This question already has answers here:
Is there an IEnumerable implementation that only iterates over it's source (e.g. LINQ) once?
(4 answers)
Closed 9 months ago.
I have a very large enumeration and am preparing an expensive deferred operation on it (e.g. sorting it). I'm then passing this into a function which may or may not consume the IEnumerable, depending on some logic of its own.
Here's an illustration:
IEnumerable<Order> expensiveEnumerable = fullCatalog.OrderBy(c => Prioritize(c));
MaybeFullFillSomeOrders(expensiveEnumerable);
// Elsewhere... (example use-case for multiple enumerations, not real code)
void MaybeFullFillSomeOrders(IEnumerable<Order> nextUpOrders){
if(notAGoodTime())
return;
foreach(var order in nextUpOrders)
collectSomeInfo(order);
processInfo();
foreach(var order in nextUpOrders) {
maybeFulfill(order);
if(atCapacity())
break;
}
}
I'm would like to prepare my input to the other function such that:
If they do not consume the enumerable, the performance price of sorting is not paid.
This already precludes calling e.g. ToList() or ToArray() on it
If they choose to enumerate multiple times (perhaps not realizing how expensive it would be in this case) I want some defence in place to prevent the multiple enumeration.
Ideally, the result is still an IEnumerable<T>
The best solution I've come up with is to use Lazy<>
var expensive = new Lazy<List<Order>>>(
() => fullCatalog.OrderBy(c => Prioritize(c)).ToList());
This appears to satisfy criteria 1 and 2, but has a couple of drawbacks:
I have to change the interface to all downstream usages to expect a Lazy.
The full list (which in this case was built up from a SelectMany() on serveral smaller partitions) would need to be allocated as a new single contiguous list in memory. I'm not sure there's an easy way around this if I want to "cache" the sort result, but if you know of one I'm all ears.
One idea I had to solve the first problem was to wrap Lazy<> in some custom class that either implements or can implicitly be converted to an IEnumerable<T>, but I'm hoping someone knows of a more elegant approach.
You certainly could write your own IEnumerable<T> implementation that wraps another one, remembering all the elements it's already seen (and whether it's exhausted or not). If you need it to be thread-safe that becomes trickier, and you'd need to remember that at any time there may be multiple iterators working against the same IEnumerable<T>.
Fundamentally I think it would come down to working out what to do when asked for the next element (which is somewhat-annoyingly split into MoveNext() and Current, but that can probably be handled...):
If you've already read the next element within another iterator, you can yield it from your buffer
If you've already discovered that there is no next element, you can return that immediately
Otherwise, you need to ask the original iterator for the next element, and remember if for all the other wrapped iterators.
The other aspect that's tricky is knowing when to dispose of the underlying IEnumerator<T> - if you don't need to do that, it makes things simpler.
As a very sketchy attempt that I haven't even attempted to compile, and which is definitely not thread-safe, you could try something like this:
public class LazyEnumerable<T> : IEnumerable<T>
{
private readonly IEnumerator<T> iterator;
private List<T> buffer;
private bool completed = false;
public LazyEnumerable(IEnumerable<T> original)
{
// TODO: You could be even lazier, only calling
// GetEnumerator when you first need an element
iterator = original.GetEnumerator();
}
IEnumerator GetEnumerator() => GetEnumerator();
public IEnumerator<T> GetEnumerator()
{
int index = 0;
while (true)
{
// If we already have the element, yield it
if (index < buffer.Count)
{
yield return buffer[index];
}
// If we've yielded everything in the buffer and some
// other iterator has come to the end of the original,
// we're done.
else if (completed)
{
yield break;
}
// Otherwise, see if there's anything left in the original
// iterator.
else
{
bool hasNext = iterator.MoveNext();
if (hasNext)
{
var current = iterator.Current;
buffer.Add(current);
yield return current;
}
else
{
completed = true;
yield break;
}
}
index++;
}
}
}
I have following problem:
I want to implement my own collection, which will also implement ICollection<T> interface. That means that I also need to implement IEnumerable<T> interface. Implementing IEnumerable<T> can be done two ways:
First approach: by having private struct implementing IEnumerator<T> and returning it from GetEnumerator() method
Second approach: I can just use iterator (using yield return) and let compiler generate IEnumerator class for me.
I also want my enumerators to throw InvalidOperationException on any MoveNext() (or Reset()) call after the collection was modified
as it is specified in MS documentation
If I will use first approach, then everything is ok (I just save version of my collection when creating new enumerator and then in MoveNext() I just check if it hasnt changed).
The same trick is used by MS Collections But here is THE PROBLEM - if I will use second approach I think I cannot enforce following behaviour. Consider following code.
class MyCollection : ICollcetion<T>
{
int _version = 0;
T[] _collectionData;
public void Modify()
{
... // do the modification
_version++; // change version, so enumerators can check that they are invalid
}
...
public IEnumerator<T> GetEnumerator()
{
int _enmVersion = _version;
int i = 0;
yield return _collectionData[i];
if( _enmVersion != _version ) // check if there was not modificaction
{
throw new InvalidOperationException();
}
}
...
}
...
var collection = new MyCollection();
var e = collection.GetEnumerator();
myCollection.Modfiy(); //collection modification, so e becomes irrecoverably invalidated
e.MoveNext(); // right now I want to throw exception
//but instead of that, code until first yield return executed
//and the version is saved... :(
This problem occurs only if the collection is modified after obataining enumerator object, but before first call to MoveNext(), but still it is problem...
My question is: is it possible somehow use second approach AND enforce right behaviour OR I need for this case to stick with first approach ?
My suspicion is that I have to use first approach, since the code of iterator method is exeuted only when I call MoveNext() , and not in constructor of compiler generated class, but I want to be sure...
Your problem is that an iterator method won't run any code at all until the first MoveNext() call.
You can work around this problem by wrapping the iterator in a non-iterator method that grabs the version immediately and passes it as a parameter:
public IEnumerator<T> GetEnumerator() {
return GetRealEnumerator(_version);
}
private IEnumerator<T> GetRealEnumerator(int baseVersion) {
For the List object, we have a method called Reverse().
It reverse the order of the list 'in place', it doesn't return anything.
For the IEnumerable object, we have an extension method called Reverse().
It returns another IEnumerable.
I need to iterate in reverse order throught a list, so I can't directly use the second method, because I get a List, and I don't want to reverse it, just iterate backwards.
So I can either do this :
for(int i = list.Count - 1; i >=0; i--)
Or
foreach(var item in list.AsEnumerable().Reverse())
I found it less readable than if I have an IEnumerable, just do
foreach(var item in list.Reverse())
I can't understand why this 2 methods have been implemented this way, with the same name. It is pretty annoying and confusing.
Why there is not an extension called BackwardsIterator() in the place of Reverse() working for all IEnumerable?
I'm very interested by the historical reason of this choice, more than the 'how to do it' stuff!
It is worth noting that the list method is a lot older than the extension method. The naming was likely kept the same as Reverse seems more succinct than BackwardsIterator.
If you want to bypass the list version and go to the extension method, you need to treat the list like an IEnumerable<T>:
var numbers = new List<int>();
numbers.Reverse(); // hits list
(numbers as IEnumerable<int>).Reverse(); // hits extension
Or call the extension method as a static method:
Enumerable.Reverse(numbers);
Note that the Enumerable version will need to iterate the underlying enumerable entirely in order to start iterating it in reverse. If you plan on doing this multiple times over the same enumerable, consider permanently reversing the order and iterating it normally.
Write your own BackwardsIterator then!
public static IEnumerable BackwardsIterator(this List lst)
{
for(int i = lst.Count - 1; i >=0; i--)
{
yield return lst[i];
}
}
The existence of List<T>.Reverse long preceded the existence of IEnumerable<T>.Reverse. The reason they are named the same is ... incompetence. It's a horrible botch; clearly the Linq IEnumerable<T> function should have been given a different name ... e.g., Backwards ... since they have quite different semantics. As it is, it lays an awful trap for programmers -- someone might change the type of list from List<T> to, e.g., Collection<T>, and suddenly list.Reverse();, rather than reversing list in place, simply returns an IEnumerable<T> that is discarded. It cannot be overstated just how incompetent it was of MS to give these methods the same name.
To avoid the problem you can define your own extension method
public static IEnumerable<T> Backwards<T>(this IEnumerable<T> source) => source.Reverse();
You can even add a special case for efficient processing of indexable lists:
public static IEnumerable<T> Backwards<T>(this IEnumerable<T> source) =>
source is IList<T> list ? Backwards<T>(list) : source.Reverse();
public static IEnumerable<T> Backwards<T>(this IList<T> list)
{
for (int x = list.Count; --x >= 0;)
yield return list[x];
}
I am reading this blog: Pipes and filters pattern
I am confused by this code snippet:
public class Pipeline<T>
{
private readonly List<IOperation<T>> operations = new List<IOperation<T>>();
public Pipeline<T> Register(IOperation<T> operation)
{
operations.Add(operation);
return this;
}
public void Execute()
{
IEnumerable<T> current = new List<T>();
foreach (IOperation<T> operation in operations)
{
current = operation.Execute(current);
}
IEnumerator<T> enumerator = current.GetEnumerator();
while (enumerator.MoveNext());
}
}
what is the purpose of this statement: while (enumerator.MoveNext());? seems this code is a noop.
First consider this:
IEnumerable<T> current = new List<T>();
foreach (IOperation<T> operation in operations)
{
current = operation.Execute(current);
}
This code appears to be creating nested enumerables, each of which takes elements from the previous, applies some operation to them, and passes the result to the next. But it only constructs the enumerables. Nothing actually happens yet. It's just ready to go, stored in the variable current. There are lots of ways to implement IOperation.Execute but it could be something like this.
IEnumerable<T> Execute(IEnumerable<T> ts)
{
foreach (T t in ts)
yield return this.operation(t); // Perform some operation on t.
}
Another option suggested in the article is a sort:
IEnumerable<T> Execute(IEnumerable<T> ts)
{
// Thank-you LINQ!
// This was 10 lines of non-LINQ code in the original article.
return ts.OrderBy(t => t.Foo);
}
Now look at this:
IEnumerator<T> enumerator = current.GetEnumerator();
while (enumerator.MoveNext());
This actually causes the chain of operations to be performed. When the elements are requested from the enumeration, it causes elements from the original enumerable to be passed through the chain of IOperations, each of which performs some operation on them. The end result is discarded so only the side-effect of the operation is interesting - such as writing to the console or logging to a file. This would have been a simpler way to write the last two lines:
foreach (T t in current) {}
Another thing to observe is that the initial list that starts the process is an empty list so for this to make sense some instances of T have to be created inside the first operation. In the article this is done by asking the user for input from the console.
In this case, the while (enumerator.MoveNext()); is simply evaluating all the items that are returned by the final IOperation<T>. It looks a little confusing, but the empty List<T> is only created in order to supply a value to the first IOperation<T>.
In many collections this would do exaclty nothing as you suggest, but given that we are talking about the pipes and filters pattern it is likely that the final value is some sort of iterator that will cause code to be executed. It could be something like this, for example (assuming that is an integer):
public class WriteToConsoleOperation : IOperation<int>
{
public IEnumerable<int> Execute(IEnumerable<int> ints)
{
foreach (var i in ints)
{
Console.WriteLine(i);
yield return i;
}
}
}
So calling MoveNext() for each item on the IEnumerator<int> returned by this iterator will return each of the values (which are ignored in the while loop) but also output each of the values to the console.
Does that make sense?
while (enumerator.MoveNext());
Inside the current block of code, there is no affect (it moves through all the items in the enumeration). The displayed code doesn't act on the current element in the enumeration. What might be happening is that the MoveNext() method is moving to the next element, and it is doing something to the objects in the collection (updating an internal value, pull the next from the database etc.). Since the type is List<T> this is probably not the case, but in other instances it could be.
When ever I think I can use the yield keyword, I take a step back and look at how it will impact my project. I always end up returning a collection instead of yeilding because I feel the overhead of maintaining the state of the yeilding method doesn't buy me much. In almost all cases where I am returning a collection I feel that 90% of the time, the calling method will be iterating over all elements in the collection, or will be seeking a series of elements throughout the entire collection.
I do understand its usefulness in linq, but I feel that only the linq team is writing such complex queriable objects that yield is useful.
Has anyone written anything like or not like linq where yield was useful?
Note that with yield, you are iterating over the collection once, but when you build a list, you'll be iterating over it twice.
Take, for example, a filter iterator:
IEnumerator<T> Filter(this IEnumerator<T> coll, Func<T, bool> func)
{
foreach(T t in coll)
if (func(t)) yield return t;
}
Now, you can chain this:
MyColl.Filter(x=> x.id > 100).Filter(x => x.val < 200).Filter (etc)
You method would be creating (and tossing) three lists. My method iterates over it just once.
Also, when you return a collection, you are forcing a particular implementation on you users. An iterator is more generic.
I do understand its usefulness in linq, but I feel that only the linq team is writing such complex queriable objects that yield is useful.
Yield was useful as soon as it got implemented in .NET 2.0, which was long before anyone ever thought of LINQ.
Why would I write this function:
IList<string> LoadStuff() {
var ret = new List<string>();
foreach(var x in SomeExternalResource)
ret.Add(x);
return ret;
}
When I can use yield, and save the effort and complexity of creating a temporary list for no good reason:
IEnumerable<string> LoadStuff() {
foreach(var x in SomeExternalResource)
yield return x;
}
It can also have huge performance advantages. If your code only happens to use the first 5 elements of the collection, then using yield will often avoid the effort of loading anything past that point. If you build a collection then return it, you waste a ton of time and space loading things you'll never need.
I could go on and on....
I recently had to make a representation of mathematical expressions in the form of an Expression class. When evaluating the expression I have to traverse the tree structure with a post-order treewalk. To achieve this I implemented IEnumerable<T> like this:
public IEnumerator<Expression<T>> GetEnumerator()
{
if (IsLeaf)
{
yield return this;
}
else
{
foreach (Expression<T> expr in LeftExpression)
{
yield return expr;
}
foreach (Expression<T> expr in RightExpression)
{
yield return expr;
}
yield return this;
}
}
Then I can simply use a foreach to traverse the expression. You can also add a Property to change the traversal algorithm as needed.
At a previous company, I found myself writing loops like this:
for (DateTime date = schedule.StartDate; date <= schedule.EndDate;
date = date.AddDays(1))
With a very simple iterator block, I was able to change this to:
foreach (DateTime date in schedule.DateRange)
It made the code a lot easier to read, IMO.
yield was developed for C#2 (before Linq in C#3).
We used it heavily in a large enterprise C#2 web application when dealing with data access and heavily repeated calculations.
Collections are great any time you have a few elements that you're going to hit multiple times.
However in lots of data access scenarios you have large numbers of elements that you don't necessarily need to pass round in a great big collection.
This is essentially what the SqlDataReader does - it's a forward only custom enumerator.
What yield lets you do is quickly and with minimal code write your own custom enumerators.
Everything yield does could be done in C#1 - it just took reams of code to do it.
Linq really maximises the value of the yield behaviour, but it certainly isn't the only application.
Whenever your function returns IEnumerable you should use "yielding". Not in .Net > 3.0 only.
.Net 2.0 example:
public static class FuncUtils
{
public delegate T Func<T>();
public delegate T Func<A0, T>(A0 arg0);
public delegate T Func<A0, A1, T>(A0 arg0, A1 arg1);
...
public static IEnumerable<T> Filter<T>(IEnumerable<T> e, Func<T, bool> filterFunc)
{
foreach (T el in e)
if (filterFunc(el))
yield return el;
}
public static IEnumerable<R> Map<T, R>(IEnumerable<T> e, Func<T, R> mapFunc)
{
foreach (T el in e)
yield return mapFunc(el);
}
...
I'm not sure about C#'s implementation of yield(), but on dynamic languages, it's far more efficient than creating the whole collection. on many cases, it makes it easy to work with datasets much bigger than RAM.
I am a huge Yield fan in C#. This is especially true in large homegrown frameworks where often methods or properties return List that is a sub-set of another IEnumerable. The benefits that I see are:
the return value of a method that uses yield is immutable
you are only iterating over the list once
it a late or lazy execution variable, meaning the code to return the values are not executed until needed (though this can bite you if you dont know what your doing)
of the source list changes, you dont have to call to get another IEnumerable, you just iterate over IEnumeable again
many more
One other HUGE benefit of yield is when your method potentially will return millions of values. So many that there is the potential of running out of memory just building the List before the method can even return it. With yield, the method can just create and return millions of values, and as long the caller also doesnt store every value. So its good for large scale data processing / aggregating operations
Personnally, I haven't found I'm using yield in my normal day-to-day programming. However, I've recently started playing with the Robotics Studio samples and found that yield is used extensively there, so I also see it being used in conjunction with the CCR (Concurrency and Coordination Runtime) where you have async and concurrency issues.
Anyway, still trying to get my head around it as well.
Yield is useful because it saves you space. Most optimizations in programming makes a trade off between space (disk, memory, networking) and processing. Yield as a programming construct allows you to iterate over a collection many times in sequence without needing a separate copy of the collection for each iteration.
consider this example:
static IEnumerable<Person> GetAllPeople()
{
return new List<Person>()
{
new Person() { Name = "George", Surname = "Bush", City = "Washington" },
new Person() { Name = "Abraham", Surname = "Lincoln", City = "Washington" },
new Person() { Name = "Joe", Surname = "Average", City = "New York" }
};
}
static IEnumerable<Person> GetPeopleFrom(this IEnumerable<Person> people, string where)
{
foreach (var person in people)
{
if (person.City == where) yield return person;
}
yield break;
}
static IEnumerable<Person> GetPeopleWithInitial(this IEnumerable<Person> people, string initial)
{
foreach (var person in people)
{
if (person.Name.StartsWith(initial)) yield return person;
}
yield break;
}
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var people = GetAllPeople();
foreach (var p in people.GetPeopleFrom("Washington"))
{
// do something with washingtonites
}
foreach (var p in people.GetPeopleWithInitial("G"))
{
// do something with people with initial G
}
foreach (var p in people.GetPeopleWithInitial("P").GetPeopleFrom("New York"))
{
// etc
}
}
(Obviously you are not required to use yield with extension methods, it just creates a powerful paradigm to think about data.)
As you can see, if you have a lot of these "filter" methods (but it can be any kind of method that does some work on a list of people) you can chain many of them together without requiring extra storage space for each step. This is one way of raising the programming language (C#) up to express your solutions better.
The first side-effect of yield is that it delays execution of the filtering logic until you actually require it. If you therefore create a variable of type IEnumerable<> (with yields) but never iterate through it, you never execute the logic or consume the space which is a powerful and free optimization.
The other side-effect is that yield operates on the lowest common collection interface (IEnumerable<>) which enables the creation of library-like code with wide applicability.
Note that yield allows you to do things in a "lazy" way. By lazy, I mean that the evaluation of the next element in the IEnumberable is not done until the element is actually requested. This allows you the power to do a couple of different things. One is that you could yield an infinitely long list without the need to actually make infinite calculations. Second, you could return an enumeration of function applications. The functions would only be applied when you iterate through the list.
I've used yeild in non-linq code things like this (assuming functions do not live in same class):
public IEnumerable<string> GetData()
{
foreach(String name in _someInternalDataCollection)
{
yield return name;
}
}
...
public void DoSomething()
{
foreach(String value in GetData())
{
//... Do something with value that doesn't modify _someInternalDataCollection
}
}
You have to be careful not to inadvertently modify the collection that your GetData() function is iterating over though, or it will throw an exception.
Yield is very useful in general. It's in ruby among other languages that support functional style programming, so its like it's tied to linq. It's more the other way around, that linq is functional in style, so it uses yield.
I had a problem where my program was using a lot of cpu in some background tasks. What I really wanted was to still be able to write functions like normal, so that I could easily read them (i.e. the whole threading vs. event based argument). And still be able to break the functions up if they took too much cpu. Yield is perfect for this. I wrote a blog post about this and the source is available for all to grok :)
The System.Linq IEnumerable extensions are great, but sometime you want more. For example, consider the following extension:
public static class CollectionSampling
{
public static IEnumerable<T> Sample<T>(this IEnumerable<T> coll, int max)
{
var rand = new Random();
using (var enumerator = coll.GetEnumerator());
{
while (enumerator.MoveNext())
{
yield return enumerator.Current;
int currentSample = rand.Next(max);
for (int i = 1; i <= currentSample; i++)
enumerator.MoveNext();
}
}
}
}
Another interesting advantage of yielding is that the caller cannot cast the return value to the original collection type and modify your internal collection