是否有一种通用的方法将T类型的单个项传递给期望IEnumerable<T>参数的方法?语言是c#，框架2.0版。
目前我正在使用一个帮助方法(它是。net 2.0，所以我有一大堆类似于LINQ的铸造/投影帮助方法)，但这似乎很愚蠢:
public static class IEnumerableExt
{
// usage: IEnumerableExt.FromSingleItem(someObject);
public static IEnumerable<T> FromSingleItem<T>(T item)
{
yield return item;
}
}
当然，另一种方法是创建并填充一个List<T>或一个Array，并传递它而不是IEnumerable<T>。
[编辑]作为一个扩展方法，它可以命名为:
public static class IEnumerableExt
{
// usage: someObject.SingleItemAsEnumerable();
public static IEnumerable<T> SingleItemAsEnumerable<T>(this T item)
{
yield return item;
}
}
我是不是遗漏了什么?
[Edit2]我们发现someObject.Yield()(正如@Peter在下面的评论中建议的那样)是这个扩展方法的最佳名称，主要是为了简洁，所以如果有人想获取它，这里是它和XML注释:
public static class IEnumerableExt
{
/// <summary>
/// Wraps this object instance into an IEnumerable<T>
/// consisting of a single item.
/// </summary>
/// <typeparam name="T"> Type of the object. </typeparam>
/// <param name="item"> The instance that will be wrapped. </param>
/// <returns> An IEnumerable<T> consisting of a single item. </returns>
public static IEnumerable<T> Yield<T>(this T item)
{
yield return item;
}
}
正如我刚刚发现的，也看到了用户LukeH的建议，一个很好的简单的方法如下:
public static void PerformAction(params YourType[] items)
{
// Forward call to IEnumerable overload
PerformAction(items.AsEnumerable());
}
public static void PerformAction(IEnumerable<YourType> items)
{
foreach (YourType item in items)
{
// Do stuff
}
}
此模式将允许您以多种方式调用相同的功能:单个项目;多个项目(逗号分隔);一个数组;一个列表;枚举等。
虽然我不能100%确定使用AsEnumerable方法的效率，但它确实有效。
更新:AsEnumerable函数看起来非常高效!(参考)
这比yield或Enumerable快30%。由于这种c#编译器优化，在foreach中重复使用，在其他情况下也具有相同的性能。
public struct SingleSequence<T> : IEnumerable<T> {
public struct SingleEnumerator : IEnumerator<T> {
private readonly SingleSequence<T> _parent;
private bool _couldMove;
public SingleEnumerator(ref SingleSequence<T> parent) {
_parent = parent;
_couldMove = true;
}
public T Current => _parent._value;
object IEnumerator.Current => Current;
public void Dispose() { }
public bool MoveNext() {
if (!_couldMove) return false;
_couldMove = false;
return true;
}
public void Reset() {
_couldMove = true;
}
}
private readonly T _value;
public SingleSequence(T value) {
_value = value;
}
public IEnumerator<T> GetEnumerator() {
return new SingleEnumerator(ref this);
}
IEnumerator IEnumerable.GetEnumerator() {
return new SingleEnumerator(ref this);
}
}
在这个测试中:
// Fastest among seqs, but still 30x times slower than direct sum
// 49 mops vs 37 mops for yield, or c.30% faster
[Test]
public void SingleSequenceStructForEach() {
var sw = new Stopwatch();
sw.Start();
long sum = 0;
for (var i = 0; i < 100000000; i++) {
foreach (var single in new SingleSequence<int>(i)) {
sum += single;
}
}
sw.Stop();
Console.WriteLine($"Elapsed {sw.ElapsedMilliseconds}");
Console.WriteLine($"Mops {100000.0 / sw.ElapsedMilliseconds * 1.0}");
}
I agree with @EarthEngine's comments to the original post, which is that 'AsSingleton' is a better name. See this wikipedia entry. Then it follows from the definition of singleton that if a null value is passed as an argument that 'AsSingleton' should return an IEnumerable with a single null value instead of an empty IEnumerable which would settle the if (item == null) yield break; debate. I think the best solution is to have two methods: 'AsSingleton' and 'AsSingletonOrEmpty'; where, in the event that a null is passed as an argument, 'AsSingleton' will return a single null value and 'AsSingletonOrEmpty' will return an empty IEnumerable. Like this:
public static IEnumerable<T> AsSingletonOrEmpty<T>(this T source)
{
if (source == null)
{
yield break;
}
else
{
yield return source;
}
}
public static IEnumerable<T> AsSingleton<T>(this T source)
{
yield return source;
}
然后，这些将或多或少类似于IEnumerable上的'First'和'FirstOrDefault'扩展方法，这感觉是对的。
