Develop Reference

LINQ query to call instance method

I have written some code that has this form:
var queryResult = from instance in someCollection
where instance meets some criteria
select instance;
foreach (InstanceType instance in queryResult.ToList()) {
instance.SomeMethod();
}
This seems a bit redundant in that the query is iterating over the collection and then there is another iteration to invoke the method on all found instances. It would be nice to be able to invoke the instance method with in the query, rather than having to write an additional loop.
How could someone accomplish what the code above does with just a single query?

You can use ForEach to call void methods:
someCollection
.Where(instance => instance meets some criteria)
.ToList()
.ForEach(item => item.SomeMethod(param1, param2, ...)); // Use Foreach(SomeMethod) for methods w/no args

Just remove the .ToList() from your code.. and you'd be looping over the collection only once..
In general, it is advisable to not have side effects in your queries.. and methods like instance.SomeMethod() are typically side effects..
Apart from removing the ToList call (which is really the additional and redundant loop here), the code snippet looks fine to me..

Looks a little better. Im not sure of the actual number of iterations though.
foreach (var instance in someCollection.Where(instance meets some criteria))
{
instance.SomeMethod();
}

Is there any benefit to calling .Any() before .ForEach() when using linq?

I have many methods like the one below:
void ValidateBuyerRules()
{
var nodesWithRules = ActiveNodes.Where(x => x.RuleClass.IsNotNullOrEmpty());
**if (!nodesWithRules.Any()) return;**
foreach (var ruleClass in nodesWithRules)
{
// Do something here
}
}
As you can see, I check if nodesWithRules has any items and exit the method before conducting the foreach statement, but is this unecessary code?

Unless you have some logic after the foreach statement that you want to avoid, that's unnecessary as it will work the same.
When foreach iterates over nodesWithRules detects that there are no items and exit the loop.

If this is linq 2 sql, never do that.
You cause an extra round trip.
Also if you have any other type of IEnumerable, you should avoid that. .net does some tricks for underlying list, but you shouldn't rely on those.

There's really no point in calling Any before the Where. If no results come back from the Where query, you will never enter the for loop.
Calling the Any before the where will actually end up hurting performance because you're doing two queries.

cannot reach my inner breakpoint

I'm running the following code:
hashedUrlDataList.Select(mDalHashedUrlData.Save);
I have put a breakpoint in the called delegate,
public HashedUrlData Save(HashedUrlData item)
{
//breakpoint here
}
but it doesn't stop there.
How can I fix this?

Your method will be called when you'll enumerate the result of Select() not when declared.

Enumerable.Select is Lazy.
Try this and tell me if your break point is caught
hashedUrlDataList.Select(mDalHashedUrlData.Save).ToList();
Or the basic:
hashedUrlDataList.Select(mDalHashedUrlData.Save).GetEnumerator().MoveNext()
It just works if you have at least one element.
You can do it too:
hashedUrlDataList.Select(mDalHashedUrlData.Save).Any();
Any() do the same that GetEnumerator().MoveNext()
I think that what you want is:
List<HashedUrlData> hashedUrlDataList = new List<HashedUrlData>();
hashedUrlDataList.ForEach(Save);

LINQ is for querying data; it's not intended to cause side-effects.
If you're more interested in the side efects of your Savemethod than the HashedUrlData instance it returns, you should really be calling
foreach (HashedUrlData h in hashedUrlDataList)
{
h.Save();
}
If you will eventually be using the returned values and this is just an intermediate/debugging stage, then by all means use LINQ. Just be aware that Save will only be called as you access each returned value, or call something else that enumerates the whole enumerator as the other answers have shown.

foreach vs someList.ForEach(){}

There are apparently many ways to iterate over a collection. Curious if there are any differences, or why you'd use one way over the other.
First type:
List<string> someList = <some way to init>
foreach(string s in someList) {
<process the string>
}
Other Way:
List<string> someList = <some way to init>
someList.ForEach(delegate(string s) {
<process the string>
});
I suppose off the top of my head, that instead of the anonymous delegate I use above, you'd have a reusable delegate you could specify...

There is one important, and useful, distinction between the two.
Because .ForEach uses a for loop to iterate the collection, this is valid (edit: prior to .net 4.5 - the implementation changed and they both throw):
someList.ForEach(x => { if(x.RemoveMe) someList.Remove(x); });
whereas foreach uses an enumerator, so this is not valid:
foreach(var item in someList)
if(item.RemoveMe) someList.Remove(item);
tl;dr: Do NOT copypaste this code into your application!
These examples aren't best practice, they are just to demonstrate the differences between ForEach() and foreach.
Removing items from a list within a for loop can have side effects. The most common one is described in the comments to this question.
Generally, if you are looking to remove multiple items from a list, you would want to separate the determination of which items to remove from the actual removal. It doesn't keep your code compact, but it guarantees that you do not miss any items.

We had some code here (in VS2005 and C#2.0) where the previous engineers went out of their way to use list.ForEach( delegate(item) { foo;}); instead of foreach(item in list) {foo; }; for all the code that they wrote. e.g. a block of code for reading rows from a dataReader.
I still don't know exactly why they did this.
The drawbacks of list.ForEach() are:
It is more verbose in C# 2.0. However, in C# 3 onwards, you can use the "=>" syntax to make some nicely terse expressions.
It is less familiar. People who have to maintain this code will wonder why you did it that way. It took me awhile to decide that there wasn't any reason, except maybe to make the writer seem clever (the quality of the rest of the code undermined that). It was also less readable, with the "})" at the end of the delegate code block.
See also Bill Wagner's book "Effective C#: 50 Specific Ways to Improve Your C#" where he talks about why foreach is preferred to other loops like for or while loops - the main point is that you are letting the compiler decide the best way to construct the loop. If a future version of the compiler manages to use a faster technique, then you will get this for free by using foreach and rebuilding, rather than changing your code.
a foreach(item in list) construct allows you to use break or continue if you need to exit the iteration or the loop. But you cannot alter the list inside a foreach loop.
I'm surprised to see that list.ForEach is slightly faster. But that's probably not a valid reason to use it throughout , that would be premature optimisation. If your application uses a database or web service that, not loop control, is almost always going to be be where the time goes. And have you benchmarked it against a for loop too? The list.ForEach could be faster due to using that internally and a for loop without the wrapper would be even faster.
I disagree that the list.ForEach(delegate) version is "more functional" in any significant way. It does pass a function to a function, but there's no big difference in the outcome or program organisation.
I don't think that foreach(item in list) "says exactly how you want it done" - a for(int 1 = 0; i < count; i++) loop does that, a foreach loop leaves the choice of control up to the compiler.
My feeling is, on a new project, to use foreach(item in list) for most loops in order to adhere to the common usage and for readability, and use list.Foreach() only for short blocks, when you can do something more elegantly or compactly with the C# 3 "=>" operator. In cases like that, there may already be a LINQ extension method that is more specific than ForEach(). See if Where(), Select(), Any(), All(), Max() or one of the many other LINQ methods doesn't already do what you want from the loop.

As they say, the devil is in the details...
The biggest difference between the two methods of collection enumeration is that foreach carries state, whereas ForEach(x => { }) does not.
But lets dig a little deeper, because there are some things you should be aware of that can influence your decision, and there are some caveats you should be aware of when coding for either case.
Lets use List<T> in our little experiment to observe behavior. For this experiment, I am using .NET 4.7.2:
var names = new List<string>
{
"Henry",
"Shirley",
"Ann",
"Peter",
"Nancy"
};
Lets iterate over this with foreach first:
foreach (var name in names)
{
Console.WriteLine(name);
}
We could expand this into:
using (var enumerator = names.GetEnumerator())
{
}
With the enumerator in hand, looking under the covers we get:
public List<T>.Enumerator GetEnumerator()
{
return new List<T>.Enumerator(this);
}
internal Enumerator(List<T> list)
{
this.list = list;
this.index = 0;
this.version = list._version;
this.current = default (T);
}
public bool MoveNext()
{
List<T> list = this.list;
if (this.version != list._version || (uint) this.index >= (uint) list._size)
return this.MoveNextRare();
this.current = list._items[this.index];
++this.index;
return true;
}
object IEnumerator.Current
{
{
if (this.index == 0 || this.index == this.list._size + 1)
ThrowHelper.ThrowInvalidOperationException(ExceptionResource.InvalidOperation_EnumOpCantHappen);
return (object) this.Current;
}
}
Two things become immediate evident:
We are returned a stateful object with intimate knowledge of the underlying collection.
The copy of the collection is a shallow copy.
This is of course in no way thread safe. As was pointed out above, changing the collection while iterating is just bad mojo.
But what about the problem of the collection becoming invalid during iteration by means outside of us mucking with the collection during iteration? Best practices suggests versioning the collection during operations and iteration, and checking versions to detect when the underlying collection changes.
Here's where things get really murky. According to the Microsoft documentation:
If changes are made to the collection, such as adding, modifying, or
deleting elements, the behavior of the enumerator is undefined.
Well, what does that mean? By way of example, just because List<T> implements exception handling does not mean that all collections that implement IList<T> will do the same. That seems to be a clear violation of the Liskov Substitution Principle:
Objects of a superclass shall be replaceable with objects of its
subclasses without breaking the application.
Another problem is that the enumerator must implement IDisposable -- that means another source of potential memory leaks, not only if the caller gets it wrong, but if the author does not implement the Dispose pattern correctly.
Lastly, we have a lifetime issue... what happens if the iterator is valid, but the underlying collection is gone? We now a snapshot of what was... when you separate the lifetime of a collection and its iterators, you are asking for trouble.
Lets now examine ForEach(x => { }):
names.ForEach(name =>
{
});
This expands to:
public void ForEach(Action<T> action)
{
if (action == null)
ThrowHelper.ThrowArgumentNullException(ExceptionArgument.match);
int version = this._version;
for (int index = 0; index < this._size && (version == this._version || !BinaryCompatibility.TargetsAtLeast_Desktop_V4_5); ++index)
action(this._items[index]);
if (version == this._version || !BinaryCompatibility.TargetsAtLeast_Desktop_V4_5)
return;
ThrowHelper.ThrowInvalidOperationException(ExceptionResource.InvalidOperation_EnumFailedVersion);
}
Of important note is the following:
for (int index = 0; index < this._size && ... ; ++index)
action(this._items[index]);
This code does not allocate any enumerators (nothing to Dispose), and does not pause while iterating.
Note that this also performs a shallow copy of the underlying collection, but the collection is now a snapshot in time. If the author does not correctly implement a check for the collection changing or going 'stale', the snapshot is still valid.
This doesn't in any way protect you from the problem of the lifetime issues... if the underlying collection disappears, you now have a shallow copy that points to what was... but at least you don't have a Dispose problem to deal with on orphaned iterators...
Yes, I said iterators... sometimes its advantageous to have state. Suppose you want to maintain something akin to a database cursor... maybe multiple foreach style Iterator<T>'s is the way to go. I personally dislike this style of design as there are too many lifetime issues, and you rely on the good graces of the authors of the collections you are relying on (unless you literally write everything yourself from scratch).
There is always a third option...
for (var i = 0; i < names.Count; i++)
{
Console.WriteLine(names[i]);
}
It ain't sexy, but its got teeth (apologies to Tom Cruise and the movie The Firm)
Its your choice, but now you know and it can be an informed one.

For fun, I popped List into reflector and this is the resulting C#:
public void ForEach(Action<T> action)
{
if (action == null)
{
ThrowHelper.ThrowArgumentNullException(ExceptionArgument.match);
}
for (int i = 0; i < this._size; i++)
{
action(this._items[i]);
}
}
Similarly, the MoveNext in Enumerator which is what is used by foreach is this:
public bool MoveNext()
{
if (this.version != this.list._version)
{
ThrowHelper.ThrowInvalidOperationException(ExceptionResource.InvalidOperation_EnumFailedVersion);
}
if (this.index < this.list._size)
{
this.current = this.list._items[this.index];
this.index++;
return true;
}
this.index = this.list._size + 1;
this.current = default(T);
return false;
}
The List.ForEach is much more trimmed down than MoveNext - far less processing - will more likely JIT into something efficient..
In addition, foreach() will allocate a new Enumerator no matter what. The GC is your friend, but if you're doing the same foreach repeatedly, this will make more throwaway objects, as opposed to reusing the same delegate - BUT - this is really a fringe case. In typical usage you will see little or no difference.

I guess the someList.ForEach() call could be easily parallelized whereas the normal foreach is not that easy to run parallel.
You could easily run several different delegates on different cores, which is not that easy to do with a normal foreach.
Just my 2 cents

I know two obscure-ish things that make them different. Go me!
Firstly, there's the classic bug of making a delegate for each item in the list. If you use the foreach keyword, all your delegates can end up referring to the last item of the list:
// A list of actions to execute later
List<Action> actions = new List<Action>();
// Numbers 0 to 9
List<int> numbers = Enumerable.Range(0, 10).ToList();
// Store an action that prints each number (WRONG!)
foreach (int number in numbers)
actions.Add(() => Console.WriteLine(number));
// Run the actions, we actually print 10 copies of "9"
foreach (Action action in actions)
action();
// So try again
actions.Clear();
// Store an action that prints each number (RIGHT!)
numbers.ForEach(number =>
actions.Add(() => Console.WriteLine(number)));
// Run the actions
foreach (Action action in actions)
action();
The List.ForEach method doesn't have this problem. The current item of the iteration is passed by value as an argument to the outer lambda, and then the inner lambda correctly captures that argument in its own closure. Problem solved.
(Sadly I believe ForEach is a member of List, rather than an extension method, though it's easy to define it yourself so you have this facility on any enumerable type.)
Secondly, the ForEach method approach has a limitation. If you are implementing IEnumerable by using yield return, you can't do a yield return inside the lambda. So looping through the items in a collection in order to yield return things is not possible by this method. You'll have to use the foreach keyword and work around the closure problem by manually making a copy of the current loop value inside the loop.
More here

You could name the anonymous delegate :-)
And you can write the second as:
someList.ForEach(s => s.ToUpper())
Which I prefer, and saves a lot of typing.
As Joachim says, parallelism is easier to apply to the second form.

List.ForEach() is considered to be more functional.
List.ForEach() says what you want done. foreach(item in list) also says exactly how you want it done. This leaves List.ForEach free to change the implementation of the how part in the future. For example, a hypothetical future version of .Net might always run List.ForEach in parallel, under the assumption that at this point everyone has a number of cpu cores that are generally sitting idle.
On the other hand, foreach (item in list) gives you a little more control over the loop. For example, you know that the items will be iterated in some kind of sequential order, and you could easily break in the middle if an item meets some condition.
Some more recent remarks on this issue are available here:
https://stackoverflow.com/a/529197/3043

The entire ForEach scope (delegate function) is treated as a single line of code (calling the function), and you cannot set breakpoints or step into the code. If an unhandled exception occurs the entire block is marked.

Behind the scenes, the anonymous delegate gets turned into an actual method so you could have some overhead with the second choice if the compiler didn't choose to inline the function. Additionally, any local variables referenced by the body of the anonymous delegate example would change in nature because of compiler tricks to hide the fact that it gets compiled to a new method. More info here on how C# does this magic:
http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2006/08/04/688527.aspx

The ForEach function is member of the generic class List.
I have created the following extension to reproduce the internal code:
public static class MyExtension<T>
{
public static void MyForEach(this IEnumerable<T> collection, Action<T> action)
{
foreach (T item in collection)
action.Invoke(item);
}
}
So a the end we are using a normal foreach (or a loop for if you want).
On the other hand, using a delegate function is just another way to define a function, this code:
delegate(string s) {
<process the string>
}
is equivalent to:
private static void myFunction(string s, <other variables...>)
{
<process the string>
}
or using labda expressions:
(s) => <process the string>

The second way you showed uses an extension method to execute the delegate method for each of the elements in the list.
This way, you have another delegate (=method) call.
Additionally, there is the possibility to iterate the list with a for loop.

One thing to be wary of is how to exit from the Generic .ForEach method - see this discussion. Although the link seems to say that this way is the fastest. Not sure why - you'd think they would be equivalent once compiled...

Probably BAD coding style ... please comment

I am checking whether the new name already exists or not.
Code 1
if(cmbxExistingGroups.Properties.Items.Cast<string>().ToList().Exists(txt => txt==txtNewGroup.Text.Trim())) {
MessageBox.Show("already exists.", "Add new group");
}
Otherwise I could have written:
Code 2
foreach(var str in cmbxExistingGroups.Properties.Items)
{
if(str==txtNewGroup.Text) {
MessageBox.Show("already exists.", "Add new group");
break;
}
}
I wrote these two and thought I was exploiting language features in code 1.
...and yes: both of them work for me ... I am wondering about the performance :-/

I appreciate the cleverness of the first sample (assuming it works), but the second one is a lot easier for the next person who has to maintain the code to figure out.

Sometimes just a little indentation makes a world of difference:
if (cmbxExistingGroups.Properties.Items
.Cast<string>().ToList()
.Exists
(
txt => txt==txtNewGroup.Text.Trim()
))
{
MessageBox.Show("already exists.", "Add new group");
}
Since your using a List<String>, you might as well just drop the Exists predicate and use Contains...use Exists when comparing complex objects by unique values.

I've quoted it before but I'll do it again:
Write your code as if the person maintaining it is a homicidal maniac
who knows where you live.

would
cmbxExistingGroups.Properties.Items.Contains(text)
not work instead?

There are a few things wrong here:
1) The two bits of code don't do the same thing - the first looks for the trimmed version of txtNewGroup, the second just looks for txtNewGroup
2) There's no point in calling ToList() - that just make things less efficient
3) Using Exists with a predicate is overkill - Contains is all you need here
So, the first could easily come down to:
if (cmbxExistingGroups.Properties.Items.Cast<string>.Contains(txtNewGroup.Text))
{
// Stuff
}
I'd probably create a variable to give "cmbxExistingGroups.Properties.Items.Cast" a meaningful, simple name - but then I'd say it's easier to understand than the explicit foreach loop.

The first code bit is fine, except instead of calling Enumerable.ToList() and List<T>.Exists(), you should just call Enumerable.Any() -- it does a lazy evaluation, so it never allocates the memory for the List<T>, and it will stop enumerating cmbxExistingGroups.Properties.Items and casting them to string. Also, calling the trim from inside that predicate means it happens for every item it looks at. It would be best to move it out to the outer scope:
string match = txtNewGroup.Text.Trim();
if(cmbxExistingGroups.Properties.Items.Cast<string>().Any(txt => txt==match)) {
MessageBox.Show("already exists.", "Add new group");
}

Verbosity in coding is not always bad at all. I prefer the second code snippet a lot over the first one. Just imagine you would have to maintain (or even change the functionality of) the first example... um.

Well, if it were me, it would be a variation on 2. Always prefer readability over one-liners. Additionally, always extract a method to make it clearer.
your calling code becomes
if( cmbxExistingGroups.ContainsKey(txtNewGroup.Text) )
{
MessageBox.Show("Already Exists");
}
If you define an extension method for Combo Boxes
public static class ComboBoxExtensions
{
public static bool ContainsKey(this ComboBox comboBox, string key)
{
foreach (string existing in comboBox.Items)
{
if (string.Equals(key, existing))
{
return true;
}
}
return false;
}
}

First, they're not equivalent. The 1st sample does a check against txtNewSGroup.Text.Trim(), the 2nd omits trim. Also, the 1st casts everything to a string, whereas the second uses whatever comes out of the iterator. I assume that's an object, or you wouldn't have needed the cast in the 1st place.
So, to be fair, the closest equivalent to the 2nd sample in the LINQ style would be:
if (mbxExistingGroups.Properties.Items.Cast<string>().Contains(txtNewGroup.Text)) {
...
}
which isn't too bad. But, since you seem to be working with old style IEnumerable instead of new fangled IEnumerable<T>, why don't we give you another extension method:
public static Contains<T>(this IEnumerable e, T value) {
return e.Cast<T>().Contains(value);
}
And now we have:
if (mbxExistingGroups.Properties.Items.Contains(txtNewGroup.Text)) {
...
}
which is pretty readable IMO.

I would agree, go with the second one because it will be easier to maintain for anybody else who works on it and when you come back to that in 6-12 months, it will be easier to remember what you were doing.

both of them works for me ..i am wonodering about the performance
I see no one read the question :) I think I see what you're doing (I don't use this language). The first tries to generate the list and test it in one shot. The second does an explicit iteration and can "short circuit" itself (exit early) if it finds the duplicate early on. The question is whether the "all at once" is more efficient due to the language implementation.

The second of the two would perform better, and it would perform the same as other people's samples that use Contains.
The reason why the first one uses an extra trim. plus a conversion to list. so it iterates once for conversion, then starts again to check using exists, and does a trim each time, but will exit iteration if found. The second starts iterating once, has no trim, and will exit if found.
So in short the answer to your question is the second performs much better.

From a performance point of view:
txtNewGroup.Text.Trim()
Do your control interaction/string manipulation outside of the loop - one time, instead of n times.

I imagine that on the WTF's per minute scale, the first would be off the chart. Count the dots, any more than two per line is a potential problem