Develop Reference

Convert IEnumerable<Task<T>> to IObservable<T> with exceptions handling

I want to convert IEnumerable<Task<T>> to IObservable<T>. I found solution to this here:
IObservable<T> ToObservable<T>(IEnumerable<Task<T>> source)
{
return source.Select(t => t.ToObservable()).Merge();
}
It is perfectly ok for usual cases, but I need to handle exceptions, that could raise in that Tasks... So IObservable<T> should not be dead after first exception.
What I read, recommendation for this use case is to use some wrapper, that will carry actual value or error. So my attempt was
IObservable<Either<T, Exception>> ToObservable<T>(IEnumerable<Task<T>> source)
{
var subject = new Subject<Either<T, Exception>>();
foreach (var observable in GetIntsIEnumerable().Select(t => t.ToObservable()))
{
observable.Subscribe(i => subject.OnNext(i), e => subject.OnNext(e));
}
return subject;
}
With Either<T, Exception> borrowed from this article.
But this is not ok either, because OnCompleted() is not called. How should I solve it? I'm pretty new with Rx concept.
Here is full code for testing...
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Linq;
using System.Reactive.Linq;
using System.Reactive.Subjects;
using System.Reactive.Threading.Tasks;
using System.Threading;
using System.Threading.Tasks;
namespace Test
{
class Program
{
static Task Main()
{
SemaphoreSlim signal = new SemaphoreSlim(0, 1);
//GetInts1().Subscribe(
// i => Console.WriteLine($"OK: {i}"),
// e => Console.WriteLine($"ERROR: {e.Message}"),
// () => signal.Release());
GetInts2().Subscribe(r => Console.WriteLine(r.Match(
i => $"OK: {i}",
e => $"ERROR: {e.Message}")),
() => signal.Release());
return signal.WaitAsync();
}
static IObservable<int> GetInts1()
{
return GetIntsIEnumerable().Select(t => t.ToObservable()).Merge();
}
static IObservable<Either<int, Exception>> GetInts2()
{
var subject = new Subject<Either<int, Exception>>();
foreach (var observable in GetIntsIEnumerable().Select(t => t.ToObservable()))
{
observable.Subscribe(i => subject.OnNext(i), e => subject.OnNext(e));
}
return subject;
}
static IEnumerable<Task<int>> GetIntsIEnumerable()
{
Random rnd = new Random();
foreach (int i in Enumerable.Range(1, 10))
{
yield return Task.Run(async () =>
{
await Task.Delay(rnd.Next(0, 5000));
if (i == 6)
throw new ArgumentException();
return i;
});
}
}
}
/// <summary>
/// Functional data data to represent a discriminated
/// union of two possible types.
/// </summary>
/// <typeparam name="TL">Type of "Left" item.</typeparam>
/// <typeparam name="TR">Type of "Right" item.</typeparam>
public class Either<TL, TR>
{
private readonly TL left;
private readonly TR right;
private readonly bool isLeft;
public Either(TL left)
{
this.left = left;
this.isLeft = true;
}
public Either(TR right)
{
this.right = right;
this.isLeft = false;
}
public T Match<T>(Func<TL, T> leftFunc, Func<TR, T> rightFunc)
{
if (leftFunc == null)
{
throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(leftFunc));
}
if (rightFunc == null)
{
throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(rightFunc));
}
return this.isLeft ? leftFunc(this.left) : rightFunc(this.right);
}
/// <summary>
/// If right value is assigned, execute an action on it.
/// </summary>
/// <param name="rightAction">Action to execute.</param>
public void DoRight(Action<TR> rightAction)
{
if (rightAction == null)
{
throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(rightAction));
}
if (!this.isLeft)
{
rightAction(this.right);
}
}
public TL LeftOrDefault() => this.Match(l => l, r => default);
public TR RightOrDefault() => this.Match(l => default, r => r);
public static implicit operator Either<TL, TR>(TL left) => new Either<TL, TR>(left);
public static implicit operator Either<TL, TR>(TR right) => new Either<TL, TR>(right);
}
}

There's a built-in mechanism for handling errors like this. Simply use the .Materialize() operator which changes an IObservable<T> to an IObservable<Notification<T>> and allows errors and completions to be viewed as normal values.
So, as an example, Observable.Return<int>(42) produces a value 42 and a completion, but Observable.Return<int>(42).Materialize() produces a value Notification.CreateOnNext<int>(42), followed by a value Notification.CreateOnCompleted<int>(), followed by a normal completion.
If you have a sequence that produces an error then you effectively get a value Notification.CreateOnError<T>(exception) followed by a normal completion.
This all means that you can change your code like this:
IObservable<Notification<T>> ToObservable<T>(IEnumerable<Task<T>> source)
{
return source.Select(t => t.ToObservable().Materialize()).Merge();
}
Your test code is a little bit complicated for my liking. You should never need to use a SemaphoreSlim nor a Subject in the way that you're using them.
I've written my own test code.
void Main()
{
var r = new Random();
IEnumerable<Task<int>> source =
Enumerable
.Range(0, 10).Select(x => Task.Factory.StartNew(() =>
{
Thread.Sleep(r.Next(10000));
if (x % 3 == 0) throw new NotSupportedException($"Failed on {x}");
return x;
}));
IObservable<Notification<int>> query = source.ToObservable();
query
.Do(x =>
{
if (x.Kind == NotificationKind.OnError)
{
Console.WriteLine(x.Exception.Message);
}
})
.Where(x => x.Kind == NotificationKind.OnNext) // Only care about vales
.Select(x => x.Value)
.Subscribe(x => Console.WriteLine(x), () => Console.WriteLine("Done."));
}
public static class Ex
{
public static IObservable<Notification<T>> ToObservable<T>(this IEnumerable<Task<T>> source)
{
return source.Select(t => t.ToObservable().Materialize()).Merge();
}
}
A typical run of that code produces:
Failed on 3
2
5
4
Failed on 0
Failed on 9
Failed on 6
7
1
8
Done.

The Rx library contains a Merge overload that merges tasks directly and efficiently, instead of converting each task to an intermediate throw-away observable sequence:
// Merges results from all source tasks into a single observable sequence.
public static IObservable<TSource> Merge<TSource>(
this IObservable<Task<TSource>> sources);
You could use this operator for the implementation of the ToObservable method like this:
IObservable<Either<T, Exception>> ToObservable<T>(IEnumerable<Task<T>> source)
{
return source
.Select(async task =>
{
try { return new Either<T, Exception>(await task); }
catch (Exception ex) { return new Either<T, Exception>(ex); }
})
.ToObservable()
.Merge();
}
You can place the ToObservable operator before or after the Select operator, it doesn't make any difference.
Btw there is available a minimalistic library (Try by Stephen Cleary) that contains a Try<T> type, which is similar in functionality to the Either type, but is specialized for having an Exception as the second type (as an Either<T, Exception>). Using this library, you could implement the ToObservable method like this:
IObservable<Try<T>> ToObservable<T>(IEnumerable<Task<T>> source)
{
return source
.Select(task => Try.Create(() => task))
.ToObservable()
.Merge();
}
Here is the definition of the Try.Create method:
// Executes the specified function, and wraps either the result or the exception.
public static Task<Try<T>> Create<T>(Func<Task<T>> func);

Why there is no expression sequencing operator? [duplicate]

I'm using some functional stuff in C# and keep getting stuck on the fact that List.Add doesn't return the updated list.
In general, I'd like to call a function on an object and then return the updated object.
For example it would be great if C# had a comma operator:
((accum, data) => accum.Add(data), accum)
I could write my own "comma operator" like this:
static T comma(Action a, Func<T> result) {
a();
return result();
}
It looks like it would work but the call site would ugly. My first example would be something like:
((accum, data) => comma(accum.Add(data), ()=>accum))
Enough examples! What's the cleanest way to do this without another developer coming along later and wrinkling his or her nose at the code smell?

I know this as Fluent.
A Fluent example of a List.Add using Extension Methods
static List<T> MyAdd<T>(this List<T> list, T element)
{
list.Add(element);
return list;
}

I know that this thread is very old, but I want to append the following information for future users:
There isn't currently such an operator. During the C# 6 development cycle a semicolon operator was added, as:
int square = (int x = int.Parse(Console.ReadLine()); Console.WriteLine(x - 2); x * x);
which can be translated as follows:
int square = compiler_generated_Function();
[MethodImpl(MethodImplOptions.AggressiveInlining)]
private int compiler_generated_Function()
{
int x = int.Parse(Console.ReadLine());
Console.WriteLine(x - 2);
return x * x;
}
However, this feature was dropped before the final C# release.

You can do almost exactly the first example naturally using code blocks in C# 3.0.
((accum, data) => { accum.Add(data); return accum; })

This is what Concat http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/vstudio/bb302894%28v=vs.100%29.aspx is for. Just wrap a single item in an array. Functional code should not mutate the original data. If performance is a concern, and this isn't good enough, then you'll no longer be using the functional paradigm.
((accum, data) => accum.Concat(new[]{data}))

Another technique, straight from functional programming, is as follows. Define an IO struct like this:
/// <summary>TODO</summary>
public struct IO<TSource> : IEquatable<IO<TSource>> {
/// <summary>Create a new instance of the class.</summary>
public IO(Func<TSource> functor) : this() { _functor = functor; }
/// <summary>Invokes the internal functor, returning the result.</summary>
public TSource Invoke() => (_functor | Default)();
/// <summary>Returns true exactly when the contained functor is not null.</summary>
public bool HasValue => _functor != null;
X<Func<TSource>> _functor { get; }
static Func<TSource> Default => null;
}
and make it a LINQ-able monad with these extension methods:
[SuppressMessage("Microsoft.Naming", "CA1724:TypeNamesShouldNotMatchNamespaces")]
public static class IO {
public static IO<TSource> ToIO<TSource>( this Func<TSource> source) {
source.ContractedNotNull(nameof(source));
return new IO<TSource>(source);
}
public static IO<TResult> Select<TSource,TResult>(this IO<TSource> #this,
Func<TSource,TResult> projector
) =>
#this.HasValue && projector!=null
? New(() => projector(#this.Invoke()))
: Null<TResult>();
public static IO<TResult> SelectMany<TSource,TResult>(this IO<TSource> #this,
Func<TSource,IO<TResult>> selector
) =>
#this.HasValue && selector!=null
? New(() => selector(#this.Invoke()).Invoke())
: Null<TResult>();
public static IO<TResult> SelectMany<TSource,T,TResult>(this IO<TSource> #this,
Func<TSource, IO<T>> selector,
Func<TSource,T,TResult> projector
) =>
#this.HasValue && selector!=null && projector!=null
? New(() => { var s = #this.Invoke(); return projector(s, selector(s).Invoke()); } )
: Null<TResult>();
public static IO<TResult> New<TResult> (Func<TResult> functor) => new IO<TResult>(functor);
private static IO<TResult> Null<TResult>() => new IO<TResult>(null);
}
and now you can use the LINQ comprehensive syntax thus:
using Xunit;
[Fact]
public static void IOTest() {
bool isExecuted1 = false;
bool isExecuted2 = false;
bool isExecuted3 = false;
bool isExecuted4 = false;
IO<int> one = new IO<int>( () => { isExecuted1 = true; return 1; });
IO<int> two = new IO<int>( () => { isExecuted2 = true; return 2; });
Func<int, IO<int>> addOne = x => { isExecuted3 = true; return (x + 1).ToIO(); };
Func<int, Func<int, IO<int>>> add = x => y => { isExecuted4 = true; return (x + y).ToIO(); };
var query1 = ( from x in one
from y in two
from z in addOne(y)
from _ in "abc".ToIO()
let addOne2 = add(x)
select addOne2(z)
);
Assert.False(isExecuted1); // Laziness.
Assert.False(isExecuted2); // Laziness.
Assert.False(isExecuted3); // Laziness.
Assert.False(isExecuted4); // Laziness.
int lhs = 1 + 2 + 1;
int rhs = query1.Invoke().Invoke();
Assert.Equal(lhs, rhs); // Execution.
Assert.True(isExecuted1);
Assert.True(isExecuted2);
Assert.True(isExecuted3);
Assert.True(isExecuted4);
}
When one desires an IO monad that composes but returns only void, define this struct and dependent methods:
public struct Unit : IEquatable<Unit>, IComparable<Unit> {
[CLSCompliant(false)]
public static Unit _ { get { return _this; } } static Unit _this = new Unit();
}
public static IO<Unit> ConsoleWrite(object arg) =>
ReturnIOUnit(() => Write(arg));
public static IO<Unit> ConsoleWriteLine(string value) =>
ReturnIOUnit(() => WriteLine(value));
public static IO<ConsoleKeyInfo> ConsoleReadKey() => new IO<ConsoleKeyInfo>(() => ReadKey());
which readily allow the writing of code fragments like this:
from pass in Enumerable.Range(0, int.MaxValue)
let counter = Readers.Counter(0)
select ( from state in gcdStartStates
where _predicate(pass, counter())
select state )
into enumerable
where ( from _ in Gcd.Run(enumerable.ToList()).ToIO()
from __ in ConsoleWrite(Prompt(mode))
from c in ConsoleReadKey()
from ___ in ConsoleWriteLine()
select c.KeyChar.ToUpper() == 'Q'
).Invoke()
select 0;
where the old C comma operator is readily recognized for what it is: a monadic compose operation.
The true merit of the comprehension syntax is apparent when one attempts to write that fragment in the flunt style:
( Enumerable.Range(0,int.MaxValue)
.Select(pass => new {pass, counter = Readers.Counter(0)})
.Select(_ => gcdStartStates.Where(state => _predicate(_.pass,_.counter()))
.Select(state => state)
)
).Where(enumerable =>
( (Gcd.Run(enumerable.ToList()) ).ToIO()
.SelectMany(_ => ConsoleWrite(Prompt(mode)),(_,__) => new {})
.SelectMany(_ => ConsoleReadKey(), (_, c) => new {c})
.SelectMany(_ => ConsoleWriteLine(), (_,__) => _.c.KeyChar.ToUpper() == 'Q')
).Invoke()
).Select(list => 0);

The extension method is arguably the best solution, but for completeness' sake, don't forget the obvious alternative: a wrapper class.
public class FList<T> : List<T>
{
public new FList<T> Add(T item)
{
base.Add(item);
return this;
}
public new FList<T> RemoveAt(int index)
{
base.RemoveAt(index);
return this;
}
// etc...
}
{
var list = new FList<string>();
list.Add("foo").Add("remove me").Add("bar").RemoveAt(1);
}

I thought it would be interesting to make a version of my wrapper class answer that doesn't require you write the wrapper methods.
public class FList<T> : List<T>
{
public FList<T> Do(string method, params object[] args)
{
var methodInfo = GetType().GetMethod(method);
if (methodInfo == null)
throw new InvalidOperationException("I have no " + method + " method.");
if (methodInfo.ReturnType != typeof(void))
throw new InvalidOperationException("I'm only meant for void methods.");
methodInfo.Invoke(this, args);
return this;
}
}
{
var list = new FList<string>();
list.Do("Add", "foo")
.Do("Add", "remove me")
.Do("Add", "bar")
.Do("RemoveAt", 1)
.Do("Insert", 1, "replacement");
foreach (var item in list)
Console.WriteLine(item);
}
Output:
foo
replacement
bar
EDIT
You can slim down the syntax by exploiting C# indexed properties.
Simply add this method:
public FList<T> this[string method, params object[] args]
{
get { return Do(method, args); }
}
And the call now looks like:
list = list["Add", "foo"]
["Add", "remove me"]
["Add", "bar"]
["RemoveAt", 1]
["Insert", 1, "replacement"];
With the linebreaks being optional, of course.
Just a bit of fun hacking the syntax.

LINQ IsAssignableFrom check between two Type[]?

Let's say the following types:
public class Object { }
public class GameObject : Object { }
public class Component : Object { }
public class Transform : Component { }
And two Type[]
var t1 = new [] { typeof(Object), typeof(Component) };
var t2 = new [] { typeof(GameObject), typeof(Transform) };
And the extension method:
Console.Writeline(t1.IsAssignableFrom(t2); // prints true
I wrote the method in a basic way:
public static bool IsAssignableFrom(this Type[] to, Type[] from)
{
if (to.Length != from.Length) return false;
for (int i = 0; i < to.Length; i++) {
if (!to[i].IsAssignableFrom(from[i]))
return false;
}
return true;
}
But couldn't write it in a LINQ fashion... - Didn't know what methods to use :s
Any ideas?
Thanks!

I suspect you're just looking for:
return to.Length == from.Length &&
to.Zip(from, (t, f) => t.IsAssignableFrom(f))
.All(x => x);
The call to Zip here just zips the first elements of both sequences with each other, then the second elements, etc - applying the operation specified as (t, f) => t.IsAssignableFrom(f) on each pair. The All just checks that the resulting sequence is all true.
Depending on how you're calling this, you might want to make it an error for the lengths to be different, instead of just returning false:
if (to.Length != from.Length)
{
throw new ArgumentException("...");
}
return to.Zip(from, (t, f) => t.IsAssignableFrom(f))
.All(x => x);

Here is another solution:
public static bool IsAssignableFrom(this Type[] to, Type[] from)
{
if (to.Length != from.Length) return false;
return to.Select((type, idx) => new { type, idx })
.All((x) => x.type.IsAssignableFrom(from[x.idx]));
}
Or:
int i = 0;
return to.All(x => x.IsAssignableFrom(from[i++]));

Get list of distinct values in List<T> in c#

So, say I have something like the following:
public class Element
{
public int ID;
public int Type;
public Properties prorerty;
...
}
and
public class Properties
{
public int Id;
public string Property;
...
}
and I have a list of these:
List Elements = new List();
What would be the cleanest way to get a list of all distinct values in the prorerty column in Element class? I mean, I could iterate through the list and add all values that aren't duplicates to another list of strings, but this seems dirty and inefficient. I have a feeling there's some magical Linq construction that'll do this in one line, but I haven't been able to come up with anything.

var results = Elements.Distinct();
Note: you will have to override .Equals and .GetHashCode()
public class Element : IEqualityComparer<Element>
{
public bool Equals(Element x, Element y)
{
if (x.ID == y.ID)
{
return true;
}
else
{
return false;
}
}
}
public int GetHashCode(Element obj)
{
return obj.ID.GetHashCode();
}

Isn't simpler to use one of the approaches shown below :) ? You can just group your domain objects by some key and select FirstOrDefault like below.
This is a copy of my answer on similar question here:
Get unique values - original answer
More interesting option is to create some Comparer adapter that takes you domain object and creates other object the Comparer can use/work with out of the box. Base on the comparer you can create your custom linq extensions like in sample below. Hope it helps :)
[TestMethod]
public void CustomDistinctTest()
{
// Generate some sample of domain objects
var listOfDomainObjects = Enumerable
.Range(10, 10)
.SelectMany(x =>
Enumerable
.Range(15, 10)
.Select(y => new SomeClass { SomeText = x.ToString(), SomeInt = x + y }))
.ToList();
var uniqueStringsByUsingGroupBy = listOfDomainObjects
.GroupBy(x => x.SomeText)
.Select(x => x.FirstOrDefault())
.ToList();
var uniqueStringsByCustomExtension = listOfDomainObjects.DistinctBy(x => x.SomeText).ToList();
var uniqueIntsByCustomExtension = listOfDomainObjects.DistinctBy(x => x.SomeInt).ToList();
var uniqueStrings = listOfDomainObjects
.Distinct(new EqualityComparerAdapter<SomeClass, string>(x => x.SomeText))
.OrderBy(x=>x.SomeText)
.ToList();
var uniqueInts = listOfDomainObjects
.Distinct(new EqualityComparerAdapter<SomeClass, int>(x => x.SomeInt))
.OrderBy(x => x.SomeInt)
.ToList();
}
Custom comparer adapter:
public class EqualityComparerAdapter<T, V> : EqualityComparer<T>
where V : IEquatable<V>
{
private Func<T, V> _valueAdapter;
public EqualityComparerAdapter(Func<T, V> valueAdapter)
{
_valueAdapter = valueAdapter;
}
public override bool Equals(T x, T y)
{
return _valueAdapter(x).Equals(_valueAdapter(y));
}
public override int GetHashCode(T obj)
{
return _valueAdapter(obj).GetHashCode();
}
}
Custom linq extension (definition of DistinctBy extension method):
// Embed this class in some specific custom namespace
public static class DistByExt
{
public static IEnumerable<T> DistinctBy<T,V>(this IEnumerable<T> enumerator,Func<T,V> valueAdapter)
where V : IEquatable<V>
{
return enumerator.Distinct(new EqualityComparerAdapter<T, V>(valueAdapter));
}
}
Definition of domain class used in test case:
public class SomeClass
{
public string SomeText { get; set; }
public int SomeInt { get; set; }
}

var props = Elements.Select(x => x.Properties).Distinct();
And make sure you overridden .Equals() and .GetHashCode() methods.
Or if you need direct strings from Properties:
var props = Elements
.Select(x => x.Properties != null ? x.Properties.Property : null)
.Distinct();

If you need the string fields on the Properties field, and if you know the Properties field prorerty is never null, just use
IEnumerable<string> uniqueStrings = Elements
.Select(e => e.prorerty.Property).Distinct();
If there's a chance prorerty can be null, handle that situation in the lambda.
This will use the default equality comparer for String which is an ordinal comparison independent of culture and case-sensitive.

my working example from LINQPad (C# Program)
void Main()
{
var ret = new List<Element>();
ret.Add(new Element(){ID=1});
ret.Add(new Element(){ID=1});
ret.Add(new Element(){ID=2});
ret = ret.GroupBy(x=>x.ID).Select(x=>x.First()).ToList();
Console.WriteLine(ret.Count()); // shows 2
}
public class Element
{
public int ID;
public int Type;
public Properties prorerty;
}
public class Properties
{
public int Id;
public string Property;
}

Is there a way to specify an "empty" C# lambda expression?

I'd like to declare an "empty" lambda expression that does, well, nothing.
Is there a way to do something like this without needing the DoNothing() method?
public MyViewModel()
{
SomeMenuCommand = new RelayCommand(
x => DoNothing(),
x => CanSomeMenuCommandExecute());
}
private void DoNothing()
{
}
private bool CanSomeMenuCommandExecute()
{
// this depends on my mood
}
My intent in doing this is only control the enabled/disabled state of my WPF command, but that's an aside. Maybe it's just too early in the morning for me, but I imagine there must be a way to just declare the x => DoNothing() lambda expression in some way like this to accomplish the same thing:
SomeMenuCommand = new RelayCommand(
x => (),
x => CanSomeMenuCommandExecute());
Is there some way to do this? It just seems unnecessary to need a do-nothing method.

Action doNothing = () => { };

I thought I would add some code that I've found useful for this type of situation. I have an Actions static class and a Functions static class with some basic functions in them:
public static class Actions
{
public static void Empty() { }
public static void Empty<T>(T value) { }
public static void Empty<T1, T2>(T1 value1, T2 value2) { }
/* Put as many overloads as you want */
}
public static class Functions
{
public static T Identity<T>(T value) { return value; }
public static T0 Default<T0>() { return default(T0); }
public static T0 Default<T1, T0>(T1 value1) { return default(T0); }
/* Put as many overloads as you want */
/* Some other potential methods */
public static bool IsNull<T>(T entity) where T : class { return entity == null; }
public static bool IsNonNull<T>(T entity) where T : class { return entity != null; }
/* Put as many overloads for True and False as you want */
public static bool True<T>(T entity) { return true; }
public static bool False<T>(T entity) { return false; }
}
I believe this helps improve readability just a tiny bit:
SomeMenuCommand = new RelayCommand(
Actions.Empty,
x => CanSomeMenuCommandExecute());
// Another example:
var lOrderedStrings = GetCollectionOfStrings().OrderBy(Functions.Identity);

This should work:
SomeMenuCommand = new RelayCommand(
x => {},
x => CanSomeMenuCommandExecute());

Assuming you only need a delegate (rather than an expression tree) then this should work:
SomeMenuCommand = new RelayCommand(
x => {},
x => CanSomeMenuCommandExecute());
(That won't work with expression trees as it's got a statement body. See section 4.6 of the C# 3.0 spec for more details.)

I don't fully understand why do you need a DoNothing method.
Can't you just do:
SomeMenuCommand = new RelayCommand(
null,
x => CanSomeMenuCommandExecute());

Action DoNothing = delegate { };
Action DoNothing2 = () => {};
I used to initialize Events to a do nothing action so it was not null and if it was called without subscription it would default to the 'do nothing function' instead of a null-pointer exception.
public event EventHandler<MyHandlerInfo> MyHandlerInfo = delegate { };

Starting with C# 9.0 you can specify discards _ for required parameters. Example:
Action<int, string, DateTime> action = (_, _, _) => { };