C# is there a foreach oneliner available?
I just want to know if there is a foreach oneliner in C#, like the if oneliner (exp) ? then : else
.
c# syntax foreach
add a comment |
I just want to know if there is a foreach oneliner in C#, like the if oneliner (exp) ? then : else
.
c# syntax foreach
I think my answer goes straight to the point you want!
– sergiol
Jul 6 '18 at 23:44
I don't know if it's what the OP wanted, but @sergiol had what I wanted. A way to give foreach a set of literals to be used exactly once.
– gbarry
Nov 26 '18 at 19:36
add a comment |
I just want to know if there is a foreach oneliner in C#, like the if oneliner (exp) ? then : else
.
c# syntax foreach
I just want to know if there is a foreach oneliner in C#, like the if oneliner (exp) ? then : else
.
c# syntax foreach
c# syntax foreach
edited Dec 22 '15 at 15:35
Luis Gouveia
1,94841937
1,94841937
asked Jan 25 '11 at 13:08
WowaWowa
1,32811022
1,32811022
I think my answer goes straight to the point you want!
– sergiol
Jul 6 '18 at 23:44
I don't know if it's what the OP wanted, but @sergiol had what I wanted. A way to give foreach a set of literals to be used exactly once.
– gbarry
Nov 26 '18 at 19:36
add a comment |
I think my answer goes straight to the point you want!
– sergiol
Jul 6 '18 at 23:44
I don't know if it's what the OP wanted, but @sergiol had what I wanted. A way to give foreach a set of literals to be used exactly once.
– gbarry
Nov 26 '18 at 19:36
I think my answer goes straight to the point you want!
– sergiol
Jul 6 '18 at 23:44
I think my answer goes straight to the point you want!
– sergiol
Jul 6 '18 at 23:44
I don't know if it's what the OP wanted, but @sergiol had what I wanted. A way to give foreach a set of literals to be used exactly once.
– gbarry
Nov 26 '18 at 19:36
I don't know if it's what the OP wanted, but @sergiol had what I wanted. A way to give foreach a set of literals to be used exactly once.
– gbarry
Nov 26 '18 at 19:36
add a comment |
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
If you're dealing with an array then you can use the built-in static ForEach
method:
Array.ForEach(yourArray, x => Console.WriteLine(x));
If you're dealing with a List<T>
then you can use the built-in ForEach
instance method:
yourList.ForEach(x => Console.WriteLine(x));
There's nothing built-in that'll work against any arbitrary IEnumerable<T>
sequence, but it's easy enough to roll your own extension method if you feel that you need it:
yourSequence.ForEach(x => Console.WriteLine(x));
// ...
public static class EnumerableExtensions
{
public static void ForEach<T>(this IEnumerable<T> source, Action<T> action)
{
if (source == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("source");
if (action == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("action");
foreach (T item in source)
{
action(item);
}
}
}
Odd enough that they don't have this stuff built in. I guess if one would follow the Python pattern, one would useSelect
to build a new enumeration?
– Domi
Oct 29 '16 at 13:21
add a comment |
List.ForEach Method
add a comment |
foreach
line-liners could be achieved with LINQ extension methods. For example:
instead of:
var result = new List<string>();
foreach (var item in someCollection)
{
result.Add(item.Title);
}
you could:
var result = someCollection.Select(x => x.Title).ToList();
add a comment |
Imagine you have three variables and you want to set the same property of them all in only one go:
foreach (var item in new {labelA, labelB, labelC})
{
item.Property= Value;
}
It is the equivalent of doing:
foreach (var item in new List<SomeType>(){labelA, labelB, labelC})
{
item.Property= Value;
}
add a comment |
Sure, you can use something like List<>.ForEach
:
List<String> s = new List<string>();
s.Add("This");
s.Add("Is");
s.Add("Some");
s.Add("Data");
s.ForEach(_string => Console.WriteLine(_string));
add a comment |
The primary difference between if
and the ?
operator is that if
is a statement, while ?
produces an expression. I.e. you can do this:
var _ = (exp) ? then : else; // ok
but not this:
var _ = if (exp) { then; } else { else; }; // error
So if you are looking for something like a foreach expression, there is no .NET type that can naturally return except for void, but there are no values of void type, so you can equally just write:
foreach (var item in collection) process(item);
In many functional languages, a Unit type is used instead of void
which is a type with only one value. You can emulate this in .NET and create your own foreach expression:
class Unit
{
public override bool Equals(object obj)
{
return true;
}
public override int GetHashCode()
{
return 0;
}
}
public static class EnumerableEx
{
public static Unit ForEach<TSource>(
this IEnumerable<TSource> source,
Action<TSource> action)
{
foreach (var item in source)
{
action(item);
}
return new Unit();
}
}
However there hardly exists any use-case for such expressions.
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f4793885%2fc-sharp-is-there-a-foreach-oneliner-available%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
If you're dealing with an array then you can use the built-in static ForEach
method:
Array.ForEach(yourArray, x => Console.WriteLine(x));
If you're dealing with a List<T>
then you can use the built-in ForEach
instance method:
yourList.ForEach(x => Console.WriteLine(x));
There's nothing built-in that'll work against any arbitrary IEnumerable<T>
sequence, but it's easy enough to roll your own extension method if you feel that you need it:
yourSequence.ForEach(x => Console.WriteLine(x));
// ...
public static class EnumerableExtensions
{
public static void ForEach<T>(this IEnumerable<T> source, Action<T> action)
{
if (source == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("source");
if (action == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("action");
foreach (T item in source)
{
action(item);
}
}
}
Odd enough that they don't have this stuff built in. I guess if one would follow the Python pattern, one would useSelect
to build a new enumeration?
– Domi
Oct 29 '16 at 13:21
add a comment |
If you're dealing with an array then you can use the built-in static ForEach
method:
Array.ForEach(yourArray, x => Console.WriteLine(x));
If you're dealing with a List<T>
then you can use the built-in ForEach
instance method:
yourList.ForEach(x => Console.WriteLine(x));
There's nothing built-in that'll work against any arbitrary IEnumerable<T>
sequence, but it's easy enough to roll your own extension method if you feel that you need it:
yourSequence.ForEach(x => Console.WriteLine(x));
// ...
public static class EnumerableExtensions
{
public static void ForEach<T>(this IEnumerable<T> source, Action<T> action)
{
if (source == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("source");
if (action == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("action");
foreach (T item in source)
{
action(item);
}
}
}
Odd enough that they don't have this stuff built in. I guess if one would follow the Python pattern, one would useSelect
to build a new enumeration?
– Domi
Oct 29 '16 at 13:21
add a comment |
If you're dealing with an array then you can use the built-in static ForEach
method:
Array.ForEach(yourArray, x => Console.WriteLine(x));
If you're dealing with a List<T>
then you can use the built-in ForEach
instance method:
yourList.ForEach(x => Console.WriteLine(x));
There's nothing built-in that'll work against any arbitrary IEnumerable<T>
sequence, but it's easy enough to roll your own extension method if you feel that you need it:
yourSequence.ForEach(x => Console.WriteLine(x));
// ...
public static class EnumerableExtensions
{
public static void ForEach<T>(this IEnumerable<T> source, Action<T> action)
{
if (source == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("source");
if (action == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("action");
foreach (T item in source)
{
action(item);
}
}
}
If you're dealing with an array then you can use the built-in static ForEach
method:
Array.ForEach(yourArray, x => Console.WriteLine(x));
If you're dealing with a List<T>
then you can use the built-in ForEach
instance method:
yourList.ForEach(x => Console.WriteLine(x));
There's nothing built-in that'll work against any arbitrary IEnumerable<T>
sequence, but it's easy enough to roll your own extension method if you feel that you need it:
yourSequence.ForEach(x => Console.WriteLine(x));
// ...
public static class EnumerableExtensions
{
public static void ForEach<T>(this IEnumerable<T> source, Action<T> action)
{
if (source == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("source");
if (action == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("action");
foreach (T item in source)
{
action(item);
}
}
}
edited Jan 25 '11 at 13:15
answered Jan 25 '11 at 13:09
LukeHLukeH
206k45309382
206k45309382
Odd enough that they don't have this stuff built in. I guess if one would follow the Python pattern, one would useSelect
to build a new enumeration?
– Domi
Oct 29 '16 at 13:21
add a comment |
Odd enough that they don't have this stuff built in. I guess if one would follow the Python pattern, one would useSelect
to build a new enumeration?
– Domi
Oct 29 '16 at 13:21
Odd enough that they don't have this stuff built in. I guess if one would follow the Python pattern, one would use
Select
to build a new enumeration?– Domi
Oct 29 '16 at 13:21
Odd enough that they don't have this stuff built in. I guess if one would follow the Python pattern, one would use
Select
to build a new enumeration?– Domi
Oct 29 '16 at 13:21
add a comment |
List.ForEach Method
add a comment |
List.ForEach Method
add a comment |
List.ForEach Method
List.ForEach Method
answered Jan 25 '11 at 13:10
Denis PalnitskyDenis Palnitsky
11k124055
11k124055
add a comment |
add a comment |
foreach
line-liners could be achieved with LINQ extension methods. For example:
instead of:
var result = new List<string>();
foreach (var item in someCollection)
{
result.Add(item.Title);
}
you could:
var result = someCollection.Select(x => x.Title).ToList();
add a comment |
foreach
line-liners could be achieved with LINQ extension methods. For example:
instead of:
var result = new List<string>();
foreach (var item in someCollection)
{
result.Add(item.Title);
}
you could:
var result = someCollection.Select(x => x.Title).ToList();
add a comment |
foreach
line-liners could be achieved with LINQ extension methods. For example:
instead of:
var result = new List<string>();
foreach (var item in someCollection)
{
result.Add(item.Title);
}
you could:
var result = someCollection.Select(x => x.Title).ToList();
foreach
line-liners could be achieved with LINQ extension methods. For example:
instead of:
var result = new List<string>();
foreach (var item in someCollection)
{
result.Add(item.Title);
}
you could:
var result = someCollection.Select(x => x.Title).ToList();
answered Jan 25 '11 at 13:13
Darin DimitrovDarin Dimitrov
844k22230142746
844k22230142746
add a comment |
add a comment |
Imagine you have three variables and you want to set the same property of them all in only one go:
foreach (var item in new {labelA, labelB, labelC})
{
item.Property= Value;
}
It is the equivalent of doing:
foreach (var item in new List<SomeType>(){labelA, labelB, labelC})
{
item.Property= Value;
}
add a comment |
Imagine you have three variables and you want to set the same property of them all in only one go:
foreach (var item in new {labelA, labelB, labelC})
{
item.Property= Value;
}
It is the equivalent of doing:
foreach (var item in new List<SomeType>(){labelA, labelB, labelC})
{
item.Property= Value;
}
add a comment |
Imagine you have three variables and you want to set the same property of them all in only one go:
foreach (var item in new {labelA, labelB, labelC})
{
item.Property= Value;
}
It is the equivalent of doing:
foreach (var item in new List<SomeType>(){labelA, labelB, labelC})
{
item.Property= Value;
}
Imagine you have three variables and you want to set the same property of them all in only one go:
foreach (var item in new {labelA, labelB, labelC})
{
item.Property= Value;
}
It is the equivalent of doing:
foreach (var item in new List<SomeType>(){labelA, labelB, labelC})
{
item.Property= Value;
}
answered Jun 14 '18 at 11:19
sergiolsergiol
2,60222662
2,60222662
add a comment |
add a comment |
Sure, you can use something like List<>.ForEach
:
List<String> s = new List<string>();
s.Add("This");
s.Add("Is");
s.Add("Some");
s.Add("Data");
s.ForEach(_string => Console.WriteLine(_string));
add a comment |
Sure, you can use something like List<>.ForEach
:
List<String> s = new List<string>();
s.Add("This");
s.Add("Is");
s.Add("Some");
s.Add("Data");
s.ForEach(_string => Console.WriteLine(_string));
add a comment |
Sure, you can use something like List<>.ForEach
:
List<String> s = new List<string>();
s.Add("This");
s.Add("Is");
s.Add("Some");
s.Add("Data");
s.ForEach(_string => Console.WriteLine(_string));
Sure, you can use something like List<>.ForEach
:
List<String> s = new List<string>();
s.Add("This");
s.Add("Is");
s.Add("Some");
s.Add("Data");
s.ForEach(_string => Console.WriteLine(_string));
edited Nov 27 '18 at 7:23
Lauren Van Sloun
98511018
98511018
answered Jan 25 '11 at 13:13
Moo-JuiceMoo-Juice
32.2k858114
32.2k858114
add a comment |
add a comment |
The primary difference between if
and the ?
operator is that if
is a statement, while ?
produces an expression. I.e. you can do this:
var _ = (exp) ? then : else; // ok
but not this:
var _ = if (exp) { then; } else { else; }; // error
So if you are looking for something like a foreach expression, there is no .NET type that can naturally return except for void, but there are no values of void type, so you can equally just write:
foreach (var item in collection) process(item);
In many functional languages, a Unit type is used instead of void
which is a type with only one value. You can emulate this in .NET and create your own foreach expression:
class Unit
{
public override bool Equals(object obj)
{
return true;
}
public override int GetHashCode()
{
return 0;
}
}
public static class EnumerableEx
{
public static Unit ForEach<TSource>(
this IEnumerable<TSource> source,
Action<TSource> action)
{
foreach (var item in source)
{
action(item);
}
return new Unit();
}
}
However there hardly exists any use-case for such expressions.
add a comment |
The primary difference between if
and the ?
operator is that if
is a statement, while ?
produces an expression. I.e. you can do this:
var _ = (exp) ? then : else; // ok
but not this:
var _ = if (exp) { then; } else { else; }; // error
So if you are looking for something like a foreach expression, there is no .NET type that can naturally return except for void, but there are no values of void type, so you can equally just write:
foreach (var item in collection) process(item);
In many functional languages, a Unit type is used instead of void
which is a type with only one value. You can emulate this in .NET and create your own foreach expression:
class Unit
{
public override bool Equals(object obj)
{
return true;
}
public override int GetHashCode()
{
return 0;
}
}
public static class EnumerableEx
{
public static Unit ForEach<TSource>(
this IEnumerable<TSource> source,
Action<TSource> action)
{
foreach (var item in source)
{
action(item);
}
return new Unit();
}
}
However there hardly exists any use-case for such expressions.
add a comment |
The primary difference between if
and the ?
operator is that if
is a statement, while ?
produces an expression. I.e. you can do this:
var _ = (exp) ? then : else; // ok
but not this:
var _ = if (exp) { then; } else { else; }; // error
So if you are looking for something like a foreach expression, there is no .NET type that can naturally return except for void, but there are no values of void type, so you can equally just write:
foreach (var item in collection) process(item);
In many functional languages, a Unit type is used instead of void
which is a type with only one value. You can emulate this in .NET and create your own foreach expression:
class Unit
{
public override bool Equals(object obj)
{
return true;
}
public override int GetHashCode()
{
return 0;
}
}
public static class EnumerableEx
{
public static Unit ForEach<TSource>(
this IEnumerable<TSource> source,
Action<TSource> action)
{
foreach (var item in source)
{
action(item);
}
return new Unit();
}
}
However there hardly exists any use-case for such expressions.
The primary difference between if
and the ?
operator is that if
is a statement, while ?
produces an expression. I.e. you can do this:
var _ = (exp) ? then : else; // ok
but not this:
var _ = if (exp) { then; } else { else; }; // error
So if you are looking for something like a foreach expression, there is no .NET type that can naturally return except for void, but there are no values of void type, so you can equally just write:
foreach (var item in collection) process(item);
In many functional languages, a Unit type is used instead of void
which is a type with only one value. You can emulate this in .NET and create your own foreach expression:
class Unit
{
public override bool Equals(object obj)
{
return true;
}
public override int GetHashCode()
{
return 0;
}
}
public static class EnumerableEx
{
public static Unit ForEach<TSource>(
this IEnumerable<TSource> source,
Action<TSource> action)
{
foreach (var item in source)
{
action(item);
}
return new Unit();
}
}
However there hardly exists any use-case for such expressions.
edited Nov 27 '18 at 6:08
Lauren Van Sloun
98511018
98511018
answered Jan 25 '11 at 13:25
Konstantin OznobihinKonstantin Oznobihin
4,4401628
4,4401628
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f4793885%2fc-sharp-is-there-a-foreach-oneliner-available%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
I think my answer goes straight to the point you want!
– sergiol
Jul 6 '18 at 23:44
I don't know if it's what the OP wanted, but @sergiol had what I wanted. A way to give foreach a set of literals to be used exactly once.
– gbarry
Nov 26 '18 at 19:36