A short & sweet general word of caution on the pitfalls of .Count() to help the weary traveler that stumbles upon this post in the future!
Short story:
The following works -no doubt- but there might small performance penalty if the enumerables is not backed by an underlying array or list which has the 'count' in handy/precomputed:
public bool IsValid
{
get { return SomeMethodReturningEnumerable().Count() <= threshold; } <--- small performance issue here
}
public IEnumerable<SomeObject> SomeMethodReturningEnumerable(){
yield return foo;
yield return bar; etc
}
The call to the .Count() method will probably go through each and every item in the enumerable and then compare the overall count against threshold. We being smarter can do a bit better:
public bool IsValid
{
get { return !SomeMethodReturningEnumerable().HasMoreThan(threshold); } <--- neato!
}
public static bool HasLessThan<T>(this IEnumerable<T> sequence, int count) => !sequence.HasMoreThan(count - 1);
public static bool HasLessOrEqualTo<T>(this IEnumerable<T> sequence, int count) => !sequence.HasMoreThan(count);
public static bool HasMoreOrEqualTo<T>(this IEnumerable<T> sequence, int count) => sequence.HasMoreThan(count - 1);
public static bool HasMoreThan<T>(this IEnumerable<T> sequence, int count) => sequence.EnumerationCounterImpl(count, equals_vs_greaterThan: false);
public static bool HasExactly<T>(this IEnumerable<T> sequence, int count) => sequence.EnumerationCounterImpl(count, equals_vs_greaterThan: true);
public static bool EnumerationCounterImpl<T>(this IEnumerable<T> sequence, int count, bool equals_vs_greaterThan = true) //0
{
if (equals_vs_greaterThan && count < 0)
throw new ArgumentException($"{nameof(count)} is less than zero!");
if (!equals_vs_greaterThan && count < 0)
return true;
var staticCount = (sequence as ICollection)?.Count
?? (sequence as ICollection<T>)?.Count
?? (sequence as IReadOnlyCollection<T>)?.Count;
if (staticCount != null)
return staticCount > count;
using (var enumerator = sequence.GetEnumerator()) //1 optimization
{
for (int i = 0; i < count + 1; i++)
{
if (enumerator.MoveNext())
continue;
return false;
}
return !equals_vs_greaterThan // ==
|| enumerator.MoveNext(); // >
}
//0 https://blog.slaks.net/2015-01-12/linq-count-considered-occasionally-harmful/
//1 using the enumerator directly is slightly faster than using LINQ methods it avoids allocating an extra iterator
// state machine compared to using skip()
}
There! Problem solved again but this time around we are performance-conscious!