Just a quick question regarding IEnumerable:
Does IEnumerable always imply a collection? Or is it legitimate/viable/okay/whatever to use on a single object?
The IEnumerable and IEnumerable<T> interfaces suggest a sequence of some kind, but that sequence doesn't need to be a concrete collection.
For example, where's the underlying concrete collection in this case?
foreach (int i in new EndlessRandomSequence().Take(5))
{
Console.WriteLine(i);
}
// ...
public class EndlessRandomSequence : IEnumerable<int>
{
public IEnumerator<int> GetEnumerator()
{
var rng = new Random();
while (true) yield return rng.Next();
}
IEnumerator IEnumerable.GetEnumerator()
{
return GetEnumerator();
}
}
It is always and mandatory that IEnumerable is used on a single object - the single object is always the holder or producer of zero or more other objects that do not necessarily have any relation to IEnumerable.
It's usual, but not mandatory, that IEnumerable represents a collection.
Enumerables can be collections, as well as generators, queries, and even computations.
Generator:
IEnumerable<int> Generate(
int initial,
Func<int, bool> condition,
Func<int, int> iterator)
{
var i = initial;
while (true)
{
yield return i;
i = iterator(i);
if (!condition(i))
{
yield break;
}
}
}
Query:
IEnumerable<Process> GetProcessesWhereNameContains(string text)
{
// Could be web-service or database call too
var processes = System.Diagnostics.Process.GetProcesses();
foreach (var process in processes)
{
if (process.ProcessName.Contains(text))
{
yield return process;
}
}
}
Computation:
IEnumerable<double> Average(IEnumerable<double> values)
{
var sum = 0.0;
var count = 0;
foreach (var value in values)
{
sum += value;
yield return sum/++count;
}
}
LINQ is itself a series of operators that produce objects that implement IEnumerable<T> that don't have any underlying collections.
Good question, BTW!
NB: Any reference to IEnumerable also applies to IEnumerable<T> as the latter inherits the former.
Yes, IEnumerable implies a collection, or possible collection, of items.
The name is derived from enumerate, which means to:
Mention (a number of things) one by one.
Establish the number of.
According to the docs, it exposes the enumerator over a collection.
You can certainly use it on a single object, but this object will then just be exposed as an enumeration containing a single object, i.e. you could have an IEnumerable<int> with a single integer:
IEnumerable<int> items = new[] { 42 };
IEnumerable represents a collection that can be enumerated, not a single item. Look at MSDN; the interface exposes GetEnumerator(), which
...[r]eturns an enumerator that iterates through a collection.
Yes, IEnumerable always implies a collection, that is what enumerate means.
What is your use case for a single object?
I don't see a problem with using it on a single object, but why do want to do this?
I'm not sure whether you mean a "collection" or a .NET "ICollection" but since other people have only mentioned the former I will mention the latter.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/92t2ye13.aspx
By that definition, All ICollections are IEnumerable. But not the other way around.
But most data structure (Array even) just implement both interfaces.
Going on this train of thought: you could have a car depot (a single object) that does not expose an internal data structure, and put IEnumerable on it. I suppose.
Is there some rare language construct I haven't encountered (like the few I've learned recently, some on Stack Overflow) in C# to get a value representing the current iteration of a foreach loop?
For instance, I currently do something like this depending on the circumstances:
int i = 0;
foreach (Object o in collection)
{
// ...
i++;
}
Ian Mercer posted a similar solution as this on Phil Haack's blog:
foreach (var item in Model.Select((value, i) => new { i, value }))
{
var value = item.value;
var index = item.i;
}
This gets you the item (item.value) and its index (item.i) by using this overload of LINQ's Select:
the second parameter of the function [inside Select] represents the index of the source element.
The new { i, value } is creating a new anonymous object.
Heap allocations can be avoided by using ValueTuple if you're using C# 7.0 or later:
foreach (var item in Model.Select((value, i) => ( value, i )))
{
var value = item.value;
var index = item.i;
}
You can also eliminate the item. by using automatic destructuring:
foreach (var (value, i) in Model.Select((value, i) => ( value, i )))
{
// Access `value` and `i` directly here.
}
The foreach is for iterating over collections that implement IEnumerable. It does this by calling GetEnumerator on the collection, which will return an Enumerator.
This Enumerator has a method and a property:
MoveNext()
Current
Current returns the object that Enumerator is currently on, MoveNext updates Current to the next object.
The concept of an index is foreign to the concept of enumeration, and cannot be done.
Because of that, most collections are able to be traversed using an indexer and the for loop construct.
I greatly prefer using a for loop in this situation compared to tracking the index with a local variable.
Finally C#7 has a decent syntax for getting an index inside of a foreach loop (i. e. tuples):
foreach (var (item, index) in collection.WithIndex())
{
Debug.WriteLine($"{index}: {item}");
}
A little extension method would be needed:
using System.Collections.Generic;
public static class EnumExtension {
public static IEnumerable<(T item, int index)> WithIndex<T>(this IEnumerable<T> self)
=> self.Select((item, index) => (item, index));
}
Could do something like this:
public static class ForEachExtensions
{
public static void ForEachWithIndex<T>(this IEnumerable<T> enumerable, Action<T, int> handler)
{
int idx = 0;
foreach (T item in enumerable)
handler(item, idx++);
}
}
public class Example
{
public static void Main()
{
string[] values = new[] { "foo", "bar", "baz" };
values.ForEachWithIndex((item, idx) => Console.WriteLine("{0}: {1}", idx, item));
}
}
I disagree with comments that a for loop is a better choice in most cases.
foreach is a useful construct, and not replaceble by a for loop in all circumstances.
For example, if you have a DataReader and loop through all records using a foreach it automatically calls the Dispose method and closes the reader (which can then close the connection automatically). This is therefore safer as it prevents connection leaks even if you forget to close the reader.
(Sure it is good practise to always close readers but the compiler is not going to catch it if you don't - you can't guarantee you have closed all readers but you can make it more likely you won't leak connections by getting in the habit of using foreach.)
There may be other examples of the implicit call of the Dispose method being useful.
Literal Answer -- warning, performance may not be as good as just using an int to track the index. At least it is better than using IndexOf.
You just need to use the indexing overload of Select to wrap each item in the collection with an anonymous object that knows the index. This can be done against anything that implements IEnumerable.
System.Collections.IEnumerable collection = Enumerable.Range(100, 10);
foreach (var o in collection.OfType<object>().Select((x, i) => new {x, i}))
{
Console.WriteLine("{0} {1}", o.i, o.x);
}
Using LINQ, C# 7, and the System.ValueTuple NuGet package, you can do this:
foreach (var (value, index) in collection.Select((v, i)=>(v, i))) {
Console.WriteLine(value + " is at index " + index);
}
You can use the regular foreach construct and be able to access the value and index directly, not as a member of an object, and keeps both fields only in the scope of the loop. For these reasons, I believe this is the best solution if you are able to use C# 7 and System.ValueTuple.
There's nothing wrong with using a counter variable. In fact, whether you use for, foreach while or do, a counter variable must somewhere be declared and incremented.
So use this idiom if you're not sure if you have a suitably-indexed collection:
var i = 0;
foreach (var e in collection) {
// Do stuff with 'e' and 'i'
i++;
}
Else use this one if you know that your indexable collection is O(1) for index access (which it will be for Array and probably for List<T> (the documentation doesn't say), but not necessarily for other types (such as LinkedList)):
// Hope the JIT compiler optimises read of the 'Count' property!
for (var i = 0; i < collection.Count; i++) {
var e = collection[i];
// Do stuff with 'e' and 'i'
}
It should never be necessary to 'manually' operate the IEnumerator by invoking MoveNext() and interrogating Current - foreach is saving you that particular bother ... if you need to skip items, just use a continue in the body of the loop.
And just for completeness, depending on what you were doing with your index (the above constructs offer plenty of flexibility), you might use Parallel LINQ:
// First, filter 'e' based on 'i',
// then apply an action to remaining 'e'
collection
.AsParallel()
.Where((e,i) => /* filter with e,i */)
.ForAll(e => { /* use e, but don't modify it */ });
// Using 'e' and 'i', produce a new collection,
// where each element incorporates 'i'
collection
.AsParallel()
.Select((e, i) => new MyWrapper(e, i));
We use AsParallel() above, because it's 2014 already, and we want to make good use of those multiple cores to speed things up. Further, for 'sequential' LINQ, you only get a ForEach() extension method on List<T> and Array ... and it's not clear that using it is any better than doing a simple foreach, since you are still running single-threaded for uglier syntax.
Using #FlySwat's answer, I came up with this solution:
//var list = new List<int> { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 }; // Your sample collection
var listEnumerator = list.GetEnumerator(); // Get enumerator
for (var i = 0; listEnumerator.MoveNext() == true; i++)
{
int currentItem = listEnumerator.Current; // Get current item.
//Console.WriteLine("At index {0}, item is {1}", i, currentItem); // Do as you wish with i and currentItem
}
You get the enumerator using GetEnumerator and then you loop using a for loop. However, the trick is to make the loop's condition listEnumerator.MoveNext() == true.
Since the MoveNext method of an enumerator returns true if there is a next element and it can be accessed, making that the loop condition makes the loop stop when we run out of elements to iterate over.
Just add your own index. Keep it simple.
int i = -1;
foreach (var item in Collection)
{
++i;
item.index = i;
}
You could wrap the original enumerator with another that does contain the index information.
foreach (var item in ForEachHelper.WithIndex(collection))
{
Console.Write("Index=" + item.Index);
Console.Write(";Value= " + item.Value);
Console.Write(";IsLast=" + item.IsLast);
Console.WriteLine();
}
Here is the code for the ForEachHelper class.
public static class ForEachHelper
{
public sealed class Item<T>
{
public int Index { get; set; }
public T Value { get; set; }
public bool IsLast { get; set; }
}
public static IEnumerable<Item<T>> WithIndex<T>(IEnumerable<T> enumerable)
{
Item<T> item = null;
foreach (T value in enumerable)
{
Item<T> next = new Item<T>();
next.Index = 0;
next.Value = value;
next.IsLast = false;
if (item != null)
{
next.Index = item.Index + 1;
yield return item;
}
item = next;
}
if (item != null)
{
item.IsLast = true;
yield return item;
}
}
}
Why foreach ?!
The simplest way is using for instead of foreach if you are using List:
for (int i = 0 ; i < myList.Count ; i++)
{
// Do something...
}
Or if you want use foreach:
foreach (string m in myList)
{
// Do something...
}
You can use this to know the index of each loop:
myList.indexOf(m)
Here's a solution I just came up with for this problem
Original code:
int index=0;
foreach (var item in enumerable)
{
blah(item, index); // some code that depends on the index
index++;
}
Updated code
enumerable.ForEach((item, index) => blah(item, index));
Extension Method:
public static IEnumerable<T> ForEach<T>(this IEnumerable<T> enumerable, Action<T, int> action)
{
var unit = new Unit(); // unit is a new type from the reactive framework (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/devlabs/ee794896.aspx) to represent a void, since in C# you can't return a void
enumerable.Select((item, i) =>
{
action(item, i);
return unit;
}).ToList();
return pSource;
}
C# 7 finally gives us an elegant way to do this:
static class Extensions
{
public static IEnumerable<(int, T)> Enumerate<T>(
this IEnumerable<T> input,
int start = 0
)
{
int i = start;
foreach (var t in input)
{
yield return (i++, t);
}
}
}
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var s = new string[]
{
"Alpha",
"Bravo",
"Charlie",
"Delta"
};
foreach (var (i, t) in s.Enumerate())
{
Console.WriteLine($"{i}: {t}");
}
}
}
This answer: lobby the C# language team for direct language support.
The leading answer states:
Obviously, the concept of an index is foreign to the concept of
enumeration, and cannot be done.
While this is true of the current C# language version (2020), this is not a conceptual CLR/Language limit, it can be done.
The Microsoft C# language development team could create a new C# language feature, by adding support for a new Interface IIndexedEnumerable
foreach (var item in collection with var index)
{
Console.WriteLine("Iteration {0} has value {1}", index, item);
}
//or, building on #user1414213562's answer
foreach (var (item, index) in collection)
{
Console.WriteLine("Iteration {0} has value {1}", index, item);
}
If foreach () is used and with var index is present, then the compiler expects the item collection to declare IIndexedEnumerable interface. If the interface is absent, the compiler can polyfill wrap the source with an IndexedEnumerable object, which adds in the code for tracking the index.
interface IIndexedEnumerable<T> : IEnumerable<T>
{
//Not index, because sometimes source IEnumerables are transient
public long IterationNumber { get; }
}
Later, the CLR can be updated to have internal index tracking, that is only used if with keyword is specified and the source doesn't directly implement IIndexedEnumerable
Why:
Foreach looks nicer, and in business applications, foreach loops are rarely a performance bottleneck
Foreach can be more efficient on memory. Having a pipeline of functions instead of converting to new collections at each step. Who cares if it uses a few more CPU cycles when there are fewer CPU cache faults and fewer garbage collections?
Requiring the coder to add index-tracking code, spoils the beauty
It's quite easy to implement (please Microsoft) and is backward compatible
While most people here are not Microsoft employees, this is a correct answer, you can lobby Microsoft to add such a feature. You could already build your own iterator with an extension function and use tuples, but Microsoft could sprinkle the syntactic sugar to avoid the extension function
It's only going to work for a List and not any IEnumerable, but in LINQ there's this:
IList<Object> collection = new List<Object> {
new Object(),
new Object(),
new Object(),
};
foreach (Object o in collection)
{
Console.WriteLine(collection.IndexOf(o));
}
Console.ReadLine();
#Jonathan I didn't say it was a great answer, I just said it was just showing it was possible to do what he asked :)
#Graphain I wouldn't expect it to be fast - I'm not entirely sure how it works, it could reiterate through the entire list each time to find a matching object, which would be a helluvalot of compares.
That said, List might keep an index of each object along with the count.
Jonathan seems to have a better idea, if he would elaborate?
It would be better to just keep a count of where you're up to in the foreach though, simpler, and more adaptable.
This is how I do it, which is nice for its simplicity/brevity, but if you're doing a lot in the loop body obj.Value, it is going to get old pretty fast.
foreach(var obj in collection.Select((item, index) => new { Index = index, Value = item }) {
string foo = string.Format("Something[{0}] = {1}", obj.Index, obj.Value);
...
}
int index;
foreach (Object o in collection)
{
index = collection.indexOf(o);
}
This would work for collections supporting IList.
// using foreach loop how to get index number:
foreach (var result in results.Select((value, index) => new { index, value }))
{
// do something
}
Better to use keyword continue safe construction like this
int i=-1;
foreach (Object o in collection)
{
++i;
//...
continue; //<--- safe to call, index will be increased
//...
}
You can write your loop like this:
var s = "ABCDEFG";
foreach (var item in s.GetEnumeratorWithIndex())
{
System.Console.WriteLine("Character: {0}, Position: {1}", item.Value, item.Index);
}
After adding the following struct and extension method.
The struct and extension method encapsulate Enumerable.Select functionality.
public struct ValueWithIndex<T>
{
public readonly T Value;
public readonly int Index;
public ValueWithIndex(T value, int index)
{
this.Value = value;
this.Index = index;
}
public static ValueWithIndex<T> Create(T value, int index)
{
return new ValueWithIndex<T>(value, index);
}
}
public static class ExtensionMethods
{
public static IEnumerable<ValueWithIndex<T>> GetEnumeratorWithIndex<T>(this IEnumerable<T> enumerable)
{
return enumerable.Select(ValueWithIndex<T>.Create);
}
}
If the collection is a list, you can use List.IndexOf, as in:
foreach (Object o in collection)
{
// ...
#collection.IndexOf(o)
}
This way you can use the index and value using LINQ:
ListValues.Select((x, i) => new { Value = x, Index = i }).ToList().ForEach(element =>
{
// element.Index
// element.Value
});
My solution for this problem is an extension method WithIndex(),
http://code.google.com/p/ub-dotnet-utilities/source/browse/trunk/Src/Utilities/Extensions/EnumerableExtensions.cs
Use it like
var list = new List<int> { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 };
var odd = list.WithIndex().Where(i => (i.Item & 1) == 1);
CollectionAssert.AreEqual(new[] { 0, 2, 4 }, odd.Select(i => i.Index));
CollectionAssert.AreEqual(new[] { 1, 3, 5 }, odd.Select(i => i.Item));
For interest, Phil Haack just wrote an example of this in the context of a Razor Templated Delegate (http://haacked.com/archive/2011/04/14/a-better-razor-foreach-loop.aspx)
Effectively he writes an extension method which wraps the iteration in an "IteratedItem" class (see below) allowing access to the index as well as the element during iteration.
public class IndexedItem<TModel> {
public IndexedItem(int index, TModel item) {
Index = index;
Item = item;
}
public int Index { get; private set; }
public TModel Item { get; private set; }
}
However, while this would be fine in a non-Razor environment if you are doing a single operation (i.e. one that could be provided as a lambda) it's not going to be a solid replacement of the for/foreach syntax in non-Razor contexts.
I don't think this should be quite efficient, but it works:
#foreach (var banner in Model.MainBanners) {
#Model.MainBanners.IndexOf(banner)
}
I built this in LINQPad:
var listOfNames = new List<string>(){"John","Steve","Anna","Chris"};
var listCount = listOfNames.Count;
var NamesWithCommas = string.Empty;
foreach (var element in listOfNames)
{
NamesWithCommas += element;
if(listOfNames.IndexOf(element) != listCount -1)
{
NamesWithCommas += ", ";
}
}
NamesWithCommas.Dump(); //LINQPad method to write to console.
You could also just use string.join:
var joinResult = string.Join(",", listOfNames);
I don't believe there is a way to get the value of the current iteration of a foreach loop. Counting yourself, seems to be the best way.
May I ask, why you would want to know?
It seems that you would most likley be doing one of three things:
1) Getting the object from the collection, but in this case you already have it.
2) Counting the objects for later post processing...the collections have a Count property that you could make use of.
3) Setting a property on the object based on its order in the loop...although you could easily be setting that when you added the object to the collection.
Unless your collection can return the index of the object via some method, the only way is to use a counter like in your example.
However, when working with indexes, the only reasonable answer to the problem is to use a for loop. Anything else introduces code complexity, not to mention time and space complexity.
I just had this problem, but thinking around the problem in my case gave the best solution, unrelated to the expected solution.
It could be quite a common case, basically, I'm reading from one source list and creating objects based on them in a destination list, however, I have to check whether the source items are valid first and want to return the row of any error. At first-glance, I want to get the index into the enumerator of the object at the Current property, however, as I am copying these elements, I implicitly know the current index anyway from the current destination. Obviously it depends on your destination object, but for me it was a List, and most likely it will implement ICollection.
i.e.
var destinationList = new List<someObject>();
foreach (var item in itemList)
{
var stringArray = item.Split(new char[] { ';', ',' }, StringSplitOptions.RemoveEmptyEntries);
if (stringArray.Length != 2)
{
//use the destinationList Count property to give us the index into the stringArray list
throw new Exception("Item at row " + (destinationList.Count + 1) + " has a problem.");
}
else
{
destinationList.Add(new someObject() { Prop1 = stringArray[0], Prop2 = stringArray[1]});
}
}
Not always applicable, but often enough to be worth mentioning, I think.
Anyway, the point being that sometimes there is a non-obvious solution already in the logic you have...