I have to write a query in a web application using LINQ but I need to change that query into an array list. How can I change the query below to do this?
var resultsQuery =
from result in o["SearchResponse"]["Web"]["Results"].Children()
select new
{
Url = result.Value<string>("Url").ToString(),
Title = result.Value<string>("Title").ToString(),
Content = result.Value<string>("Description").ToString()
};
If you really need to create an ArrayList, you can write new ArrayList(resultsQuery.ToArray()).
However, you should use a List<T> instead, by writing resultsQuery.ToList().
Note that, in both cases, the list will contain objects of anonymous type.
There is a .ToArray() method that'll convert IEnumerable to an Array.
ArrayList doesn't have a constructor or Add(Range) method that takes an IEnumerable. So that leaves two choices:
Use an intermediate collection that does implement ICollection: as both Array and List<T> implement ICollection can be used via the ToArray() or ToList() extension methods from LINQ.
Create an instance of ArrayList and then add each element of the result:
var query = /* LINQ Expression */
var res = new ArrayList();
foreach (var item in query) {
res.Add(item);
}
The former method is simple to do but does mean creating the intermediate data structure (which of the two options has a higher overhead is an interesting question and partly depends on the query so there is no general answer). The latter is more code and does involve growing the ArrayList incrementally (so more memory for the GC, as would be the case for an intermediate Array or List<T>).
If you just need this in one place you can just do the code inline, if you need to do it in multiple places create your own extension method over IEnumerable<T>:
public static class MyExtensions {
public static ArrayList ToArrayList<T>(this IEnumerable<T> input) {
var col = input as ICollection;
if (col != null) {
return new ArrayList(col);
}
var res = new ArrayList();
foreach (var item in input) {
res.Add(item);
}
return res;
}
}
Related
When using IEnumerable I'm trying to avoid multiple enumerations. I know I can just use LINQ's .ToList() and be done with it, but that can be a lot of unnecessary list creation. I'd like to:
check and see if the underlying type is a List, and if so return that instance, otherwise
.ToList() it and return the new List
My thought was to use something akin to:
public void Fee()
{
var list = new List<string>(); // I want to retrieve this instance in Foo
Foo(list);
}
public void Foo(IEnumerable<T> enumerable)
{
var list = enumerable as List<T> ?? enumerable.ToList();
// do stuff with original list
}
... but it appears from the documentation that the as operator just performs a cast, which would create a new List rather than returning the underlying one, would it not?
If so, how can I retrieve the underlying list instead of creating a new one?
The as operator does not create a new list. It only checks type and perform cast if type is compatible.
The code in the post is logically correct and matches how many LINQ methods are implemented (for example see source of Enumerable.Count which casts to ICollection to see if it can skip enumeration of items).
Note that it is important to cast to correct generic version of list or maybe one of its interfaces - IList would work if you must use non-generic version. Beware of the fact that List<T> is not co/contra-variant and type must match exactly unlike in case of covariant IEnumerable<out T> where you can cast parameter to IEnumerable<TBase> if IEnumerable<TDerived> passed.
Maybe you wanted to do this:
public void Fee()
{
var list = new List<string>(); // I want to retrieve this instance in Foo
Foo(list);
}
public void Foo<T>(IEnumerable<T> enumerable)
{
List<T> list = enumerable as List<T> ?? enumerable.ToList();
// do stuff with original list
}
I am coding a C# forms application, and would like to know if the following two functions achieve the same result:
public List<object> Method1(int parentId)
{
List<object> allChildren = new List<object>();
foreach (var item in list.Where(c => c.parentHtmlNodeForeignKey == parentId))
{
allChildren.Add(item);
allChildren.AddRange(Method1(item.id));
}
return allChildren;
}
public IEnumerable<object> Method2(int parentId)
{
foreach (var item in list.Where(c => c.parentHtmlNodeForeignKey == parentId))
{
yield return item;
foreach (var itemy in Method2(item.id))
{
yield return itemy;
}
}
}
Am I correct in saying that the Method1 function is more efficient than the Method2?
Also, can either of the above functions be coded to be more efficient?
EDIT
I am using the function to return some objects that are then displayed in a ListView. I am then looping through these same objects to check if a string occurs.
Thanks.
This highly depends on what you want to do. For example if you use FirstOrDefault(p => ....) the yield method can be faster because it's not required to store all the stuff into a list and if the first element is the right one the list method has some overhead ( Of course the yield method has also overhead but as i said it depends ).
If you want to iterate over and over again over the data then you should go with the list.
It depends on lot's of things.
Here are some reasons to use IEnumerable<T> over List<T>:
When you are iterating a part of a collection (e.g. using FirstOrDefault, Any, Take etc.).
When you have an large collection and you can ToList() it (e.g. Fibonacci Series).
When you shouldn't use IEnumerable<T> over List<T>:
When you are enumerating a DB query multiple times with different conditions (You may want the results in memory).
When you want to iterate the whole collection more than once - There is no need to create iterators each time.
In C#, I have noticed that if I am running a foreach loop on a LINQ generated IEnumerable<T> collection and try to modify the contents of each T element, my modifications are not persistent.
On the other hand, if I apply the ToArray() or ToList() method when creating my collection, modification of the individual elements in the foreach loop are persistent.
I suspect that this is in some way related to deferred execution, but exactly how is not entirely obvious to me. I would really appreciate an explanation to this difference in behavior.
Here is some example code - I have a class MyClass with a constructor and auto-implemented property:
public class MyClass
{
public MyClass(int val) { Str = val.ToString(); }
public string Str { get; set; }
}
In my example application I use LINQ Select() to create two collections of MyClass objects based on a collection of integers, one IEnumerable<MyClass>, and one IList<MyClass> by applying the ToList() method in the end.
var ints = Enumerable.Range(1, 10);
var myClassEnumerable = ints.Select(i => new MyClass(i));
var myClassArray = ints.Select(i => new MyClass(i)).ToList();
Next, I run a foreach loop over each of the collections, and modify the contents of the looped-over MyClass objects:
foreach (var obj in myClassEnumerable) obj.Str = "Something";
foreach (var obj in myClassArray) obj.Str = "Something else";
Finally, I output the Str member of the first element in each collection:
Console.WriteLine(myClassEnumerable.First().Str);
Console.WriteLine(myClassArray.First().Str);
Somewhat counter-intuitively, the output is:
1
Something else
Deferred execution is the indeed the key point.
Executing myClassEnumerable.First().Str will reexecute your query ints.Select(i => new MyClass(i)); and so it will give you a new IEnumerable with a new list of integers.
You can see this in action using your debugger. Put a breakpoint at the new MyClass(i) part of the IEnumerable select and you will see that this part get's hit again when you execute it for Console.WriteLine
You are right, it is deferred execution. A new MyClass instance is created each time you iterate the IEnumerable. By calling ToList or ToArray you then create a List or Array and populate it with the new MyClass instances created from the iteration of the IEnumerable.
By fastest I mean what is the most performant means of converting each item in List to type int using C# assuming int.Parse will work for every item?
You won't get around iterating over all elements. Using LINQ:
var ints = strings.Select(s => int.Parse(s));
This has the added bonus it will only convert at the time you iterate over it, and only as much elements as you request.
If you really need a list, use the ToList method. However, you have to be aware that the performance bonus mentioned above won't be available then.
If you're really trying to eeke out the last bit of performance you could try doing someting with pointers like this, but personally I'd go with the simple linq implementation that others have mentioned.
unsafe static int ParseUnsafe(string value)
{
int result = 0;
fixed (char* v = value)
{
char* str = v;
while (*str != '\0')
{
result = 10 * result + (*str - 48);
str++;
}
}
return result;
}
var parsed = input.Select(i=>ParseUnsafe(i));//optionally .ToList() if you really need list
There is likely to be very little difference between any of the obvious ways to do this: therefore go for readability (one of the LINQ-style methods posted in other answers).
You may gain some performance for very large lists by initializing the output list to its required capacity, but it's unlikely you'd notice the difference, and readability will suffer:
List<string> input = ..
List<int> output = new List<int>(input.Count);
... Parse in a loop ...
The slight performance gain will come from the fact that the output list won't need to be repeatedly reallocated as it grows.
I don't know what the performance implications are, but there is a List<T>.ConvertAll<TOutput> method for converting the elements in the current List to another type, returning a list containing the converted elements.
List.ConvertAll Method
var myListOfInts = myListString.Select(x => int.Parse(x)).ToList()
Side note: If you call ToList() on ICollection .NET framework automatically preallocates an
List of needed size, so it doesn't have to allocate new space for each new item added to the list.
Unfortunately LINQ Select doesn't return an ICollection (as Joe pointed out in comments).
From ILSpy:
// System.Linq.Enumerable
public static List<TSource> ToList<TSource>(this IEnumerable<TSource> source)
{
if (source == null)
{
throw Error.ArgumentNull("source");
}
return new List<TSource>(source);
}
// System.Collections.Generic.List<T>
public List(IEnumerable<T> collection)
{
if (collection == null)
{
ThrowHelper.ThrowArgumentNullException(ExceptionArgument.collection);
}
ICollection<T> collection2 = collection as ICollection<T>;
if (collection2 != null)
{
int count = collection2.Count;
this._items = new T[count];
collection2.CopyTo(this._items, 0);
this._size = count;
return;
}
this._size = 0;
this._items = new T[4];
using (IEnumerator<T> enumerator = collection.GetEnumerator())
{
while (enumerator.MoveNext())
{
this.Add(enumerator.Current);
}
}
}
So, ToList() just calls List constructor and passes in an IEnumerable.
The List constructor is smart enough that if it is an ICollection it uses most efficient way of filling a new instance of List
I'm not sure I quite understand how the following example works. It's from C# 4.0 in a Nutshell.
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
string[] names = { "Tom", "Dick", "Harry", "Mary", "Jay" };
IEnumerable<TempProjectionItem> temp =
from n in names
select new TempProjectionItem
{
Original = n,
Vowelless = n.Replace("a", "").Replace("e", "").Replace("i", "")
.Replace("o", "").Replace("u", "")
};
IEnumerable<string> query = from item in temp
where item.Vowelless.Length > 2
select item.Original;
foreach (string item in query)
{
Console.WriteLine(item);
}
}
class TempProjectionItem
{
public string Original;
public string Vowelless;
}
}
IEnumerable is an interface, isn't it? What kind of object is temp and query? Why does TempProjectionItem not need to implement IEnumerable?
TempProjectionItem is the element type of the sequence... just like an IEnumerable<int> (such as a List<int>) is a sequence of int values without int itself implementing IEnumerable.
Note that there are two sequence interfaces: System.Collections.IEnumerable and System.Collections.Generic.IEnumerable<T>. Obviously the latter is generic, representing a sequence of a particular type. So temp is a sequence of TempProjectionItem elements, and query is a sequence of string elements.
Neither of these is really a collection as such - the queries are executed lazily - it's only evaluated (starting with names) when you iterate over the data. Iterating over query involves iterating over temp which then iterates over names.
IEnumerable is an interface, isn't it?
Yes, it is. Actually in your code you are using IEnumerable<T> which is a generic interface.
What kind of object is temp and query?
In your code we can see temp is type of IEnumerable<TempProjectionItem>, while query is an IEnumerable<string>, both of which come from IEnumerable<T>.
Why does TempProjectionItem not need to implement IEnumerable?
TempProjectionItem is not IEnumerable, it's just an item of the IEnumerable<TempProjectionItem> which is a "container".