94

I am trying to do something like this:

image.Layers

which returns an IEnumerable<Layer> for all layers except the Parent layer, but in some cases, I just want to do:

image.Layers.With(image.ParentLayer);

because it's only used in a few places compared to the 100s of the usual usage which is satisfied by image.Layers. That's why I don't want to make another property that also returns the Parent layer.

Bob Kaufman
  • 12,864
  • 16
  • 78
  • 107
Joan Venge
  • 315,713
  • 212
  • 479
  • 689

11 Answers11

82

One way would be to create a singleton-sequence out of the item (such as an array), and then Concat it onto the original:

image.Layers.Concat(new[] { image.ParentLayer } )

If you're doing this really often, consider writing an Append (or similar) extension-method, such as the one listed here, which would let you do:

image.Layers.Append(image.ParentLayer)

.NET Core Update (per the "best" answer below):

Append and Prepend have now been added to the .NET Standard framework, so you no longer need to write your own. Simply do this:

image.Layers.Append(image.ParentLayer)
Community
  • 1
  • 1
Ani
  • 111,048
  • 26
  • 262
  • 307
48

Append and Prepend have now been added to the .NET Standard framework, so you no longer need to write your own. Simply do this:

image.Layers.Append(image.ParentLayer)

See What are the 43 APIs that are in .Net Standard 2.0 but not in .Net Framework 4.6.1? for a great list of new functionality.

cbp
  • 25,252
  • 29
  • 125
  • 205
  • 1
    There is one downside to this approach vs. using `.Concat(new[] { ... })`: If the item being added also implements `IEnumerable`, then the `Append` method will default to adding `IEnumerable` when you might have just intended to add `T`. – extremeandy Jun 27 '19 at 16:01
  • 1
    Recall, however, that it doesn't operate on the original. You need to `image.Layers = image.Layers.Append(image.ParentLayer)` (and possibly `image.Layers = image.Layers.Append(image.ParentLayer).ToArray()` or similar) to get the intended effect. – ruffin Dec 08 '20 at 21:09
27

EDIT

Like @cpb mentioned correctly: Append and Prepend comes out of the box now. (source) Microsoft also decided to implement both a way to add items at the start end on the end. They created a AppendPrepend1Iterator class, that has some optimizations (e.g. getting the count if the original underlying collection is an ICollection)

I'll leave my answer for historical reasons.


Many implementations have been given already. Mine looks a bit different (but performs just as well)

Also, I find it practicle to also have control over the ORDER. thus often, I also have a ConcatTo method, putting the new element op front.

public static class Utility
{
    /// <summary>
    /// Adds the specified element at the end of the IEnummerable.
    /// </summary>
    /// <typeparam name="T">The type of elements the IEnumerable contans.</typeparam>
    /// <param name="target">The target.</param>
    /// <param name="item">The item to be concatenated.</param>
    /// <returns>An IEnumerable, enumerating first the items in the existing enumerable</returns>
    public static IEnumerable<T> ConcatItem<T>(this IEnumerable<T> target, T item)
    {
        if (null == target) throw new ArgumentException(nameof(target));
        foreach (T t in target) yield return t;
        yield return item;
    }

    /// <summary>
    /// Inserts the specified element at the start of the IEnumerable.
    /// </summary>
    /// <typeparam name="T">The type of elements the IEnumerable contans.</typeparam>
    /// <param name="target">The IEnummerable.</param>
    /// <param name="item">The item to be concatenated.</param>
    /// <returns>An IEnumerable, enumerating first the target elements, and then the new element.</returns>
    public static IEnumerable<T> ConcatTo<T>(this IEnumerable<T> target, T item)
    {
        if (null == target) throw new ArgumentException(nameof(target));
        yield return item;
        foreach (T t in target) yield return t;
    }
}

Or alternatively, use an implicitly created array. (using the params keyword) so you can call the method to add one or more items at a time:

public static class Utility
{
    /// <summary>
    /// Adds the specified element at the end of the IEnummerable.
    /// </summary>
    /// <typeparam name="T">The type of elements the IEnumerable contans.</typeparam>
    /// <param name="target">The target.</param>
    /// <param name="items">The items to be concatenated.</param>
    /// <returns>An IEnumerable, enumerating first the items in the existing enumerable</returns>
    public static IEnumerable<T> ConcatItems<T>(this IEnumerable<T> target, params T[] items) =>
        (target ?? throw new ArgumentException(nameof(target))).Concat(items);

    /// <summary>
    /// Inserts the specified element at the start of the IEnumerable.
    /// </summary>
    /// <typeparam name="T">The type of elements the IEnumerable contans.</typeparam>
    /// <param name="target">The IEnummerable.</param>
    /// <param name="items">The items to be concatenated.</param>
    /// <returns>An IEnumerable, enumerating first the target elements, and then the new elements.</returns>
    public static IEnumerable<T> ConcatTo<T>(this IEnumerable<T> target, params T[] items) =>
        items.Concat(target ?? throw new ArgumentException(nameof(target)));
realbart
  • 3,497
  • 1
  • 25
  • 37
  • 1
    .NET will probably compile the yield statement to an anonymous object, which is instantiated. – Jorrit Schippers Dec 12 '13 at 14:56
  • 1
    @Jorrit: Actually, the compiler creates an ("anonymous") iterator, which also has some overhead. So the compiled code is bigger, but at runtime the allocated memory is a few bytes instead of a complete duplicate of the list. – realbart Jan 08 '14 at 13:15
13

There is no single method which does this. The closest is the Enumerable.Concat method but that tries to combine an IEnumerable<T> with another IEnumerable<T>. You can use the following to make it work with a single element

image.Layers.Concat(new [] { image.ParentLayer });

Or just add a new extension method

public static IEnumerable<T> ConcatSingle<T>(this IEnumerable<T> enumerable, T value) {
  return enumerable.Concat(new [] { value });
}
JaredPar
  • 733,204
  • 149
  • 1,241
  • 1,454
8

You can use Enumerable.Concat:

var allLayers = image.Layers.Concat(new[] {image.ParentLayer});
Reed Copsey
  • 554,122
  • 78
  • 1,158
  • 1,373
6

You can do something like:

image.Layers.Concat(new[] { image.ParentLayer });

which concats the enum with a single-element array containing the thing you want to add

thecoop
  • 45,220
  • 19
  • 132
  • 189
6

I once made a nice little function for this:

public static class CoreUtil
{    
    public static IEnumerable<T> AsEnumerable<T>(params T[] items)
    {
        return items;
    }
}

Now this is possible:

image.Layers.Append(CoreUtil.AsEnumerable(image.ParentLayer, image.AnotherLayer))
Gert Arnold
  • 105,341
  • 31
  • 202
  • 291
  • 1
    `AsEnumerable` is now [a built-in extension method](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/vstudio/bb335435%28v=vs.100%29.aspx) as of .Net 3.5, so a different name might be in order. Additionally, `AsX` implies it's an extension method (aren't methods supposed to be a verb?), so I don't think it was a good name in the first place. I would suggest `Enumerate`. – ErikE Jan 12 '15 at 22:59
  • Ha! Long ago. Yes, I came to the same conclusion in the mean time. I still use the little thing, but now it's `ToEnumerable`. `Enumerate` isn't bad either. – Gert Arnold Jan 12 '15 at 23:05
  • I still see `ToEnumerable` as suggesting an extension method. How about `CreateEnumerable`? :) – ErikE Jan 12 '15 at 23:37
3

I use the following extension methods to avoid creating a useless Array:

public static IEnumerable<T> ConcatSingle<T>(this IEnumerable<T> enumerable, T value) {
   return enumerable.Concat(value.Yield());
}

public static IEnumerable<T> Yield<T>(this T item) {
    yield return item;
}
Erwin Mayer
  • 18,076
  • 9
  • 88
  • 126
  • +1 Nice implementation, but why avoid the array? I know it feels wrong to create the array, but is it really less efficient than all the hidden work C# does for these iterators? – dss539 Nov 25 '15 at 19:59
  • 1
    Yield will allocate and return an anonymous IEnumerable that holds a reference to your item, so this probably takes more memory and time than the single item array. – Jim Balter Mar 18 '17 at 06:57
3

If you like the syntax of .With, write it as an extension method. IEnumerable won't notice another one.

James Gaunt
  • 14,631
  • 2
  • 39
  • 57
1

There is the Concat method which joins two sequences.

Michael Stum
  • 177,530
  • 117
  • 400
  • 535
0
/// <summary>Concatenates elements to a sequence.</summary>
/// <typeparam name="T">The type of the elements of the input sequences.</typeparam>
/// <param name="target">The sequence to concatenate.</param>
/// <param name="items">The items to concatenate to the sequence.</param>
public static IEnumerable<T> ConcatItems<T>(this IEnumerable<T> target, params T[] items)
{
    if (items == null)
        items = new [] { default(T) };
    return target.Concat(items);
}

This solution is based on realbart's answer. I adjusted it to allow the use of a single null value as a parameter:

var newCollection = collection.ConcatItems(null)
Community
  • 1
  • 1
Tim Pohlmann
  • 4,140
  • 3
  • 32
  • 61