Search Results

Search found 220 results on 9 pages for 'enumerable'.

Page 1/9 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9  | Next Page >

  • NotSupportedException on IQuery's Enumerable when using statelesssession

    - by user57555
    when trying to use the Enumerable method on a named query, with a Stateless session, as shown in the example at: http://www.nhforge.org/doc/nh/en/#batch-statelesssession i am seeing a NotSupportedException. the stack trace is as below: System.NotSupportedException: Specified method is not supported. at NHibernate.Impl.StatelessSessionImpl.Enumerable(String query, QueryParameters parameters) at NHibernate.Impl.QueryImpl.Enumerable() here is a snippet of my code: IStatelessSession statelessSession = sessionFactory.OpenStatelessSession(); var fileLines = statelessSession.GetNamedQuery("GetLinesByFileId") .SetInt32("FileIdInput", fileId).Enumerable<FileLineEntity>(); the named query, GetLinesByFileId is defined in the hbm as below: <query name="GetLinesByFileId" cacheable="false" read-only="true"> <![CDATA[ from FileLineEntity lineItem where lineItem.FileId=:FileIdInput ]]> </query> any suggestions on what i maybe missing here?

    Read the article

  • Problem in populating a dictionary using Enumerable.Range()

    - by Newbie
    If I do for (int i = 0; i < appSettings.Count; i++) { string key = appSettings.Keys[i]; euFileDictionary.Add(key, appSettings[i]); } It is working fine. When I am trying the same thing using Enumerable.Range(0, appSettings.Count).Select(i => { string Key = appSettings.Keys[i]; string Value = appSettings[i]; euFileDictionary.Add(Key, Value); }).ToDictionary<string,string>(); I am getting a compile time error The type arguments for method 'System.Linq.Enumerable.Select(System.Collections.Generic.IEnumerable, System.Func)' cannot be inferred from the usage. Try specifying the type arguments explicitly. Any idea? Using C#3.0 Thanks

    Read the article

  • Enumerable Contains Enumerable

    - by Tim
    For a method I have the following parameter IEnumerable<string> tags and with to query a list of objects, let's call them Post, that contains a property IEnumerable<string> Tags { get; set; }. My question is: How do I use linq to query for objects that contains all the tags from the tags parameter? private List<Post> posts = new List<Post>(); public IEnumerable<Post> GetPostsWithTags(IEnumerable<string> tags) { return ???; }

    Read the article

  • Understanding Ruby Enumerable#map (with more complex blocks)

    - by mstksg
    Let's say I have a function def odd_or_even n if n%2 == 0 return :even else return :odd end end And I had a simple enumerable array simple = [1,2,3,4,5] And I ran it through map, with my function, using a do-end block: simple.map do |n| odd_or_even(n) end # => [:odd,:even,:odd,:even,:odd] How could I do this without, say, defining the function in the first place? For example, # does not work simple.map do |n| if n%2 == 0 return :even else return :odd end end # Desired result: # => [:odd,:even,:odd,:even,:odd] is not valid ruby, and the compiler gets mad at me for even thinking about it. But how would I implement an equivalent sort of thing, that works?

    Read the article

  • how does Enumerable#cycle work? (ruby)

    - by Radek
    looper = (0..3).cycle 20.times { puts looper.next } can I somehow find the next of 3? I mean if I can get .next of any particular element at any given time. Not just display loop that starts with the first element. UPDATE Of course I went though ruby doc before posting my question. But I did not find answer there ...

    Read the article

  • Why Enumerable.Range is faster than a direct yield loop?

    - by Morgan Cheng
    Below code is checking performance of three different ways to do same solution. public static void Main(string[] args) { // for loop { Stopwatch sw = Stopwatch.StartNew(); int accumulator = 0; for (int i = 1; i <= 100000000; ++i) { accumulator += i; } sw.Stop(); Console.WriteLine("time = {0}; result = {1}", sw.ElapsedMilliseconds, accumulator); } //Enumerable.Range { Stopwatch sw = Stopwatch.StartNew(); var ret = Enumerable.Range(1, 100000000).Aggregate(0, (accumulator, n) => accumulator + n); sw.Stop(); Console.WriteLine("time = {0}; result = {1}", sw.ElapsedMilliseconds, ret); } //self-made IEnumerable<int> { Stopwatch sw = Stopwatch.StartNew(); var ret = GetIntRange(1, 100000000).Aggregate(0, (accumulator, n) => accumulator + n); sw.Stop(); Console.WriteLine("time = {0}; result = {1}", sw.ElapsedMilliseconds, ret); } } private static IEnumerable<int> GetIntRange(int start, int count) { int end = start + count; for (int i = start; i < end; ++i) { yield return i; } } } The result is like this: time = 306; result = 987459712 time = 1301; result = 987459712 time = 2860; result = 987459712 It is not surprising that "for loop" is faster than the other two solutions, because Enumerable.Aggregate takes more method invocations. However, it really surprises that "Enumerable.Range" is faster than the "self-made IEnumerable". I thought that Enumerable.Range will take more overhead than the simple GetIntRange method. What is the possible reason for this?

    Read the article

  • Strings in .NET are Enumerable

    - by Scott Dorman
    It seems like there is always some confusion concerning strings in .NET. This is both from developers who are new to the Framework and those that have been working with it for quite some time. Strings in the .NET Framework are represented by the System.String class, which encapsulates the data manipulation, sorting, and searching methods you most commonly perform on string data. In the .NET Framework, you can use System.String (which is the actual type name or the language alias (for C#, string). They are equivalent so use whichever naming convention you prefer but be consistent. Common usage (and my preference) is to use the language alias (string) when referring to the data type and String (the actual type name) when accessing the static members of the class. Many mainstream programming languages (like C and C++) treat strings as a null terminated array of characters. The .NET Framework, however, treats strings as an immutable sequence of Unicode characters which cannot be modified after it has been created. Because strings are immutable, all operations which modify the string contents are actually creating new string instances and returning those. They never modify the original string data. There is one important word in the preceding paragraph which many people tend to miss: sequence. In .NET, strings are treated as a sequence…in fact, they are treated as an enumerable sequence. This can be verified if you look at the class declaration for System.String, as seen below: // Summary:// Represents text as a series of Unicode characters.public sealed class String : IEnumerable, IComparable, IComparable<string>, IEquatable<string> The first interface that String implements is IEnumerable, which has the following definition: // Summary:// Exposes the enumerator, which supports a simple iteration over a non-generic// collection.public interface IEnumerable{ // Summary: // Returns an enumerator that iterates through a collection. // // Returns: // An System.Collections.IEnumerator object that can be used to iterate through // the collection. IEnumerator GetEnumerator();} As a side note, System.Array also implements IEnumerable. Why is that important to know? Simply put, it means that any operation you can perform on an array can also be performed on a string. This allows you to write code such as the following: string s = "The quick brown fox";foreach (var c in s){ System.Diagnostics.Debug.WriteLine(c);}for (int i = 0; i < s.Length; i++){ System.Diagnostics.Debug.WriteLine(s[i]);} If you executed those lines of code in a running application, you would see the following output in the Visual Studio Output window: In the case of a string, these enumerable or array operations return a char (System.Char) rather than a string. That might lead you to believe that you can get around the string immutability restriction by simply treating strings as an array and assigning a new character to a specific index location inside the string, like this: string s = "The quick brown fox";s[2] = 'a';   However, if you were to write such code, the compiler will promptly tell you that you can’t do it: This preserves the notion that strings are immutable and cannot be changed once they are created. (Incidentally, there is no built in way to replace a single character like this. It can be done but it would require converting the string to a character array, changing the appropriate indexed location, and then creating a new string.)

    Read the article

  • Enumerable Interleave Extension Method

    - by João Angelo
    A recent stackoverflow question, which I didn’t bookmark and now I’m unable to find, inspired me to implement an extension method for Enumerable that allows to insert a constant element between each pair of elements in a sequence. Kind of what String.Join does for strings, but maintaining an enumerable as the return value. Having done the single element part I got a bit carried away and ended up expanding it adding overloads to support interleaving elements of another sequence and support for a predicate to control when interleaving takes place. I have to confess that I did this for fun and now I can’t think of any real usage scenario, nonetheless, it may prove useful for someone. First a simple example: var target = new string[] { "(", ")", "(", ")" }; var result = target.Interleave(".", (f, s) => f == "("); // Prints: (.)(.) Console.WriteLine(String.Join(string.Empty, result)); And now the untested but documented implementation: using System; using System.Collections; using System.Collections.Generic; using System.Linq; public static class EnumerableExtensions { /// <summary> /// Iterates infinitely over a constant element. /// </summary> /// <typeparam name="T"> /// The type of element in the sequence. /// </typeparam> private class InfiniteSequence<T> : IEnumerable<T>, IEnumerator<T> { public InfiniteSequence(T element) { this.Element = element; } public T Element { get; private set; } public IEnumerator<T> GetEnumerator() { return this; } IEnumerator IEnumerable.GetEnumerator() { return this; } T IEnumerator<T>.Current { get { return this.Element; } } void IDisposable.Dispose() { } object IEnumerator.Current { get { return this.Element; } } bool IEnumerator.MoveNext() { return true; } void IEnumerator.Reset() { } } /// <summary> /// Interleaves the specified <paramref name="element"/> between each pair of elements in the <paramref name="target"/> sequence. /// </summary> /// <typeparam name="T"> /// The type of elements in the sequence. /// </typeparam> /// <param name="target"> /// The target sequence to be interleaved. /// </param> /// <param name="element"> /// The element used to perform the interleave operation. /// </param> /// <exception cref="ArgumentNullException"> /// <paramref name="target"/> or <paramref name="element"/> is a null reference. /// </exception> /// <returns> /// The <paramref name="target"/> sequence interleaved with the specified <paramref name="element"/>. /// </returns> public static IEnumerable<T> Interleave<T>( this IEnumerable<T> target, T element) { if (target == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("target"); if (element == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("element"); return InterleaveInternal(target, new InfiniteSequence<T>(element), (f, s) => true); } /// <summary> /// Interleaves the specified <paramref name="element"/> between each pair of elements in the <paramref name="target"/> sequence. /// </summary> /// <remarks> /// The interleave operation is interrupted as soon as the <paramref name="target"/> sequence is exhausted; If the number of <paramref name="elements"/> to be interleaved are not enough to completely interleave the <paramref name="target"/> sequence then the remainder of the sequence is returned without being interleaved. /// </remarks> /// <typeparam name="T"> /// The type of elements in the sequence. /// </typeparam> /// <param name="target"> /// The target sequence to be interleaved. /// </param> /// <param name="elements"> /// The elements used to perform the interleave operation. /// </param> /// <exception cref="ArgumentNullException"> /// <paramref name="target"/> or <paramref name="element"/> is a null reference. /// </exception> /// <returns> /// The <paramref name="target"/> sequence interleaved with the specified <paramref name="elements"/>. /// </returns> public static IEnumerable<T> Interleave<T>( this IEnumerable<T> target, IEnumerable<T> elements) { if (target == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("target"); if (elements == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("elements"); return InterleaveInternal(target, elements, (f, s) => true); } /// <summary> /// Interleaves the specified <paramref name="element"/> between each pair of elements in the <paramref name="target"/> sequence that satisfy <paramref name="predicate"/>. /// </summary> /// <typeparam name="T"> /// The type of elements in the sequence. /// </typeparam> /// <param name="target"> /// The target sequence to be interleaved. /// </param> /// <param name="element"> /// The element used to perform the interleave operation. /// </param> /// <param name="predicate"> /// A predicate used to assert if interleaving should occur between two target elements. /// </param> /// <exception cref="ArgumentNullException"> /// <paramref name="target"/> or <paramref name="element"/> or <paramref name="predicate"/> is a null reference. /// </exception> /// <returns> /// The <paramref name="target"/> sequence interleaved with the specified <paramref name="element"/>. /// </returns> public static IEnumerable<T> Interleave<T>( this IEnumerable<T> target, T element, Func<T, T, bool> predicate) { if (target == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("target"); if (element == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("element"); if (predicate == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("predicate"); return InterleaveInternal(target, new InfiniteSequence<T>(element), predicate); } /// <summary> /// Interleaves the specified <paramref name="element"/> between each pair of elements in the <paramref name="target"/> sequence that satisfy <paramref name="predicate"/>. /// </summary> /// <remarks> /// The interleave operation is interrupted as soon as the <paramref name="target"/> sequence is exhausted; If the number of <paramref name="elements"/> to be interleaved are not enough to completely interleave the <paramref name="target"/> sequence then the remainder of the sequence is returned without being interleaved. /// </remarks> /// <typeparam name="T"> /// The type of elements in the sequence. /// </typeparam> /// <param name="target"> /// The target sequence to be interleaved. /// </param> /// <param name="elements"> /// The elements used to perform the interleave operation. /// </param> /// <param name="predicate"> /// A predicate used to assert if interleaving should occur between two target elements. /// </param> /// <exception cref="ArgumentNullException"> /// <paramref name="target"/> or <paramref name="element"/> or <paramref name="predicate"/> is a null reference. /// </exception> /// <returns> /// The <paramref name="target"/> sequence interleaved with the specified <paramref name="elements"/>. /// </returns> public static IEnumerable<T> Interleave<T>( this IEnumerable<T> target, IEnumerable<T> elements, Func<T, T, bool> predicate) { if (target == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("target"); if (elements == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("elements"); if (predicate == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("predicate"); return InterleaveInternal(target, elements, predicate); } private static IEnumerable<T> InterleaveInternal<T>( this IEnumerable<T> target, IEnumerable<T> elements, Func<T, T, bool> predicate) { var targetEnumerator = target.GetEnumerator(); if (targetEnumerator.MoveNext()) { var elementsEnumerator = elements.GetEnumerator(); while (true) { T first = targetEnumerator.Current; yield return first; if (!targetEnumerator.MoveNext()) yield break; T second = targetEnumerator.Current; bool interleave = true && predicate(first, second) && elementsEnumerator.MoveNext(); if (interleave) yield return elementsEnumerator.Current; } } } }

    Read the article

  • Enumerable.Range in and Expression and Entity Framework

    - by eka808
    I'm currently developping an expression method (used in linq to entity queries) who has to give me a daycount for a given period (start date and end date) decrementing this daycount if specials days are in the period. My idea was the following : Generate an enumerable with all the dates (and with Enumerable.Range) Make a .Where on this enumerable to remove the specials dates Like a MyEnumerable.Where(a = a != "20120101") After that, return a MyEnumerable.Count() I come with this code : return (p) => Enumerable .Range(1, 4) .Where(a => a != 20120101) .AsQueryable() .Count() I tried to cast as a list, as a queryable, both (like the example) and no way ! it doesn't work ! I always get this error : LINQ to Entities does not recognize the method 'System.Collections.Generic.IEnumerable`1[System.Int32] Range(Int32, Int32)' method, and this method cannot be translated into a store expression. Have you got an idea about that ? Using an enumerable is of course not mandatory, any working solutions is good ^^ Thank's by advance !

    Read the article

  • Taking out a subpart from Enumerable

    - by sawa
    I often want to take out a subpart from an Enumerable. The subpart is sometimes at the beginning and sometimes the end of the original Enumerable instance, and the length used to specify the subpart is sometimes that of the subpart and sometimes its complement. That gives four possibilities, but I only know how to do three of them. Is there a way to do the fourth one? Getting the first n elements: [1, 2, 3, 4, 5].first(3) #= [1, 2, 3] or [1, 2, 3, 4, 5].take(3) #= [1, 2, 3] Dropping the first n elements: [1, 2, 3, 4, 5].drop(3) #= [4, 5] Getting the last n elements: [1, 2, 3, 4, 5].last(3) #= [3, 4, 5] Dropping the last n elements: [1, 2, 3, 4, 5].some_method(3) #= [1, 2]

    Read the article

  • Why Enumerable doesn't inherits from IEnumerable<T>

    - by sajjadlove
    Hi All I'm very confused about this issue and can't to underestand it.In the Enumerable Documentation, I readed this: that implement System.Collections.Generic.IEnumerable and some methods like Select() return IEnumerable that we can use from other methods like Where() after using that.for example: names.Select(name => name).Where(name => name.Length > 3 ); but Enumerable doesn't inherits from IEnumerable and IEnumerable doesn't contain Select(),Where() and etc too... have i wrong ? or exists any reason for this?

    Read the article

  • Problem in populating a dictionary object using Enumerable.Range() (C#3.0)

    - by Newbie
    If I do for (int i = 0; i < appSettings.Count; i++) { string key = appSettings.Keys[i]; euFileDictionary.Add(key, appSettings[i]); } It is working fine. When I am trying the same thing using Enumerable.Range(0, appSettings.Count).Select(i => { string Key = appSettings.Keys[i]; string Value = appSettings[i]; euFileDictionary.Add(Key, Value); }).ToDictionary<string,string>(); I am getting a compile time error The type arguments for method 'System.Linq.Enumerable.Select(System.Collections.Generic.IEnumerable, System.Func)' cannot be inferred from the usage. Try specifying the type arguments explicitly. Any idea? Using C#3.0 Thanks

    Read the article

  • Help Understanding Enumerable.Join Method

    - by lush
    Yesterday I posted this question regarding using lambdas inside of a Join() method to check if 2 conditions exist across 2 entities. I received an answer on the question, which worked perfectly. I thought after reading the MSDN article on the Enumerable.Join() method, I'd understand exactly what was happening, but I don't. Could someone help me understand what's going on in the below code (the Join() method specifically)? Thanks in advance. if (db.TableA.Where( a => a.UserID == currentUser ) .Join( db.TableB.Where( b => b.MyField == someValue ), o => o.someFieldID, i => i.someFieldID, (o,i) => o ) .Any()) { //... }

    Read the article

  • How to remove objects from an Enumerable collection in a loop

    - by johnc
    Duplicate Modifying A Collection While Iterating Through It Has anyone a nice pattern to allow me to get around the inability to remove objects while I loop through an enumerable collection (eg, an IList or KeyValuePairs in a dictionary) For example, the following fails, as it modifies the List being enumerated over during the foreach foreach (MyObject myObject in MyListOfMyObjects) { if (condition) MyListOfMyObjects.Remove(myObject); } In the past I have used two methods. I have replaced the foreach with a reversed for loop (so as not to change the any indexes I am looping over if I remove an object). I have also tried storing a new collection of objects to remove within to loop, then looping through that collection and removed the objects from the original collection. These work fine, but neither feels nice, and I was wondering if anyone has come up with a more elegant solution to the issue

    Read the article

  • Is yield break equivalent to returning Enumerable<T>.Empty from a method returning IEnumerable<T>

    - by Mike Two
    These two methods appear to behave the same to me public IEnumerable<string> GetNothing() { return Enumerable.Empty<string>(); } public IEnumerable<string> GetLessThanNothing() { yield break; } I've profiled each in test scenarios and I don't see a meaningful difference in speed, but the yield break version is slightly faster. Are there any reasons to use one over the other? Is one easier to read than the other? Is there a behavior difference that would matter to a caller?

    Read the article

  • C# Using Enumerable Range and Except with custom class to determine missing sequence number

    - by Jon
    I have a List<MyClass> The class is like this: private class MyClass { public string Name{ get; set; } public int SequenceNumber { get; set; } } I want to work out what Sequence numbers might be missing. I can see how to do this here however because this is a class I am unsure what to do? I think I can handle the except method ok with my own IComparer but the Range method I can't figure out because it only excepts int so this doesn't compile: Enumerable.Range(0, 1000000).Except(chqList, MyEqualityComparer<MyClass>); Here is the IComparer: public class MyEqualityComparer<T> : IEqualityComparer<T> where T : MyClass { #region IEqualityComparer<T> Members public bool Equals(T x, T y) { return (x == null && y == null) || (x != null && y != null && x.SequenceNumber.Equals(y.SequenceNumber)); } /// </exception> public int GetHashCode(T obj) { if (obj == null) { throw new ArgumentNullException("obj"); } return obj.GetHashCode(); } #endregion }

    Read the article

  • F# Equivalent to Enumerable.OfType<'a>

    - by Joel Mueller
    ...or, how do I filter a sequence of classes by the interfaces they implement? Let's say I have a sequence of objects that inherit from Foo, a seq<#Foo>. In other words, my sequence will contain one or more of four different subclasses of Foo. Each subclass implements a different independent interface that shares nothing with the interfaces implemented by the other subclasses. Now I need to filter this sequence down to only the items that implement a particular interface. The C# version is simple: void MergeFoosIntoList<T>(IEnumerable<Foo> allFoos, IList<T> dest) where T : class { foreach (var foo in allFoos) { var castFoo = foo as T; if (castFoo != null) { dest.Add(castFoo); } } } I could use LINQ from F#: let mergeFoosIntoList (foos:seq<#Foo>) (dest:IList<'a>) = System.Linq.Enumerable.OfType<'a>(foos) |> Seq.iter dest.Add However, I feel like there should be a more idiomatic way to accomplish it. I thought this would work... let mergeFoosIntoList (foos:seq<#Foo>) (dest:IList<'a>) = foos |> Seq.choose (function | :? 'a as x -> Some(x) | _ -> None) |> Seq.iter dest.Add However, the complier complains about :? 'a - telling me: This runtime coercion or type test from type 'b to 'a involves an indeterminate type based on information prior to this program point. Runtime type tests are not allowed on some types. Further type annotations are needed. I can't figure out what further type annotations to add. There's no relationship between the interface 'a and #Foo except that one or more subclasses of Foo implement that interface. Also, there's no relationship between the different interfaces that can be passed in as 'a except that they are all implemented by subclasses of Foo. I eagerly anticipate smacking myself in the head as soon as one of you kind people points out the obvious thing I've been missing.

    Read the article

  • Model validation with enumerable properties in Asp.net MVC2 RTM

    - by Robert Koritnik
    I'm using DataAnnotations attributes to validate my model objects. My model class looks similar to this: public class MyModel { [Required] public string Title { get; set; } [Required] public List<User> Editors { get; set; } } public class User { public int Id { get; set; } [Required] public string FullName { get; set; } [Required] [DataType(DataType.Email)] public string Email { get; set; } } My controller action looks like: public ActionResult NewItem(MyModel data) { //... } User is presented with a view that has a form with: a text box with dummy name where users enter user's names. For each user they enter, there's a client script coupled with ajax that creates an <input type="hidden" name="data.Editors[0].Id" value="userId" /> for each user entered (enumeration index is therefore not always 0 as written here), so default model binder is able to consume and bind the form without any problems. a text box where users enter the title Since I'm using Asp.net MVC 2 RTM which does model validation instead of input validation I don't know how to avoid validation errors. The thing is I have to use BindAttribute on my controller action. I would have to either provide a white or a black list of properties. It's always a better practice to provide a white list. It's also more future proof. The problem My form works fine, but I get validation errors about user's FullName and Email properties since they are not provided. I also shouldn't feed them to the client (via ajax when user enters user data), because email is personal contact data and is not shared between users. If there was just a single user reference on MyModel I would write [Bind(Include = "Title, Editor.Id")] But I have an enumeration of them. How do I provide Bind white list to work with my model?

    Read the article

  • Returning Index in Enumerable Select

    - by Jon
    I have a List<MyClass> with 2 items which have a SequenceNumber property. If I use this code below the returned index is 0 not 1: var test = TrackingCollection .Where(x => x.SequenceNumber == 2) .Select((item, index) => new { index, item.SequenceNumber }); Is this because that refers to 0 as the index in my new anonymous type or is it some zero index based weirdness that I just need to increment. What I'm after is to return the index in TrackingCollection where the sequence number is 2 or 887 or any other correct index in the original collection...

    Read the article

  • An analog of String.Join(string, string[]) for List<T> or other generic enumerable

    - by abatishchev
    class String contains very useful method - String.Join(string, string[]). It creates a string from an array, separating each element of array with a symbol given. But general - it doesn't add a separator after the last element! I uses it for ASP.NET coding for separating with "<br />" or Environment.NewLine. So I want to add an empty row after each row in asp:Table. What method of IEnumerable<TableRow> can I use for the same functionality?

    Read the article

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9  | Next Page >