just focus on searching your string.
As others have mentioned, if you need to search through a huge string (many hundreds of megabytes) and, especially, do so repeatedly and continuously, then look at what .NET 4 gives you with the Task Parallel Library.
For searching through strings, you can look at this example on MSDN for how to use IndexOf, LastIndexOf, StartsWith, and EndsWith methods. Those should perform better than the Contains method.
Of course, the best solution is dependent upon the facts of your particular situation. You'll want to use the System.Diagnostics.Stopwatch class to see how long your implementations (both current and new) take to see what works best.
You could possibly deal with it by using StringBuilder.
Try reading char-by-char from your source string into StringBuilder, till you find '|', then process what a StringBuilder contains.
That is how you'll avoid creation of tonns of String objects and save a lot of memory.
If you would have used Java, I'd recommend using StringTokenizer and StreamTokenizer classes. It's a pity there are no similar classes in .NET
Related
Is there any way to make Search and addToSearch faster?
I am trying to make it faster. I am not sure if regex in addtosearch can be a problem, it is really small. I am out ofideas how to optimize it further. Now i am just trying to meet word count. I wonder if there is a way to concatenate parts of name that are not empty more effectivly than i do.
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Text.RegularExpressions;
using System;
namespace AutoComplete
{
public struct FullName
{
public string Name;
public string Surname;
public string Patronymic;
}
public class AutoCompleter
{
private List<string> listOfNames = new List<string>();
private static readonly Regex sWhitespace = new Regex(#"\s+");
public void AddToSearch(List<FullName> fullNames)
{
foreach (FullName i in fullNames)
{
string nameToAdd = "";
if (!string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(i.Surname))
{
nameToAdd += sWhitespace.Replace(i.Surname, "") + " ";
}
if (!string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(i.Name))
{
nameToAdd += sWhitespace.Replace(i.Name, "") + " ";
}
if (!string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(i.Patronymic))
{
nameToAdd += sWhitespace.Replace(i.Patronymic, "") + " ";
}
listOfNames.Add(nameToAdd.Substring(0, nameToAdd.Length - 1));
}
}
public List<string> Search(string prefix)
{
if (prefix.Length > 100 || string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(prefix))
{
throw new System.Exception();
}
List<string> namesWithPrefix = new List<string>();
foreach (string name in listOfNames)
{
if (IsPrefix(prefix, name))
{
namesWithPrefix.Add(name);
}
}
return namesWithPrefix;
}
private bool IsPrefix(string prefix, string stringToSearch)
{
if (stringToSearch.Length < prefix.Length)
{
return false;
}
for (int i = 0; i < prefix.Length; i++)
{
if (prefix[i] != stringToSearch[i])
{
return false
}
}
return true
}
}
}
Regular expression (Regexp) are great because of their ease-of use and flexibility but most Regexp engines are actually quite slow. This is the case for the one of C#. Moreover, strings can contain Unicode character and "\s" needs to consider all the (fancy) spaces characters included in the Unicode character set. This make Regexp search/replace much slower. If you know your input does not contain such characters (eg. ASCII), then you can write a much faster implementation. Alternatively, you can play with RegexpOptions like Compiled and CultureInvariant so to reduce a bit the run time.
The AddToSearch performs many hidden allocations. Indeed, += create a new string (because C# string are immutable and not designed to be often resized) and Replace calls does allocate new strings too. You can speed up the computation by directly replace and write the result in a preallocated buffer and simply copy the result with a Substring like you currently do.
Search is fine and it is not easy to optimize it. That being said, if listOfNames is big, then you can use multiple threads so to significantly speed up the computation. Be careful though because Add is not thread-safe. Parallel linkq may help you to do that easily (I never tested it though).
Another solution to speed up a bit the computation of Search is to start the loop of IsPrefix from prefix.Length-1. Indeed, if most string contains the beginning of the prefix, then a significant portion of the time will be spend comparing nearly equal characters. The probability that prefix[prefix.Length-1] != stringToSearch[prefix.Length-1] is higher than prefix[0] != stringToSearch[0]. Additionally, partial loop unrolling may help a bit to speed up the function if the JIT is not able to do that.
Others have already pointed out that the use of regex can be problematic. I would personally consider using str.Replace(" ", String.Empty) - if I understood the regex correctly; I normally try to avoid regex as I have a hard time reading code using regex. Note that String.Empty does not allocate a new string.
That said, I think performance could boost if you would not store the names in a List but at least order the list alpabetically. Thus you do not need to iterate all elemnts of the list but e.g. use binary search to find all elements matching a given prefix - as range within the list of names you already have.
I'm working on a book encryption program for one of my courses and I've run into a problem. Our professor gave us the example of using say Pride and Prejudice as the book used to encrypt, so I chose that one to test my program. The current function I'm using to remove the punctuation from the string is taking so long that the program is being forced into break mode. This function works for smaller strings even pages long, but when I fed it Pride and Prejudice it takes way to long.
public void removePunctuation(ref string s) {
string result = "";
for (int i = 0; i < s.Length; i++) {
if (Char.IsWhiteSpace(s[i])) {
result += ' ';
} else if (!Char.IsLetter(s[i]) && !Char.IsNumber(s[i])) {
// do nothing
} else {
result += s[i];
}
}
s = result;
}
So I think I need a faster way to remove punctuation from this string if anyone has any suggestions? I know looping through every character is horrible, but I'm stumped and I was never taught Regex in depth.
Edit: I was asked how I was storing the string in the dictionary class! This is the constructor for another class that actually uses the formatted string.
public CodeBook(string book)
{
BookMap = new Dictionary<string, List<int>>();
Key = book.Split(null).ToList(); // split string into words
foreach(string s in Key)
{
if (!BookMap.Keys.Contains(s))
{
BookMap.Add(s, Enumerable.Range(0, Key.Count).Where(i => Key[i] == s).ToList());
// add word and add list of occurrances of word
}
}
}
This is slow because you construct string by concatenations in a loop. You have several approaches that are more performant:
Use StringBuilder - unlike string concatenation which constructs a new object each time you add a character, this approach expands the string under construction by larger chunks, preventing excessive garbage creation.
Use LINQ's filtering with Where - this approach constructs an array of chars in a single shot, then constructs a single string from it.
Use regular expression's Replace - this method is optimized to deal with strings of virtually unlimited sizes.
Roll your own algorithm - create an array of chars that corresponds to the length of the original string. Walk through the string, and add the characters that you wish to keep to the array. Use string's constructor that takes the array, the initial index, and the length to construct the string at once.
Looping through every character once is not that bad. You're doing it all in one pass, that's not trivial to avoid.
The problem lies in the fact that the framework will need to allocate a new copy of the (partial) string whenever you do something like
result += s[i];
You can avoid that by introducing a StringBuilder documented here to append non-punctuation characters as you go.
public string removePunctuation(string s)
{
var result = new StringBuilder();
for (int i = 0; i < s.Length; i++) {
if (Char.IsWhiteSpace(s[i])) {
result.Append(" ");
} else if (!Char.IsLetter(s[i]) && !Char.IsNumber(s[i])) {
// do nothing
} else {
result.Append(s[i]);
}
}
return result.ToString();
}
You could further reduce the number of necessary Append calls with a refined algorithm, for example look ahead to the next punctuation and append larger portions at once, or use an existing string manipulation library like RegEx. But the introduction of StringBuilder above should give you a noticable performance gain already.
I was never taught Regex in depth
Use the search provider of your choice, you may end up with a tested solution which you can just study and use: https://stackoverflow.com/a/5871826/1132334
You can use Regex to remove punctuations as below.
public string removePunctuation(string s)
{
string result = Regex.Replace(s, #"[^\w\s]", "");
return result;
}
^ Means: not these characters (letters, numbers).
\w Means: word characters.
\s Means: space characters.
I'm searching for a string in a text file (also includes XML). This is what I thought first:
using (StreamReader sr = File.OpenText(fileName))
{
string s = String.Empty;
while ((s = sr.ReadLine()) != null)
{
if (s.Contains("mySpecialString"))
return true;
}
}
return false;
I want to read line by line to minimize the amount of RAM used. When the string has been found it should abort the operation. The reason why I don't process it as XML is because it has to be parsed and would also consume more memory as necessary.
Another easy implementation would be
bool found = File.ReadAllText(path).Contains("mySpecialString") ? true : false;
but that would read the complete file into memory, which isn't what I want. On the other side it could have a performance increase.
Another one would be this
foreach (string line in File.ReadLines(path))
{
if (line.Contains("mySpecialString"))
{
return true;
}
}
return false;
But which one of them (or another one from you?) is more memory efficient?
You can use a query with File.ReadLines, so it only reads as many lines as it needs to, in order to satisfy your query. The Any() method will stop when it hits a line containing your string.
return File.ReadLines(fileName).Any(line => line.Contains("mySpecialString"));
I also prefer the accepted answer. Maybe i'm micro opimizing things here but you have asked for a memory efficient approach. Also consider that the text you are searching could also contain new-line characters like '\r', '\n' or "\r\n" and a large file could theoretically contain a single line which negates the benefit of ReadLines.
So you could use this method:
public static bool FileContainsString(string path, string str, bool caseSensitive = true)
{
if(String.IsNullOrEmpty(str))
return false;
using (var stream = new StreamReader(path))
while (!stream.EndOfStream)
{
bool stringFound = true;
for (int i = 0; i < str.Length; i++)
{
char strChar = caseSensitive ? str[i] : Char.ToUpperInvariant(str[i]);
char fileChar = caseSensitive ? (char)stream.Read() : Char.ToUpperInvariant((char)stream.Read());
if (strChar != fileChar)
{
stringFound = false;
break; // break for-loop, start again with first character at next position
}
}
if (stringFound)
return true;
}
return false;
}
bool containsString = FileContainsString(path, "mySpecialString", false); // ignore case if desired
Note that this might be the most efficient approach and hidden in a method also readable. But it has one drawback, it's not feasible to implement a culture-sensitive comparison because it looks at single characters and not at substrings.
So you have to keep some edge cases in mind where you can run into issues, like the famous turkish i example or surrogate pairs.
I think both of your solutions are the same. Read at the MSDN: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd383503%28v=vs.110%29.aspx
There it says: "The ReadLines and ReadAllLines methods differ as follows: When you use ReadLines, you can start enumerating the collection of strings before the whole collection is returned"
The same article also suggests that ReadLines should be used in conjunction with LINQ to Objects.
Lets say I have several short string:
string[] shortStrings = new string[] {"xxx","yyy","zzz"};
(this definition can change length on array and on string too, so not a fixed one)
When a given string, I like to check if it combines with the shortStrings ONLY, how?
let say function is like bool TestStringFromShortStrings(string s)
then
TestStringFromShortStrings("xxxyyyzzz") = true;
TestStringFromShortStrings("xxxyyyxxx") = true;
TestStringFromShortStrings("xxxyyy") = true;
TestStringFromShortStrings("xxxxxx") = true;
TestStringFromShortStrings("xxxxx") = false;
TestStringFromShortStrings("xxxXyyyzzz") = false;
TestStringFromShortStrings("xxx2yyyxxx") = false;
Please suggest a memory not tense and relatively fast method.
[EIDT] What this function for?
I will personally use this function to test if a string is a combination of a PINYIN ok, some Chinese stuff. Following Chinese are same thing if you cannot read it.
检测一个字符串是否为汉语拼音（例如检测是否拼音域名）
所有的汉语拼音字符串有：
(To detect whether a string is Hanyu Pinyin (e.g. detect the phonetic domain) of the Pinyin string:)
Regex PinYin = new Regex(#"^(a|ai|an|ang|ao|ba|bai|ban|bang|bao|bei|ben|beng|bi|bian|biao|bie|bin|bing|bo|bu|ca|cai|can|cang|cao|ce|cen|ceng|cha|chai|chan|chang|chao|che|chen|cheng|chi|chong|chou|chu|chua|chuai|chuan|chuang|chui|chun|chuo|ci|cong|cou|cu|cuan|cui|cun|cuo|da|dai|dan|dang|dao|de|den|dei|deng|di|dia|dian|diao|die|ding|diu|dong|dou|du|duan|dui|dun|duo|e|ei|en|eng|er|fa|fan|fang|fei|fen|feng|fo|fou|fu|ga|gai|gan|gang|gao|ge|gei|gen|geng|gong|gou|gu|gua|guai|guan|guang|gui|gun|guo|ha|hai|han|hang|hao|he|hei|hen|heng|hong|hou|hu|hua|huai|huan|huang|hui|hun|huo|ji|jia|jian|jiang|jiao|jie|jin|jing|jiong|jiu|ju|juan|jue|jun|ka|kai|kan|kang|kao|ke|ken|keng|kong|kou|ku|kua|kuai|kuan|kuang|kui|kun|kuo|la|lai|lan|lang|lao|le|lei|leng|li|lia|lian|liang|liao|lie|lin|ling|liu|long|lou|lu|lv|luan|lue|lve|lun|luo|ma|mai|man|mang|mao|me|mei|men|meng|mi|mian|miao|mie|min|ming|miu|mo|mou|mu|na|nai|nan|nang|nao|ne|nei|nen|neng|ni|nian|niang|niao|nie|nin|ning|niu|nong|nou|nu|nv|nuan|nuo|nun|ou|pa|pai|pan|pang|pao|pei|pen|peng|pi|pian|piao|pie|pin|ping|po|pou|pu|qi|qia|qian|qiang|qiao|qie|qin|qing|qiong|qiu|qu|quan|que|qun|ran|rang|rao|re|ren|reng|ri|rong|rou|ru|ruan|rui|run|ruo|sa|sai|san|sang|sao|se|sen|seng|sha|shai|shan|shang|shao|she|shei|shen|sheng|shi|shou|shu|shua|shuai|shuan|shuang|shui|shun|shuo|si|song|sou|su|suan|sui|sun|suo|ta|tai|tan|tang|tao|te|teng|ti|tian|tiao|tie|ting|tong|tou|tu|tuan|tui|tun|tuo|wa|wai|wan|wang|wei|wen|weng|wo|wu|xi|xia|xian|xiang|xiao|xie|xin|xing|xiong|xiu|xu|xuan|xue|xun|ya|yan|yang|yao|ye|yi|yin|ying|yo|yong|you|yu|yuan|yue|yun|za|zai|zan|zang|zao|ze|zei|zen|zeng|zha|zhai|zhan|zhang|zhao|zhe|zhei|zhen|zheng|zhi|zhong|zhou|zhu|zhua|zhuai|zhuan|zhuang|zhui|zhun|zhuo|zi|zong|zou|zu|zuan|zui|zun|zuo)+$");
用下面的正则表达式方法，试过了，最简单而且效果非常好，就是有点慢:(
递归的方式对长字符串比较麻烦，容易内存溢出
(Tried it with the regular expression: it's the most simple and gives very good results, but it's a bit slow. The recursive way on the long string is too much trouble, it's too easy to overflow the stack.)
Edit: Simplified this a lot thanks to L.B and millimoose.
Regular Expressions to the rescue! Using System.Text.RegularExpressions.Regex, we get:
public static bool TestStringFromShortStrings(string checkText, string[] pieces) {
// Build the expression. Ultimate result will be
// of the form "^(xxx|yyy|zzz)+$".
var expr = "^(" +
String.Join("|", pieces.Select(Regex.Escape)) +
")+$";
// Check whether the supplied string matches the expression.
return Regex.IsMatch(checkText, expr);
}
This should be able to properly handle cases that have multiple repeated patterns of different lenghts. E.g. if you the list of possible pieces includes strings "xxx" and "xxxx".
Copy the target string to string builder. For each string in shortstring array, remove all occurences from target. If u end up in zero length string, true else false.
Edit:
This approach is not correct. Please refer to comments. Keeping this answer still here as it may look reasonably correct initially.
You could compare the start of the input string with each of the short strings. As soon as you have a match, you take the rest of the string and repeat. As soon as you have no more string left, you're done. For example:
string[] shortStrings = new string[] { "xxx", "yyy", "zzz" };
bool Test(string input)
{
if (input.Length == 0)
return true;
foreach (string shortStr in shortStrings)
{
if (input.StartsWith(shortStr))
{
if (Test(input.Substring(shortStr.Length)))
return true;
}
}
return false;
}
You might optimize this by removing the recursion, or by sorting the short strings and do a binary instead of a linear search.
Here is a non-recursive version, that uses a Stack object instead. No chance of getting a StackOverflowException:
string[] shortStrings = new string[] { "xxx", "yyy", "zzz" };
bool Test(string input)
{
Stack<string> stack = new Stack<string>();
stack.Push(input);
while (stack.Count > 0)
{
string str = stack.Pop();
if (str.Length == 0)
return true;
foreach (string shortStr in shortStrings)
{
if (str.StartsWith(shortStr))
stack.Push(str.Substring(shortStr.Length));
}
}
return false;
}
Is it possible to write the following 'foreach' as a LINQ statement, and I guess the more general question can any for loop be replaced by a LINQ statement.
I'm not interested in any potential performance cost just the potential of using declarative approaches in what is traditionally imperative code.
private static string SomeMethod()
{
if (ListOfResources .Count == 0)
return string.Empty;
var sb = new StringBuilder();
foreach (var resource in ListOfResources )
{
if (sb.Length != 0)
sb.Append(", ");
sb.Append(resource.Id);
}
return sb.ToString();
}
Cheers
AWC
Sure. Heck, you can replace arithmetic with LINQ queries:
http://blogs.msdn.com/ericlippert/archive/2009/12/07/query-transformations-are-syntactic.aspx
But you shouldn't.
The purpose of a query expression is to represent a query operation. The purpose of a "for" loop is to iterate over a particular statement so as to have its side-effects executed multiple times. Those are frequently very different. I encourage replacing loops whose purpose is merely to query data with higher-level constructs that more clearly query the data. I strongly discourage replacing side-effect-generating code with query comprehensions, though doing so is possible.
In general yes, but there are specific cases that are extremely difficult. For instance, the following code in the general case does not port to a LINQ expression without a good deal of hacking.
var list = new List<Func<int>>();
foreach ( var cur in (new int[] {1,2,3})) {
list.Add(() => cur);
}
The reason why is that with a for loop, it's possible to see the side effects of how the iteration variable is captured in a closure. LINQ expressions hide the lifetime semantics of the iteration variable and prevent you from seeing side effects of capturing it's value.
Note. The above code is not equivalent to the following LINQ expression.
var list = Enumerable.Range(1,3).Select(x => () => x).ToList();
The foreach sample produces a list of Func<int> objects which all return 3. The LINQ version produces a list of Func<int> which return 1,2 and 3 respectively. This is what makes this style of capture difficult to port.
In fact, your code does something which is fundamentally very functional, namely it reduces a list of strings to a single string by concatenating the list items. The only imperative thing about the code is the use of a StringBuilder.
The functional code makes this much easier, actually, because it doesn’t require a special case like your code does. Better still, .NET already has this particular operation implemented, and probably more efficient than your code1):
return String.Join(", ", ListOfResources.Select(s => s.Id.ToString()).ToArray());
(Yes, the call to ToArray() is annoying but Join is a very old method and predates LINQ.)
Of course, a “better” version of Join could be used like this:
return ListOfResources.Select(s => s.Id).Join(", ");
The implementation is rather straightforward – but once again, using the StringBuilder (for performance) makes it imperative.
public static String Join<T>(this IEnumerable<T> items, String delimiter) {
if (items == null)
throw new ArgumentNullException("items");
if (delimiter == null)
throw new ArgumentNullException("delimiter");
var strings = items.Select(item => item.ToString()).ToList();
if (strings.Count == 0)
return string.Empty;
int length = strings.Sum(str => str.Length) +
delimiter.Length * (strings.Count - 1);
var result = new StringBuilder(length);
bool first = true;
foreach (string str in strings) {
if (first)
first = false;
else
result.Append(delimiter);
result.Append(str);
}
return result.ToString();
}
1) Without having looked at the implementation in the reflector, I’d guess that String.Join makes a first pass over the strings to determine the overall length. This can be used to initialize the StringBuilder accordingly, thus saving expensive copy operations later on.
EDIT by SLaks: Here is the reference source for the relevant part of String.Join from .Net 3.5:
string jointString = FastAllocateString( jointLength );
fixed (char * pointerToJointString = &jointString.m_firstChar) {
UnSafeCharBuffer charBuffer = new UnSafeCharBuffer( pointerToJointString, jointLength);
// Append the first string first and then append each following string prefixed by the separator.
charBuffer.AppendString( value[startIndex] );
for (int stringToJoinIndex = startIndex + 1; stringToJoinIndex <= endIndex; stringToJoinIndex++) {
charBuffer.AppendString( separator );
charBuffer.AppendString( value[stringToJoinIndex] );
}
BCLDebug.Assert(*(pointerToJointString + charBuffer.Length) == '\0', "String must be null-terminated!");
}
The specific loop in your question can be done declaratively like this:
var result = ListOfResources
.Select<Resource, string>(r => r.Id.ToString())
.Aggregate<string, StringBuilder>(new StringBuilder(), (sb, s) => sb.Append(sb.Length > 0 ? ", " : String.Empty).Append(s))
.ToString();
As to performance, you can expect a performance drop but this is acceptable for most applications.
I think what's most important here is that to avoid semantic confusion, your code should only be superficially functional when it is actually functional. In other words, please don't use side effects in LINQ expressions.
Technically, yes.
Any foreach loop can be converted to LINQ by using a ForEach extension method,such as the one in MoreLinq.
If you only want to use "pure" LINQ (only the built-in extension methods), you can abuse the Aggregate extension method, like this:
foreach(type item in collection { statements }
type item;
collection.Aggregate(true, (j, itemTemp) => {
item = itemTemp;
statements
return true;
);
This will correctly handle any foreach loop, even JaredPar's answer. EDIT: Unless it uses ref / out parameters, unsafe code, or yield return.
Don't you dare use this trick in real code.
In your specific case, you should use a string Join extension method, such as this one:
///<summary>Appends a list of strings to a StringBuilder, separated by a separator string.</summary>
///<param name="builder">The StringBuilder to append to.</param>
///<param name="strings">The strings to append.</param>
///<param name="separator">A string to append between the strings.</param>
public static StringBuilder AppendJoin(this StringBuilder builder, IEnumerable<string> strings, string separator) {
if (builder == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("builder");
if (strings == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("strings");
if (separator == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("separator");
bool first = true;
foreach (var str in strings) {
if (first)
first = false;
else
builder.Append(separator);
builder.Append(str);
}
return builder;
}
///<summary>Combines a collection of strings into a single string.</summary>
public static string Join<T>(this IEnumerable<T> strings, string separator, Func<T, string> selector) { return strings.Select(selector).Join(separator); }
///<summary>Combines a collection of strings into a single string.</summary>
public static string Join(this IEnumerable<string> strings, string separator) { return new StringBuilder().AppendJoin(strings, separator).ToString(); }
In general, you can write a lambda expression using a delegate which represents the body of a foreach cycle, in your case something like :
resource => { if (sb.Length != 0) sb.Append(", "); sb.Append(resource.Id); }
and then simply use within a ForEach extension method. Whether this is a good idea depends on the complexity of the body, in case it's too big and complex you probably don't gain anything from it except for possible confusion ;)