We Keep Coding

'Don't expose generic list', why to use collection<T> instead of list<T> in method parameter

I am using FxCop and it shows warning for "Don't expose generic list" which suggests use Collection<T> instead of List<T>. The reason why it is preferred, I know all that stuff, as mentioned in this SO post and MSDN and many more articles I have been through.
But my question is this, I am having few methods which does so much heavy calculation and methods accepts parameters of List<T> which is supposed to be faster and good in terms of performance. But FxCop issues warning for this as well as. So one option is that I should declare the parameter as Collection<T>, then use ToList() inside the method and then use it.
So which one is optimized?
"Suppress the warning for this case" OR "use Collection<T> in parameter and then use ToList() inside the method itself".

The code analysis/FxCop rules have been written to support framework creators (Microsoft creates a lot of frameworks). A framework is consumed by external parties and you should be careful when you design the public interface. Provided that you are not writing a framework to be consumed by external parties you can simply ignore rules that doesn't provide value to you.
However, one of the reasons that this rule exists is that exposing collections on a class is somewhat difficult. Often the elements in the collection are owned by the containing class and in that case you violate encapsulation if you allow clients to modify the collection used to store the aggregated items. By returning List<T> you allow the clients to modify the collection in many different ways. But often you want to keep track of the items in the collection. E.g. adding a new element might require some additional bookkeeping in the containing class etc. You lose this kind of control when you return a List<T> unless of course you make a copy when you return it (but then the client should understand that they only get a copy of collection and modifications will be ignored).
All in all you can probably improve your class design by avoiding exposing classes like List<T> and being more explicit about how aggregated elements can be added, modified and removed. But if you are in a hurry and just want to crank out some code then using List<T> may be exactly what you need to get the job done.

Don't bother using generic lists in public properties as long as you are not coding a framework somebody else want's to extend in the near future.
I suggest to suppress the warning. You can refactor your classes later if requirements change.

IMHO your interpretation of "Don't expose generic list' which suggests use collection instead of list". Is invalid.
The critical difference between collection and list is that the elements in list are ordered. Some methods may require that passed elements have order. Then we must use in parameter a list.
The key to understand delivered warning is that you should use instead of concrete class List<T> a interface IList<T>.
As the method operate on the list it is not so important what kind of list it is. The key factor is that it is a list.
Concluding the method parameters should be abstract as possible.

You should use the type that is most appropriate for your purposes (and suppress the warning if appropriate). If you're passing a bunch of items, and order and uniqueness don't matter, use a collection. If you're passing an ordered collection of items, use a list. If you're passing data such that every item is unique but order doesn't matter, use a set. Use the type that has the semantic meaning appropriate for the exchange. In a few cases where the semantics and the methods that you need don't necessarily align (suppose you need AddRange), make an exception, or use the conversion methods.

.Net Coding Standards Using a prefix "Is" or "Has" on Method Names

Is it advisable to prefix an "Is" or a "Has" when creating a method that returns a Boolean. My feeling is that this practice is more suited to defining property names.
Say, we have a method like the following has some logic:
bool IsActivePage()
{
// Some logic to determine if the page is active...
}
Would it be more preferable to rename the method to GetActivePageStatus and then create a boolean property IsActivePage that returns the result of that method.
What is the .NET standard? All opinions will be appreciated?

The Framework Design Guidelines state that you should "give methods names that are verbs or verb phrases" since "typically methods act on data". Properties, on the other hand, should be named "using a noun, noun phrase, or an adjective" and "you can also prefix Boolean properties with Is, Can, or Has, but only where it adds value".
In this case, you are using a method rather than a property, probably since it is either expensive or has some side effects. I suggest you choose the name that provides the most clarity of what the returned value represents. The important part is that you're being consistent and that you're not confusing other developers with your convention.

I would be using
bool IsActivePage
{
get
{
// some logic
}
}
if the method has no side effects and is inexpensive.
I see no need to have both a method and a property for the same thing.

I vote for your solution: so YES, for methods , I personally think, it's better to have Get..Bla(), cause method intuitively, at least for me, is, not only something that returns a value to me, but also performs some calculations or calls other methods inside it, properties instead, just return value.
"Get" word, to me personally, seems DO SOMETHIGN+RETURN,
instead "Is" : check if this exists.

I think both are defensible. The key is really to think about how standardized a convention like this should be. In general, you should either decide at your team or company level about how to handle cases like this, and then be consistent after that. As long as code you and your company produce is clear to everyone involved, that's what matters.

I would say yes. All methods should start with an action verb to indicate that they do something. Is and Has are more suited for properties.

First, coding conventions are vitally important in any shared development project, or any project you expect to live beyond the first time you ship the code or set it down for a week.
That said, there are a number of .Net coding standards available on the Internet (Google is still your friend) and you should adhere to those documents as best you can. One exception is in a mixed language environment where different languages have different style conventions and you want to create a more common style that covers all of those languages. In that case, you should create a style document and publish it.

Would it be more preferable to rename
the method to GetActivePageStatus and
then create a boolean property
IsActivePage that returns the result
of that method.
I would probably not go this route. IMO either
a) the logic is very simple, and you can just put it in the property getter
b) the logic is not very simple, you want to put it in a method BUT NOT hide it inside a property where an unexpecting caller may incur unneeded overhead by using it inappropriately (ie not caching the value if there is significant overhead in calculating it)

c# string[] vs IEnumerable<string>

What should I prefer if I know the number of elements before runtime?
Resharper offers me IEnumerable<string> instead of string[]?

ReSharper suggests IEnumerable<string> if you are only using methods defined for IEnumerable. It does so with the idea that, since you clearly do not need the value to be typed as array, you might want to hide the exact type from the consumers of (i.e., the code that uses) the value because you might want to change the type in the future.
In most cases, going with the suggestion is the right thing to do. The difference will not be something that you can observe while your program is running; rather, it's in how easily you will find it to make changes to your program in the future.
From the above you can also infer that the whole suggestion/question is meaningless unless the value we are talking about is passed across method boundaries (I don't remember if R# also offers it for a local variable).

If ReSharper suggests you use IEnumerable<string> it means you are only using features of that interface and no array specific features. Go with the suggestion of ReSharper and change it.

If you are trying to provide this method as an interface to other methods, I would prefer to have the output of your method more generic, hence would go for IEnumerable<string>.
Inside a method, if you are trying to instantiate and this is not being passed around to other methods, I would go for string[]. unless I need deferred execution. Although, it doesn't matter which one you use in this case.

The actual type should be string[] but depending on the user you may want to expose it as something else. e.g. IEnumerable<string> sequence = new string[5]... In particular if it's something like static readonly, then you should make it a ReadOnlyCollection so the entries can't be modified.

with string[] you can do more you can acces items by index with IEnumerable you have to loop to find specific index

It's probably suggesting this because it's looking for a better Liskov Substitution at this point in your code. Keep in mind the difference between the declared type and the implementing type. IEnumerable<> isn't an implementation, it's an interface. You can declare the variable as an IEnumerable<string> and build it with a string[] since the string array implements IEnumerable<string>.
What this does for you is allow you to pass around that string array as a more generic, more abstracted type. Anything which expects or returns an IEnumerable<string> (regardless of implementation, be it List<string> or string[] or anything else) can then use your string array, without having to worry about the specific implementation you pass it. As long as it satisfies the interface, it's polymorphic of the correct type.
Keep in mind that this isn't always the way to go. Sometimes you, as the developer, are very concerned with the implementation (perhaps for really fine-grained performance tuning, for example) and don't want to move up to an abstraction. The decision is up to you. ReSharper is merely making a suggestion to use an abstraction rather than an implementation in a variable/method declaration.

ReSharper is likely flagging it for you because you are not returning the least constrained type. If you aren't going to be using access on it by index in the future, I'd go with IEnumerable to have less constraint on the method which returns it.

Depends on your usage later on. If you need to enumare through these elements or sort or compare them later on then I would recommend IEnumerable otherwise go with array.

I wrote this response for a similar question regarding array or IEnumerable for return values, which was then closed as duplicate before I could post it. I thought the answer might be interesting to some so I post it here.
The main advantage of IEnumerable over T[] is that IEnumerable (for return values) can be made lazy. Ie it only computes the next element when needed.
Consider the difference between Directory.GetFiles and Directory.EnumerateFiles. GetFiles returns an Array, EnumerateFiles returns IEnumerable. This means that for a directory with two million files the Array will contain two million strings. EnumerateFiles only instansiate the strings as needed saving memory and improving response time.
However, it's not all benefits.
foreach is significantly less efficient on non-arrays (you can see this by disassembling the ILCode).
Array promises more, ie that its length will not change.
Lazy evaluation is not always better, consider the Directory class. The GetFiles implementation will open a find file handle, iterate over all files, close the find file handle and then return results. EnumerateFiles will do nothing until the first find file is requested, then the find file handle is opened and the files iterated, find file handle is closed when the enumerator is disposed. This means that the life-time of the find file handle is controlled by the caller, not the callee. Can be seen as less encapsulation and can give potential runtime errors with locked file handles.
In my humble opinion, I think R# is overzelous in suggestion IEnumerable over arrays especially so for return values (input parameters have less potential drawbacks). What I tend to do when I see a function that returns IEnumerable is a .ToArray in order to avoid potential issues with Lazy evaluation but if the Collection is already an Array this is inefficient.
I like the principle; promise alot, require little. Ie don't require that the input parameters must be arrays (use IEnumerable) but return Array over IEnumerable as Array is a bigger promise.

Override ToString or provide non-ToString named extension method for an interface?

My question is about naming, design, and implementation choices. I can see myself going in two different directions with how to solve an issue and I'm interested to see where others who may have come across similar concerns would handle the issue. It's part aesthetics, part function.
A little background on the code... I created a type called ISlice<T> that provides a reference into a section of a source of items which can be a collection (e.g. array, list) or a string. The core support comes from a few implementation classes that support fast indexing using the Begin and End markers for the slice to get the item from the original source. The purpose is to provide slicing capabilities similar to what the Go language provides while using Python style indexing (i.e. both positive and negative indexes are supported).
To make creating slices (instances of ISlice<T>) easier and more "fluent", I created a set of extension methods. For example:
static public ISlice<T> Slice<T>(this IList<T> source, int begin, int end)
{
return new ListSlice<T>(source, begin, end);
}
static public ISlice<char> Slice(this string source, int begin, int end)
{
return new StringSlice(source, begin, end);
}
There are others, such as providing optional begin/end parameters, but the above will suffice for where I'm going with this.
These routines work well and make it easy to slice up a collection or a string. What I also need is way to take a slice and create a copy of it as an array, a list, or a string. That's where things get "interesting". Originally, I thought I'd need to create ToArray, ToList extension methods, but then remembered that the LINQ variants perform optimizations if your collection implements ICollection<T>. In my case, ISlice<T>, does inherits from it, though much to my chagrin as I dislike throwing NotSupportedExceptions from methods like Add. Regardless, I get those for free. Great.
What about converting back into a string as there's no built-in support for converting an IEnumerable<char> easily back into a string? Closest thing I found is one of the string.Concat overloads, but it would not handle chars as efficiently as it could. Just as important from a design stand point is that it doesn't jump out as a "conversion" routine.
The first thought was to create a ToString extension method, but that doesn't work as ToString is an instance method which means it trumps extension methods and would never be called. I could override ToString, but the behavior would be inconsistent as ListSlice<T> would need to special case its ToString for times where T is a char. I don't like that as the ToString will give something useful when the type parameter is a char, but the class name in other cases. Also, if there are other slice types created in the future I'd have to create a common base class to ensure the same behavior or each class would have to implement this same check. An extension method on the interface would handle that much more elegantly.
The extension method leads me to a naming convention issue. The obvious is to use ToString, but as stated earlier it's not allowed. I could name it something different, but what? ToNewString? NewString? CreateString? Something in the To-family of methods would let it fall in with the ToArray/ToList routines, but ToNewString sticks out as being 'odd' when seen in the intellisense and code editor. NewString/CreateString are not as discoverable as you'd have to know to look for them. It doesn't fit the "conversion method" pattern that the To-family methods provide.
Go with overriding ToString and accept the inconsistent behavior hardcoded into the ListSlice<T> implementation and other implementations? Go with the more flexible, but potentially more poorly named extension method route? Is there a third option I haven't considered?
My gut tells me to go with the ToString despite my reservations, though, it also occurred to me... Would you even consider ToString giving you a useful output on a collection/enumerable type? Would that violate the principle of least surprise?
Update
Most implementations of slicing operations provide a copy, albeit a subset, of the data from whatever source was used for the slice. This is perfectly acceptable in most use cases and leaves for a clean API as you can simply return the same data type back. If you slice a list, you return a list containing only the items in the range specified in the slice. If you slice a string, you return a string. And so on.
The slicing operations I'm describing above are solving an issue when working with constraints which make this behavior undesirable. For example, if you work with large data sets, the slice operations would lead to unnecessary additional memory allocations not to mention the performance impact of copying the data. This is especially true if the slices will have further processing done on them before getting to your final results. So, the goal of the slice implementation is to have references into larger data sets to avoid making unnecessary copies of the information until it becomes beneficial to do so.
The catch is that at the end of the processing the desire to turn the slice-based processed data back into a more API and .NET friendly type like lists, arrays, and strings. It makes the data easier to pass into other APIs. It also allows you to discard the slices, thus, also the large data set the slices referenced.

Would you even consider ToString giving you a useful output on a collection/enumerable type? Would that violate the principle of least surprise?
No, and yes. That would be completely unexpected behavior, since it would behave differently than every other collection type.
As for this:
What about converting back into a string as there's no built-in support for converting an IEnumerable>char< easily back into a string?
Personally, I would just use the string constructor taking an array:
string result = new string(mySlice.ToArray());
This is explicit, understood, and expected - I expect to create a new string by passing an object to a constructor.

Perhaps the reason for your conundrum is the fact that you are treating string as a ICollection<char>. You haven't provide details about the problem that you are trying to solve but maybe that's a wrong assumption.
It's true that a string is an IEnumerable<char>. But as you've noticed assuming a direct mapping to a collection of chars creates problems. Strings are just too "special" in the framework.
Looking at it from the other end, would it be obvious that the difference between an ISlice<char> and ISlice<byte> is that you can concatenate the former into a string? Would there be a concatenate operation on the latter that makes sense? What about ISlice<string>? Shouldn't I be able to concatenate those as well?
Sorry I'm not providing specific answers but maybe these questions will point you at the right solution for your problem.

Programming language where you can refer to a array element by . (dot)

In C# language when you refer to an array element you can write:
myclass.my_array['element_name'] = new Point(1,1);
I think about refering to a element with name element_name by using dot in place of backets:
myclass.my_array.element_name = new Point(1,1);
Do you know any language where exists similar syntax to the example above?
What do you think about this example of refering to a array element? Is this good or is it as bad as my writing in english skills?
Kind regards

JavaScript does exactly what you describe. In JavaScript, every object is just a map of property names to values. The bracket operator just returns a property by name (or by value in the case of an integer index). You can refer to named properties by just using a dot, though you can't do that with integer indicies. This page describes the bracket operator and dot notation in detail.

You could almost certainly do this in any dynamic language, by handling property/variable access as an indexer if the specified property/variable didn't actually exist. I suspect that many dynamic languages already provide this functionality in some areas.
It's possible that in C# 4 you'll be able to make your objects behave like this if you really want to.
However, I would agree with the implicit judgement in Mohit's question - I see no reason to consider this more generally readable than using the more common indexer syntax, and it will confuse people who are used to indexers looking like indexers.
One area where I would quite possibly do something like this would be for an XML API, where a property would indicate "take the first element of the given name":
XElement author = doc.Root.Posts.Author;
That's quite neat - for the specific cases where it's what you want. Just don't try to apply it too generally...

REXX has the concept of stems, where you can say x.1, x.2 x.bob and these refer to array elements x[1], x[2] and x['bob'] respectively.
In addition LotusScript (in Notes) allows you to process the Notes databases in this fashion, where db.get("fieldname") is the same as db.fieldname.
I've used the REXX one a bit (as there's no choice) but when I've coded for Notes databases, I've preferred the get/put way of doing things.

Lua tables have a.x as syntactic sugar for a["x"]. Lua tables are associative arrays that could be used to represent arrays, hashes, and records of other languages. The sugar helps making code more readable by illustrating the intention (Record? Array? Hashtable?), though it makes no difference to the language.

What would be the advantage of such a syntax for you?
If you have fix names why not create a class with properties?

Maybe you are looking for a class or struct if you you want to use the element name as a field/property.