Multidimensional arrays do not implement IEnumerable<T>, or do they?

这一生的挚爱 提交于 2019-12-01 07:43:59

The query works in VB.Net because it gets transformed into

IEnumerable<object> q = m.Cast<object>().Select<object, object>(o => o);

This works because you can call Cast<TResult>() on IEnumerable, which [*,*] implements.

The LINQ query doesn't work in C# because of the different approach the C# and VB.Net designers took. VB.Net takes a more hand holding approach and fixes your mistake and converts IEnumerable to IEnumerable<object> so it can be used.

In C#, you can simulate this by using

var q = from e in m.Cast<object>() select e;

There are two reasons they don't implement it natively in C#:

  • There's more than one way you could do it. Do you want each 'cell', or do you want each 'row'? And how do you define 'row': [], IEnumerable, other? What if there are more than two dimensions? As soon as they pick one way, an army of developers will tell them they should have done it a different way.
  • Thanks to iterator blocks and the yield keyword, it just so easy to implement your own that's specific to your need at the time. Of course, that's a C# construct, but it's not that much harder in VB.

The MSDN page for Array includes this:

Important Note: In the .NET Framework version 2.0, the Array class implements the System.Collections.Generic.IList<T>, System.Collections.Generic.ICollection<T>, and System.Collections.Generic.IEnumerable<T> generic interfaces. The implementations are provided to arrays at run time,

Note the final words in the quote... it appears this generation does not happen for multi-dimensional arrays (so a documentation bug).

But as others have noted, what would T be? A good case can be made for T[] (or, these days with LINQ, IEnumerable<T>).

In the end, if you want to iterate all the array's members just stick with IEnumerable and Cast<T> extension. Otherwise easy to write your own.

Tip: instead of Cast<object>() use a typed range variable


Samuel stated:

In C#, you can simulate this by using

var q = from e in m.Cast<object>() select e;
// q is of type IEnumerable<object>

which is of course correct as far as mimicking VB in C# is concerned, but you would loose your type information. Instead, it is much easier and as it turns out, slightly better readable, to simply declare your range variable.

The following compiles, performs better, is type safe and does not loose type information:

var m = new int[2, 2] { { 1, 2 }, { 3, 4 } };
var q = from int e in m select e;
// q is of type IEnumerable<int>

In the original suggestion, you would have an IEnumerable<object>, using int e you change that into IEnumerable<int>, which has its advantages.

标签
易学教程内所有资源均来自网络或用户发布的内容,如有违反法律规定的内容欢迎反馈
该文章没有解决你所遇到的问题?点击提问,说说你的问题,让更多的人一起探讨吧!