我发现自己一遍又一遍地这样做……

public static bool EqualsIgnoreCase(this string a, string b)
{
    return string.Equals(a, b, StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase);
}

.．.然后是StartsWithIgnoreCase, EndsWithIgnoreCase和ContainsIgnoreCase。

我发现下面的扩展方法非常有用:

public static T GetService<T>(this IServiceProvider provider)
{
    return (T)provider.GetService(typeof(T));
}

它使使用IServiceProvider接口变得更加容易。比较:

IProvideValueTarget target = (IProvideValueTarget)serviceProvider(typeof(IProvideValueTarget));

and

var target = serviceProvider.GetService<IProvideValueTarget>();

我想我以前在什么地方见过这个，但在这里找不到。MS在dictionary接口上有一个TryGetValue函数，但是它返回一个bool值，并在一个out参数中给出值，所以这里有一个更简单，更清晰的实现:

public static TVal GetValueOrDefault<TKey, TVal>(this IDictionary<TKey, TVal> d, TKey key) {
  if (d.ContainsKey(key))
    return d[key];
  return default(TVal);
}

// This file contains extension methods for generic List<> class to operate on sorted lists.
// Duplicate values are OK.
// O(ln(n)) is still much faster then the O(n) of LINQ's searches/filters.
static partial class SortedList
{
    // Return the index of the first element with the key greater then provided.
    // If there's no such element within the provided range, it returns iAfterLast.
    public static int sortedFirstGreaterIndex<tElt, tKey>( this IList<tElt> list, Func<tElt, tKey, int> comparer, tKey key, int iFirst, int iAfterLast )
    {
        if( iFirst < 0 || iAfterLast < 0 || iFirst > list.Count || iAfterLast > list.Count )
            throw new IndexOutOfRangeException();
        if( iFirst > iAfterLast )
            throw new ArgumentException();
        if( iFirst == iAfterLast )
            return iAfterLast;

        int low = iFirst, high = iAfterLast;
        // The code below is inspired by the following article:
        // http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_search#Single_comparison_per_iteration
        while( low < high )
        {
            int mid = ( high + low ) / 2;
            // 'mid' might be 'iFirst' in case 'iFirst+1 == iAfterLast'.
            // 'mid' will never be 'iAfterLast'.
            if( comparer( list[ mid ], key ) <= 0 ) // "<=" since we gonna find the first "greater" element
                low = mid + 1;
            else
                high = mid;
        }
        return low;
    }

    // Return the index of the first element with the key greater then the provided key.
    // If there's no such element, returns list.Count.
    public static int sortedFirstGreaterIndex<tElt, tKey>( this IList<tElt> list, Func<tElt, tKey, int> comparer, tKey key )
    {
        return list.sortedFirstGreaterIndex( comparer, key, 0, list.Count );
    }

    // Add an element to the sorted array.
    // This could be an expensive operation if frequently adding elements that sort firstly.
    // This is cheap operation when adding elements that sort near the tail of the list.
    public static int sortedAdd<tElt>( this List<tElt> list, Func<tElt, tElt, int> comparer, tElt elt )
    {
        if( list.Count == 0 || comparer( list[ list.Count - 1 ], elt ) <= 0 )
        {
            // either the list is empty, or the item is greater then all elements already in the collection.
            list.Add( elt );
            return list.Count - 1;
        }
        int ind = list.sortedFirstGreaterIndex( comparer, elt );
        list.Insert( ind, elt );
        return ind;
    }

    // Find first exactly equal element, return -1 if not found.
    public static int sortedFindFirstIndex<tElt, tKey>( this List<tElt> list, Func<tElt, tKey, int> comparer, tKey elt )
    {
        int low = 0, high = list.Count - 1;

        while( low < high )
        {
            int mid = ( high + low ) / 2;
            if( comparer( list[ mid ], elt ) < 0 )
                low = mid + 1;
            else
                high = mid; // this includes the case when we've found an element exactly matching the key
        }
        if( high >= 0 && 0 == comparer( list[ high ], elt ) )
            return high;
        return -1;
    }

    // Return the IEnumerable that returns array elements in the reverse order.
    public static IEnumerable<tElt> sortedReverse<tElt>( this List<tElt> list )
    {
        for( int i=list.Count - 1; i >= 0; i-- )
            yield return list[ i ];
    }
}

IEnumerable < >洗牌

我用Fisher-Yates算法实现了一个shuffle函数。

通过使用yield return和将代码分解为两个函数，它实现了适当的参数验证和延迟执行。(谢谢丹，在我的第一个版本中指出了这个缺陷)

static public IEnumerable<T> Shuffle<T>(this IEnumerable<T> source)
{
    if (source == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("source");

    return ShuffleIterator(source);
}

static private IEnumerable<T> ShuffleIterator<T>(this IEnumerable<T> source)
{
    T[] array = source.ToArray();
    Random rnd = new Random();          
    for (int n = array.Length; n > 1;)
    {
        int k = rnd.Next(n--); // 0 <= k < n

        //Swap items
        if (n != k)
        {
            T tmp = array[k];
            array[k] = array[n];
            array[n] = tmp;
        }
    }

    foreach (var item in array) yield return item;
}

用于ienumables的ForEach

public static class FrameworkExtensions
{
    // a map function
    public static void ForEach<T>(this IEnumerable<T> @enum, Action<T> mapFunction)
    {
        foreach (var item in @enum) mapFunction(item);
    }
}

天真的例子:

var buttons = GetListOfButtons() as IEnumerable<Button>;

// click all buttons
buttons.ForEach(b => b.Click());

酷的例子:

// no need to type the same assignment 3 times, just
// new[] up an array and use foreach + lambda
// everything is properly inferred by csc :-)
new { itemA, itemB, itemC }
    .ForEach(item => {
        item.Number = 1;
        item.Str = "Hello World!";
    });

注意:

这与Select不同，因为Select期望函数返回转换为另一个列表的内容。

ForEach只是允许您为每个项执行一些东西，而不需要任何转换/数据操作。

我这样做，所以我可以在一个更函数式的风格编程，我很惊讶，列表有一个ForEach，而IEnumerable没有。

把这个放到codeplex项目中