Develop Reference

Best way to remove the last character from a string built with stringbuilder

I have the following
data.AppendFormat("{0},",dataToAppend);
The problem with this is that I am using it in a loop and there will be a trailing comma. What is the best way to remove the trailing comma?
Do I have to change data to a string and then substring it?

The simplest and most efficient way is to perform this command:
data.Length--;
by doing this you move the pointer (i.e. last index) back one character but you don't change the mutability of the object. In fact, clearing a StringBuilder is best done with Length as well (but do actually use the Clear() method for clarity instead because that's what its implementation looks like):
data.Length = 0;
again, because it doesn't change the allocation table. Think of it like saying, I don't want to recognize these bytes anymore. Now, even when calling ToString(), it won't recognize anything past its Length, well, it can't. It's a mutable object that allocates more space than what you provide it, it's simply built this way.

Just use
string.Join(",", yourCollection)
This way you don't need the StringBuilder and the loop.
Long addition about async case. As of 2019, it's not a rare setup when the data are coming asynchronously.
In case your data are in async collection, there is no string.Join overload taking IAsyncEnumerable<T>. But it's easy to create one manually, hacking the code from string.Join:
public static class StringEx
{
public static async Task<string> JoinAsync<T>(string separator, IAsyncEnumerable<T> seq)
{
if (seq == null)
throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(seq));
await using (var en = seq.GetAsyncEnumerator())
{
if (!await en.MoveNextAsync())
return string.Empty;
string firstString = en.Current?.ToString();
if (!await en.MoveNextAsync())
return firstString ?? string.Empty;
// Null separator and values are handled by the StringBuilder
var sb = new StringBuilder(256);
sb.Append(firstString);
do
{
var currentValue = en.Current;
sb.Append(separator);
if (currentValue != null)
sb.Append(currentValue);
}
while (await en.MoveNextAsync());
return sb.ToString();
}
}
}
If the data are coming asynchronously but the interface IAsyncEnumerable<T> is not supported (like the mentioned in comments SqlDataReader), it's relatively easy to wrap the data into an IAsyncEnumerable<T>:
async IAsyncEnumerable<(object first, object second, object product)> ExtractData(
SqlDataReader reader)
{
while (await reader.ReadAsync())
yield return (reader[0], reader[1], reader[2]);
}
and use it:
Task<string> Stringify(SqlDataReader reader) =>
StringEx.JoinAsync(
", ",
ExtractData(reader).Select(x => $"{x.first} * {x.second} = {x.product}"));
In order to use Select, you'll need to use nuget package System.Interactive.Async. Here you can find a compilable example.

How about this..
string str = "The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog,";
StringBuilder sb = new StringBuilder(str);
sb.Remove(str.Length - 1, 1);

Use the following after the loop.
.TrimEnd(',')
or simply change to
string commaSeparatedList = input.Aggregate((a, x) => a + ", " + x)

I prefer manipulating the length of the stringbuilder:
data.Length = data.Length - 1;

I recommend, you change your loop algorithm:
Add the comma not AFTER the item, but BEFORE
Use a boolean variable, that starts with false, do suppress the first comma
Set this boolean variable to true after testing it

You should use the string.Join method to turn a collection of items into a comma delimited string. It will ensure that there is no leading or trailing comma, as well as ensure the string is constructed efficiently (without unnecessary intermediate strings).

The most simple way would be to use the Join() method:
public static void Trail()
{
var list = new List<string> { "lala", "lulu", "lele" };
var data = string.Join(",", list);
}
If you really need the StringBuilder, trim the end comma after the loop:
data.ToString().TrimEnd(',');

Yes, convert it to a string once the loop is done:
String str = data.ToString().TrimEnd(',');

You have two options. First one is very easy use Remove method it is quite effective. Second way is to use ToString with start index and end index (MSDN documentation)

Similar SO question here.
I liked the using a StringBuilder extension method.
RemoveLast Method

Gotcha!!
Most of the answers on this thread won't work if you use AppendLine like below:
var builder = new StringBuilder();
builder.AppendLine("One,");
builder.Length--; // Won't work
Console.Write(builder.ToString());
builder = new StringBuilder();
builder.AppendLine("One,");
builder.Length += -1; // Won't work
Console.Write(builder.ToString());
builder = new StringBuilder();
builder.AppendLine("One,");
Console.Write(builder.TrimEnd(',')); // Won't work
Fiddle Me
WHY??? #(&**(&#!!
The issue is simple but took me a while to figure it out: Because there are 2 more invisible characters at the end CR and LF (Carriage Return and Line Feed). Therefore, you need to take away 3 last characters:
var builder = new StringBuilder();
builder.AppendLine("One,");
builder.Length -= 3; // This will work
Console.WriteLine(builder.ToString());
In Conclusion
Use Length-- or Length -= 1 if the last method you called was Append. Use Length =- 3 if you the last method you called AppendLine.

Simply shortens the stringbuilder length by 1;
StringBuilder sb = new StringBuilder();
sb.Length--;
i know this is not the effective way as it translates to sb = sb-1;
Alternative Effective solution
sb.Remove(starting_index, how_many_character_to_delete);
for our case it would be
sb.Remove(sb.length-1,1)

best way to convert collection to string

I need to convert a collection of <string,string> to a single string containing all the values in the collection like KeyValueKeyValue... But How do I do this effectively?
I have done it this way at the moment:
parameters = string.Join("", requestParameters.Select(x => string.Concat(x.Key, x.Value)));
But not sure it is the best way to do it, would a string builder be better? I guess the collection will contain a max of 10 pairs.

string.Join used to not really be the best option since it only accepted string[] or object[] parameters, requiring that any select-style queries needed to be completely evaluated and put into an array first.
.NET 4.0 brought with it an overload that accepts IEnumerable<string> -- which is what you are using -- and even an overload that accepts any IEnumerable<T>. These are definitely your best bet as they are now part of the BCL.
Incidentally, cracking open the source for the first overload in Reflector shows code that follows pretty closely to what davisoa suggested:
public static string Join(string separator, IEnumerable<string> values)
{
if (values == null)
{
throw new ArgumentNullException("values");
}
if (separator == null)
{
separator = Empty;
}
using (IEnumerator<string> enumerator = values.GetEnumerator())
{
if (!enumerator.MoveNext())
{
return Empty;
}
StringBuilder builder = new StringBuilder();
if (enumerator.Current != null)
{
builder.Append(enumerator.Current);
}
while (enumerator.MoveNext())
{
builder.Append(separator);
if (enumerator.Current != null)
{
builder.Append(enumerator.Current);
}
}
return builder.ToString();
}
}
So in other words, if you were to change this code to use a StringBuilder, you'd just be rewriting what MS already wrote for you.

With such a small collection, there isn't much of a performance concern, but I would probably just use a StringBuilder to Append all of the values.
Like this:
var sb = new Text.StringBuilder;
foreach (var item in requestParameters)
{
sb.AppendFormat("{0}{1}", item.Key, item.Value);
}
var parameters = sb.ToString();

String builder would be fine. Use append to add each a string to the string builder.
Basically the only reason why concat, replace, join, string+string , etc are considered not-the-best because they all tend to destroy the current string & recreate a new one.
So when you have adding strings like upto 10-12 time it really means you will destroy & recreate a string that many times.

int array to string

In C#, I have an array of ints, containing digits only. I want to convert this array to string.
Array example:
int[] arr = {0,1,2,3,0,1};
How can I convert this to a string formatted as: "012301"?

at.net 3.5 use:
String.Join("", new List<int>(array).ConvertAll(i => i.ToString()).ToArray());
at.net 4.0 or above use: (see #Jan Remunda's answer)
string result = string.Join("", array);

You can simply use String.Join function, and as separator use string.Empty because it uses StringBuilder internally.
string result = string.Join(string.Empty, new []{0,1,2,3,0,1});
E.g.: If you use semicolon as separator, the result would be 0;1;2;3;0;1.
It actually works with null separator, and second parameter can be enumerable of any objects, like:
string result = string.Join(null, new object[]{0,1,2,3,0,"A",DateTime.Now});

I realize my opinion is probably not the popular one, but I guess I have a hard time jumping on the Linq-y band wagon. It's nifty. It's condensed. I get that and I'm not opposed to using it where it's appropriate. Maybe it's just me, but I feel like people have stopped thinking about creating utility functions to accomplish what they want and instead prefer to litter their code with (sometimes) excessively long lines of Linq code for the sake of creating a dense 1-liner.
I'm not saying that any of the Linq answers that people have provided here are bad, but I guess I feel like there is the potential that these single lines of code can start to grow longer and more obscure as you need to handle various situations. What if your array is null? What if you want a delimited string instead of just purely concatenated? What if some of the integers in your array are double-digit and you want to pad each value with leading zeros so that the string for each element is the same length as the rest?
Taking one of the provided answers as an example:
result = arr.Aggregate(string.Empty, (s, i) => s + i.ToString());
If I need to worry about the array being null, now it becomes this:
result = (arr == null) ? null : arr.Aggregate(string.Empty, (s, i) => s + i.ToString());
If I want a comma-delimited string, now it becomes this:
result = (arr == null) ? null : arr.Skip(1).Aggregate(arr[0].ToString(), (s, i) => s + "," + i.ToString());
This is still not too bad, but I think it's not obvious at a glance what this line of code is doing.
Of course, there's nothing stopping you from throwing this line of code into your own utility function so that you don't have that long mess mixed in with your application logic, especially if you're doing it in multiple places:
public static string ToStringLinqy<T>(this T[] array, string delimiter)
{
// edit: let's replace this with a "better" version using a StringBuilder
//return (array == null) ? null : (array.Length == 0) ? string.Empty : array.Skip(1).Aggregate(array[0].ToString(), (s, i) => s + "," + i.ToString());
return (array == null) ? null : (array.Length == 0) ? string.Empty : array.Skip(1).Aggregate(new StringBuilder(array[0].ToString()), (s, i) => s.Append(delimiter).Append(i), s => s.ToString());
}
But if you're going to put it into a utility function anyway, do you really need it to be condensed down into a 1-liner? In that case why not throw in a few extra lines for clarity and take advantage of a StringBuilder so that you're not doing repeated concatenation operations:
public static string ToStringNonLinqy<T>(this T[] array, string delimiter)
{
if (array != null)
{
// edit: replaced my previous implementation to use StringBuilder
if (array.Length > 0)
{
StringBuilder builder = new StringBuilder();
builder.Append(array[0]);
for (int i = 1; i < array.Length; i++)
{
builder.Append(delimiter);
builder.Append(array[i]);
}
return builder.ToString()
}
else
{
return string.Empty;
}
}
else
{
return null;
}
}
And if you're really so concerned about performance, you could even turn it into a hybrid function that decides whether to do string.Join or to use a StringBuilder depending on how many elements are in the array (this is a micro-optimization, not worth doing in my opinion and possibly more harmful than beneficial, but I'm using it as an example for this problem):
public static string ToString<T>(this T[] array, string delimiter)
{
if (array != null)
{
// determine if the length of the array is greater than the performance threshold for using a stringbuilder
// 10 is just an arbitrary threshold value I've chosen
if (array.Length < 10)
{
// assumption is that for arrays of less than 10 elements
// this code would be more efficient than a StringBuilder.
// Note: this is a crazy/pointless micro-optimization. Don't do this.
string[] values = new string[array.Length];
for (int i = 0; i < values.Length; i++)
values[i] = array[i].ToString();
return string.Join(delimiter, values);
}
else
{
// for arrays of length 10 or longer, use a StringBuilder
StringBuilder sb = new StringBuilder();
sb.Append(array[0]);
for (int i = 1; i < array.Length; i++)
{
sb.Append(delimiter);
sb.Append(array[i]);
}
return sb.ToString();
}
}
else
{
return null;
}
}
For this example, the performance impact is probably not worth caring about, but the point is that if you are in a situation where you actually do need to be concerned with the performance of your operations, whatever they are, then it will most likely be easier and more readable to handle that within a utility function than using a complex Linq expression.
That utility function still looks kind of clunky. Now let's ditch the hybrid stuff and do this:
// convert an enumeration of one type into an enumeration of another type
public static IEnumerable<TOut> Convert<TIn, TOut>(this IEnumerable<TIn> input, Func<TIn, TOut> conversion)
{
foreach (TIn value in input)
{
yield return conversion(value);
}
}
// concatenate the strings in an enumeration separated by the specified delimiter
public static string Delimit<T>(this IEnumerable<T> input, string delimiter)
{
IEnumerator<T> enumerator = input.GetEnumerator();
if (enumerator.MoveNext())
{
StringBuilder builder = new StringBuilder();
// start off with the first element
builder.Append(enumerator.Current);
// append the remaining elements separated by the delimiter
while (enumerator.MoveNext())
{
builder.Append(delimiter);
builder.Append(enumerator.Current);
}
return builder.ToString();
}
else
{
return string.Empty;
}
}
// concatenate all elements
public static string ToString<T>(this IEnumerable<T> input)
{
return ToString(input, string.Empty);
}
// concatenate all elements separated by a delimiter
public static string ToString<T>(this IEnumerable<T> input, string delimiter)
{
return input.Delimit(delimiter);
}
// concatenate all elements, each one left-padded to a minimum length
public static string ToString<T>(this IEnumerable<T> input, int minLength, char paddingChar)
{
return input.Convert(i => i.ToString().PadLeft(minLength, paddingChar)).Delimit(string.Empty);
}
Now we have separate and fairly compact utility functions, each of which are arguable useful on their own.
Ultimately, my point is not that you shouldn't use Linq, but rather just to say don't forget about the benefits of creating your own utility functions, even if they are small and perhaps only contain a single line that returns the result from a line of Linq code. If nothing else, you'll be able to keep your application code even more condensed than you could achieve with a line of Linq code, and if you are using it in multiple places, then using a utility function makes it easier to adjust your output in case you need to change it later.
For this problem, I'd rather just write something like this in my application code:
int[] arr = { 0, 1, 2, 3, 0, 1 };
// 012301
result = arr.ToString<int>();
// comma-separated values
// 0,1,2,3,0,1
result = arr.ToString(",");
// left-padded to 2 digits
// 000102030001
result = arr.ToString(2, '0');

To avoid the creation of an extra array you could do the following.
var builder = new StringBuilder();
Array.ForEach(arr, x => builder.Append(x));
var res = builder.ToString();

string result = arr.Aggregate("", (s, i) => s + i.ToString());
(Disclaimer: If you have a lot of digits (hundreds, at least) and you care about performance, I suggest eschewing this method and using a StringBuilder, as in JaredPar's answer.)

You can do:
int[] arr = {0,1,2,3,0,1};
string results = string.Join("",arr.Select(i => i.ToString()).ToArray());
That gives you your results.

I like using StringBuilder with Aggregate(). The "trick" is that Append() returns the StringBuilder instance itself:
var sb = arr.Aggregate( new StringBuilder(), ( s, i ) => s.Append( i ) );
var result = sb.ToString();

string.Join("", (from i in arr select i.ToString()).ToArray())
In the .NET 4.0 the string.Join can use an IEnumerable<string> directly:
string.Join("", from i in arr select i.ToString())

I've left this here for posterity but don't recommend its use as it's not terribly readable. This is especially true now that I've come back to see if after a period of some time and have wondered what I was thinking when I wrote it (I was probably thinking 'crap, must get this written before someone else posts an answer'.)
string s = string.Concat(arr.Cast<object>().ToArray());

The most efficient way is not to convert each int into a string, but rather create one string out of an array of chars. Then the garbage collector only has one new temp object to worry about.
int[] arr = {0,1,2,3,0,1};
string result = new string(Array.ConvertAll<int,char>(arr, x => Convert.ToChar(x + '0')));

This is a roundabout way to go about it its not much code and easy for beginners to understand
int[] arr = {0,1,2,3,0,1};
string joined = "";
foreach(int i in arr){
joined += i.ToString();
}
int number = int.Parse(joined);

If this is long array you could use
var sb = arr.Aggregate(new StringBuilder(), ( s, i ) => s.Append( i ), s.ToString());

// This is the original array
int[] nums = {1, 2, 3};
// This is an empty string we will end up with
string numbers = "";
// iterate on every char in the array
foreach (var item in nums)
{
// add the char to the empty string
numbers += Convert.ToString(item);
}
// Write the string in the console
Console.WriteLine(numbers);

Good way to concatenate string representations of objects?

Ok,
We have a lot of where clauses in our code. We have just as many ways to generate a string to represent the in condition. I am trying to come up with a clean way as follows:
public static string Join<T>(this IEnumerable<T> items, string separator)
{
var strings = from item in items select item.ToString();
return string.Join(separator, strings.ToArray());
}
it can be used as follows:
var values = new []{1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6};
values.StringJoin(",");
// result should be:
// "1,2,3,4,5,6"
So this is a nice extension method that does a very basic job. I know that simple code does not always turn into fast or efficient execution, but I am just curious as to what could I have missed with this simple code. Other members of our team are arguing that:
it is not flexible enough (no control of the string representation)
may not be memory efficient
may not be fast
Any expert to chime in?
Regards,
Eric.

Regarding the first issue, you could add another 'formatter' parameter to control the conversion of each item into a string:
public static string Join<T>(this IEnumerable<T> items, string separator)
{
return items.Join(separator, i => i.ToString());
}
public static string Join<T>(this IEnumerable<T> items, string separator, Func<T, string> formatter)
{
return String.Join(separator, items.Select(i => formatter(i)).ToArray());
}
Regarding the second two issues, I wouldn't worry about it unless you later run into performance issues and find it to be a problem. It's unlikely to much of a bottleneck however...

For some reason, I thought that String.Join is implemented in terms of a StringBuilder class. But if it isn't, then the following is likely to perform better for large inputs since it doesn't recreate a String object for each join in the iteration.
public static string Join<T>(this IEnumerable<T> items, string separator)
{
// TODO: check for null arguments.
StringBuilder builder = new StringBuilder();
foreach(T t in items)
{
builder.Append(t.ToString()).Append(separator);
}
builder.Length -= separator.Length;
return builder.ToString();
}
EDIT: Here is an analysis of when it is appropriate to use StringBuilder and String.Join.

Why don't you use StringBuilder, and iterate through the collection yourself, appending.
Otherwise you are creating an array of strings (var strings) and then doing the Join.

You are missing null checks for the sequence and the items of the sequence. And yes, it is not the fastest and most memory efficient way. One would probably just enumerate the sequence and render the string representations of the items into a StringBuilder. But does this really matter? Are you experiencing performance problems? Do you need to optimize?

this would work also:
public static string Test(IEnumerable<T> items, string separator)
{
var builder = new StringBuilder();
bool appendSeperator = false;
if(null != items)
{
foreach(var item in items)
{
if(appendSeperator)
{
builder.Append(separator)
}
builder.Append(item.ToString());
appendSeperator = true;
}
}
return builder.ToString();
}

Why is .ForEach() on IList<T> and not on IEnumerable<T>? [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
Closed 10 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
Why is there not a ForEach extension method on the IEnumerable interface?
I've noticed when writing LINQ-y code that .ForEach() is a nice idiom to use. For example, here is a piece of code that takes the following inputs, and produces these outputs:
{ "One" } => "One"
{ "One", "Two" } => "One, Two"
{ "One", "Two", "Three", "Four" } => "One, Two, Three and Four";
And the code:
private string InsertCommasAttempt(IEnumerable<string> words)
{
List<string> wordList = words.ToList();
StringBuilder sb = new StringBuilder();
var wordsAndSeparators = wordList.Select((string word, int pos) =>
{
if (pos == 0) return new { Word = word, Leading = string.Empty };
if (pos == wordList.Count - 1) return new { Word = word, Leading = " and " };
return new { Word = word, Leading = ", " };
});
wordsAndSeparators.ToList().ForEach(v => sb.Append(v.Leading).Append(v.Word));
return sb.ToString();
}
Note the interjected .ToList() before the .ForEach() on the second to last line.
Why is it that .ForEach() isn't available as an extension method on IEnumerable<T>? With an example like this, it just seems weird.

Because ForEach(Action) existed before IEnumerable<T> existed.
Since it was not added with the other extension methods, one can assume that the C# designers felt it was a bad design and prefer the foreach construct.
Edit:
If you want you can create your own extension method, it won't override the one for a List<T> but it will work for any other class which implements IEnumerable<T>.
public static class IEnumerableExtensions
{
public static void ForEach<T>(this IEnumerable<T> source, Action<T> action)
{
foreach (T item in source)
action(item);
}
}

According to Eric Lippert, this is mostly for philosophical reasons. You should read the whole post, but here's the gist as far as I'm concerned:
I am philosophically opposed to
providing such a method, for two
reasons.
The first reason is that doing so
violates the functional programming
principles that all the other sequence
operators are based upon. Clearly the
sole purpose of a call to this method
is to cause side effects.
The purpose of an expression is to
compute a value, not to cause a side
effect. The purpose of a statement is
to cause a side effect. The call site
of this thing would look an awful lot
like an expression (though,
admittedly, since the method is
void-returning, the expression could
only be used in a “statement
expression” context.)
It does not sit well with me to make
the one and only sequence operator
that is only useful for its side
effects.
The second reason is that doing so
adds zero new representational power
to the language.

Because ForEach() on an IEnumerable is just a normal for each loop like this:
for each T item in MyEnumerable
{
// Action<T> goes here
}

ForEach isn't on IList it's on List. You were using the concrete List in your example.

I am just guessing here , but putting foreach on IEnumerable would make operations on it to have side effects . None of the "available" extension methods cause side effects , putting an imperative method like foreach on there would muddy the api I guess . Also, foreach would initialize the lazy collection .
Personally I've been fending off the temptation to just add my own , just to keep side effect free functions separate from ones with side effects.

ForEach is implemented in the concrete class List<T>

Just a guess, but List can iterate over its items without creating an enumerator:
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]);
}
}
This can lead to better performance. With IEnumerable, you don't have the option to use an ordinary for-loop.

LINQ follows the pull-model and all its (extension) methods should return IEnumerable<T>, except for ToList(). The ToList() is there to end the pull-chain.
ForEach() is from the push-model world.
You can still write your own extension method to do this, as pointed out by Samuel.

I honestly don't know for sure why the .ForEach(Action) isn't included on IEnumerable but, right, wrong or indifferent, that's the way it is...
I DID however want to highlight the performance issue mentioned in other comments. There is a performance hit based on how you loop over a collection. It is relatively minor but nevertheless, it certainly exists. Here is an incredibly fast and sloppy code snippet to show the relations... only takes a minute or so to run through.
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Console.WriteLine("Start Loop timing test: loading collection...");
List<int> l = new List<int>();
for (long i = 0; i < 60000000; i++)
{
l.Add(Convert.ToInt32(i));
}
Console.WriteLine("Collection loaded with {0} elements: start timings",l.Count());
Console.WriteLine("\n<===============================================>\n");
Console.WriteLine("foreach loop test starting...");
DateTime start = DateTime.Now;
//l.ForEach(x => l[x].ToString());
foreach (int x in l)
l[x].ToString();
Console.WriteLine("foreach Loop Time for {0} elements = {1}", l.Count(), DateTime.Now - start);
Console.WriteLine("\n<===============================================>\n");
Console.WriteLine("List.ForEach(x => x.action) loop test starting...");
start = DateTime.Now;
l.ForEach(x => l[x].ToString());
Console.WriteLine("List.ForEach(x => x.action) Loop Time for {0} elements = {1}", l.Count(), DateTime.Now - start);
Console.WriteLine("\n<===============================================>\n");
Console.WriteLine("for loop test starting...");
start = DateTime.Now;
int count = l.Count();
for (int i = 0; i < count; i++)
{
l[i].ToString();
}
Console.WriteLine("for Loop Time for {0} elements = {1}", l.Count(), DateTime.Now - start);
Console.WriteLine("\n<===============================================>\n");
Console.WriteLine("\n\nPress Enter to continue...");
Console.ReadLine();
}
Don't get hung up on this too much though. Performance is the currency of application design but unless your application is experiencing an actual performance hit that is causing usability problems, focus on coding for maintainability and reuse since time is the currency of real life business projects...

It's called "Select" on IEnumerable<T>
I am enlightened, thank you.