Hi,
I read somewhere that the new version (v1.1) has improved the
performance of 'foreach' over 'for'. Is that true? I did some
measurements and I still think for has an upperhand... ?
Phil
7  5536 
Michael Mayer wrote: I don't remember where I saw it, but I thought perhaps it was that
foreach was improved for arrays so it would act like a for loop. That
is, use simple indexing instead of MoveNext() and Current().
Even then I haven't been able to produce better results using foreach.
For out performs foreach in array accesses and array stores.
-Andre
I can't remember for the life of me where it was. Seems like it was one of
the microsoft blogs like blogs.gotdotnet.com, but google isn't showing
it. Too much work to search through my history list.
Wouldn't it be nice to have google search through all files in your
own history so you could re-find a page you saw a week ago? maybe
when I'm not so tired I'll think about this one some more...
mike
"Phil" <""nospam \"@ nospam> wrote in message
news:3f********@clarion.carno.net.au...
Hi,
I read somewhere that the new version (v1.1) has improved the
performance of 'foreach' over 'for'. Is that true? I did some
measurements and I still think for has an upperhand... ?
Phil
There are a number of faults in your test program.. in the for loop,
you're using a constant for the range.. you should use ints.Length
instead as the JIT compiler optimizes it further (and easily). Secondly,
use the profiling API instead for accurate results.
Try the following two tests:
using System;
class Class1
{
[System.Runtime.InteropServices.DllImport ("Kernel32.dll")]
static extern bool QueryPerformanceCounter(ref long count);
[System.Runtime.InteropServices.DllImport ("Kernel32.dll")]
static extern bool QueryPerformanceFrequency(ref long count);
[STAThread]
static void Main(string[] args)
{
long count = 0;
long count1 = 0;
long freq = 0;
double result = 0;
int tmp = 0;
int[] arr = new int[1000];
QueryPerformanceFrequency(ref freq);
QueryPerformanceCounter(ref count);
for (int i=0; i<20000; i++) {
for(int j=0; j<n; j++)
{
tmp+=arr[j];
}
}
QueryPerformanceCounter(ref count1);
count = count1-count;
result = (double)(count)/(double)freq;
Console.WriteLine("Done in time(sec): {0}", result);
Console.ReadLine();
}
}
And:
using System;
class Class1
{
[System.Runtime.InteropServices.DllImport ("Kernel32.dll")]
static extern bool QueryPerformanceCounter(ref long count);
[System.Runtime.InteropServices.DllImport ("Kernel32.dll")]
static extern bool QueryPerformanceFrequency(ref long count);
[STAThread]
static void Main(string[] args)
{
long count = 0;
long count1 = 0;
long freq = 0;
double result = 0;
int tmp = 0;
int[] arr = new int[1000];
QueryPerformanceFrequency(ref freq);
QueryPerformanceCounter(ref count);
for (int i=0; i<20000; i++) {
foreach(int u in arr)
{
tmp+=u;
}
}
QueryPerformanceCounter(ref count1);
count = count1-count;
result = (double)(count)/(double)freq;
Console.WriteLine("Done in time(sec): {0}", result);
Console.ReadLine();
}
}
Justify this.
-Andre
Austin Ehlers wrote: I think you are noticing not the looping but the actual math being
done. Here's my code:
const ulong iterations=100000000;
DateTime dt;
uint[] ints={1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10};
uint len=10;
uint x=0;
ulong count=0;
dt=DateTime.Now;
ulong total=0;
while (count<iterations)
{
for (x=0;x<len;x++)
total+=ints[x];
count++;
}
TimeSpan ts1=DateTime.Now-dt;
count=0;
total=0;
dt=DateTime.Now;
while (count<iterations)
{
foreach (uint i in ints)
total+=i;
count++;
}
TimeSpan ts2=DateTime.Now-dt;
Console.WriteLine("For statement: {0} {1}ForEach statement: {2}",
ts1.ToString(), Environment.NewLine, ts2.ToString());
Console.ReadLine();
Austin Ehlers
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 02:55:09 +1000, Andre <fo********@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Also, foreach incurs an array bounds check on every iteration.. I
suggest you change the count to 1000 and time again - you'll see a
noticeable difference. For me (i have a P4 2.4Ghz), a similar test
showed that For is atleast twice as fast as foreach.
-Andre
Austin Ehlers wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 16:56:25 +1000, Phil <""nospam \"@ nospam> wrote:
Hi,
I read somewhere that the new version (v1.1) has improved the
performance of 'foreach' over 'for'. Is that true? I did some
measurements and I still think for has an upperhand... ?
Phil
I did a simple test. I cycled through an array of integers
{1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10} and added them to a total counter.
I did this 100 million times. On an Athlon XP 2400+, here are the
times:
for statement: 00:00:08.1093750
foreach statement: 00:00:08.1406250
As you can see, 4 hundredths of a second for 100 million times in
neglible. So, I'd say that in all but the most performance intensive
apps, foreach is equal to for in speed. (Don't forget, foreach is
readonly)
Austin Ehlers
There is another problem.. don't test the two loops in the same program.
I think the JIT optimizes it further by realizing that the same array is
being accessed, and so it probably utilizes hardware registers
(enresigeration or whatever the word is) or it rearranges code in a way
that the second access would be faster (by making sure data is already
available in cache).. so the second time you access the loop using
foreach, you get better results. If you switch the two loops, I think it
will show the same for the 'For' loop (not sure though - haven't
tested)... but if you try it out separately, you see a noticeable
difference.
-Andre
Andre wrote: There are a number of faults in your test program.. in the for loop,
you're using a constant for the range.. you should use ints.Length
instead as the JIT compiler optimizes it further (and easily). Secondly,
use the profiling API instead for accurate results.
Try the following two tests:
using System;
class Class1
{
[System.Runtime.InteropServices.DllImport ("Kernel32.dll")]
static extern bool QueryPerformanceCounter(ref long count);
[System.Runtime.InteropServices.DllImport ("Kernel32.dll")]
static extern bool QueryPerformanceFrequency(ref long count);
[STAThread]
static void Main(string[] args)
{
long count = 0;
long count1 = 0;
long freq = 0;
double result = 0;
int tmp = 0;
int[] arr = new int[1000];
QueryPerformanceFrequency(ref freq);
QueryPerformanceCounter(ref count);
for (int i=0; i<20000; i++) {
for(int j=0; j<n; j++)
{
tmp+=arr[j];
}
}
QueryPerformanceCounter(ref count1);
count = count1-count;
result = (double)(count)/(double)freq;
Console.WriteLine("Done in time(sec): {0}", result);
Console.ReadLine();
}
}
And:
using System;
class Class1
{
[System.Runtime.InteropServices.DllImport ("Kernel32.dll")]
static extern bool QueryPerformanceCounter(ref long count);
[System.Runtime.InteropServices.DllImport ("Kernel32.dll")]
static extern bool QueryPerformanceFrequency(ref long count);
[STAThread]
static void Main(string[] args)
{
long count = 0;
long count1 = 0;
long freq = 0;
double result = 0;
int tmp = 0;
int[] arr = new int[1000];
QueryPerformanceFrequency(ref freq);
QueryPerformanceCounter(ref count);
for (int i=0; i<20000; i++) {
foreach(int u in arr)
{
tmp+=u;
}
}
QueryPerformanceCounter(ref count1);
count = count1-count;
result = (double)(count)/(double)freq;
Console.WriteLine("Done in time(sec): {0}", result);
Console.ReadLine();
}
}
Justify this.
-Andre
Austin Ehlers wrote:
I think you are noticing not the looping but the actual math being
done. Here's my code:
const ulong iterations=100000000;
DateTime dt;
uint[] ints={1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10};
uint len=10;
uint x=0;
ulong count=0;
dt=DateTime.Now;
ulong total=0;
while (count<iterations)
{
for (x=0;x<len;x++)
total+=ints[x];
count++;
}
TimeSpan ts1=DateTime.Now-dt;
count=0;
total=0;
dt=DateTime.Now;
while (count<iterations)
{
foreach (uint i in ints)
total+=i;
count++;
}
TimeSpan ts2=DateTime.Now-dt;
Console.WriteLine("For statement: {0} {1}ForEach statement: {2}",
ts1.ToString(), Environment.NewLine, ts2.ToString());
Console.ReadLine();
Austin Ehlers
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 02:55:09 +1000, Andre <fo********@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Also, foreach incurs an array bounds check on every iteration.. I
suggest you change the count to 1000 and time again - you'll see a
noticeable difference. For me (i have a P4 2.4Ghz), a similar test
showed that For is atleast twice as fast as foreach.
-Andre
Austin Ehlers wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 16:56:25 +1000, Phil <""nospam \"@ nospam> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I read somewhere that the new version (v1.1) has improved the
> performance of 'foreach' over 'for'. Is that true? I did some
> measurements and I still think for has an upperhand... ?
>
> Phil
I did a simple test. I cycled through an array of integers
{1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10} and added them to a total counter.
I did this 100 million times. On an Athlon XP 2400+, here are the
times:
for statement: 00:00:08.1093750
foreach statement: 00:00:08.1406250
As you can see, 4 hundredths of a second for 100 million times in
neglible. So, I'd say that in all but the most performance intensive
apps, foreach is equal to for in speed. (Don't forget, foreach is
readonly)
Austin Ehlers
Using your code, compiled with as "csc for.cs" and "csc foreach.cs",
I get:
C:\>for.exe
Done in time(sec): 0.0318314199151009
C:\>foreach
Done in time(sec): 0.0212663900020813
I changed the j<n to j<arr.Length
Austin Ehlers
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 13:15:06 +1000, Andre <fo********@hotmail.com>
wrote: There are a number of faults in your test program.. in the for loop,
you're using a constant for the range.. you should use ints.Length
instead as the JIT compiler optimizes it further (and easily). Secondly,
use the profiling API instead for accurate results.
Try the following two tests:
using System;
class Class1
{
[System.Runtime.InteropServices.DllImport ("Kernel32.dll")]
static extern bool QueryPerformanceCounter(ref long count);
[System.Runtime.InteropServices.DllImport ("Kernel32.dll")]
static extern bool QueryPerformanceFrequency(ref long count);
[STAThread]
static void Main(string[] args)
{
long count = 0;
long count1 = 0;
long freq = 0;
double result = 0;
int tmp = 0;
int[] arr = new int[1000];
QueryPerformanceFrequency(ref freq);
QueryPerformanceCounter(ref count);
for (int i=0; i<20000; i++) {
for(int j=0; j<n; j++)
{
tmp+=arr[j];
}
}
QueryPerformanceCounter(ref count1);
count = count1-count;
result = (double)(count)/(double)freq;
Console.WriteLine("Done in time(sec): {0}", result);
Console.ReadLine();
}
}
And:
using System;
class Class1
{
[System.Runtime.InteropServices.DllImport ("Kernel32.dll")]
static extern bool QueryPerformanceCounter(ref long count);
[System.Runtime.InteropServices.DllImport ("Kernel32.dll")]
static extern bool QueryPerformanceFrequency(ref long count);
[STAThread]
static void Main(string[] args)
{
long count = 0;
long count1 = 0;
long freq = 0;
double result = 0;
int tmp = 0;
int[] arr = new int[1000];
QueryPerformanceFrequency(ref freq);
QueryPerformanceCounter(ref count);
for (int i=0; i<20000; i++) {
foreach(int u in arr)
{
tmp+=u;
}
}
QueryPerformanceCounter(ref count1);
count = count1-count;
result = (double)(count)/(double)freq;
Console.WriteLine("Done in time(sec): {0}", result);
Console.ReadLine();
}
}
Justify this.
-Andre
Austin Ehlers wrote: I think you are noticing not the looping but the actual math being
done. Here's my code:
const ulong iterations=100000000;
DateTime dt;
uint[] ints={1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10};
uint len=10;
uint x=0;
ulong count=0;
dt=DateTime.Now;
ulong total=0;
while (count<iterations)
{
for (x=0;x<len;x++)
total+=ints[x];
count++;
}
TimeSpan ts1=DateTime.Now-dt;
count=0;
total=0;
dt=DateTime.Now;
while (count<iterations)
{
foreach (uint i in ints)
total+=i;
count++;
}
TimeSpan ts2=DateTime.Now-dt;
Console.WriteLine("For statement: {0} {1}ForEach statement: {2}",
ts1.ToString(), Environment.NewLine, ts2.ToString());
Console.ReadLine();
Austin Ehlers
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 02:55:09 +1000, Andre <fo********@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Also, foreach incurs an array bounds check on every iteration.. I
suggest you change the count to 1000 and time again - you'll see a
noticeable difference. For me (i have a P4 2.4Ghz), a similar test
showed that For is atleast twice as fast as foreach.
-Andre
Austin Ehlers wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 16:56:25 +1000, Phil <""nospam \"@ nospam> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I read somewhere that the new version (v1.1) has improved the
>performance of 'foreach' over 'for'. Is that true? I did some
>measurements and I still think for has an upperhand... ?
>
>Phil
I did a simple test. I cycled through an array of integers
{1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10} and added them to a total counter.
I did this 100 million times. On an Athlon XP 2400+, here are the
times:
for statement: 00:00:08.1093750
foreach statement: 00:00:08.1406250
As you can see, 4 hundredths of a second for 100 million times in
neglible. So, I'd say that in all but the most performance intensive
apps, foreach is equal to for in speed. (Don't forget, foreach is
readonly)
Austin Ehlers
What machine do you have?
-Andre
Austin Ehlers wrote: Using your code, compiled with as "csc for.cs" and "csc foreach.cs",
I get:
C:\>for.exe
Done in time(sec): 0.0318314199151009
C:\>foreach
Done in time(sec): 0.0212663900020813
I changed the j<n to j<arr.Length
Austin Ehlers
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 13:15:06 +1000, Andre <fo********@hotmail.com>
wrote:
There are a number of faults in your test program.. in the for loop,
you're using a constant for the range.. you should use ints.Length
instead as the JIT compiler optimizes it further (and easily). Secondly,
use the profiling API instead for accurate results.
Try the following two tests:
using System;
class Class1
{
[System.Runtime.InteropServices.DllImport ("Kernel32.dll")]
static extern bool QueryPerformanceCounter(ref long count);
[System.Runtime.InteropServices.DllImport ("Kernel32.dll")]
static extern bool QueryPerformanceFrequency(ref long count);
[STAThread]
static void Main(string[] args)
{
long count = 0;
long count1 = 0;
long freq = 0;
double result = 0;
int tmp = 0;
int[] arr = new int[1000];
QueryPerformanceFrequency(ref freq);
QueryPerformanceCounter(ref count);
for (int i=0; i<20000; i++) {
for(int j=0; j<n; j++)
{
tmp+=arr[j];
}
}
QueryPerformanceCounter(ref count1);
count = count1-count;
result = (double)(count)/(double)freq;
Console.WriteLine("Done in time(sec): {0}", result);
Console.ReadLine();
}
}
And:
using System;
class Class1
{
[System.Runtime.InteropServices.DllImport ("Kernel32.dll")]
static extern bool QueryPerformanceCounter(ref long count);
[System.Runtime.InteropServices.DllImport ("Kernel32.dll")]
static extern bool QueryPerformanceFrequency(ref long count);
[STAThread]
static void Main(string[] args)
{
long count = 0;
long count1 = 0;
long freq = 0;
double result = 0;
int tmp = 0;
int[] arr = new int[1000];
QueryPerformanceFrequency(ref freq);
QueryPerformanceCounter(ref count);
for (int i=0; i<20000; i++) {
foreach(int u in arr)
{
tmp+=u;
}
}
QueryPerformanceCounter(ref count1);
count = count1-count;
result = (double)(count)/(double)freq;
Console.WriteLine("Done in time(sec): {0}", result);
Console.ReadLine();
}
}
Justify this.
-Andre
Austin Ehlers wrote:
I think you are noticing not the looping but the actual math being
done. Here's my code:
const ulong iterations=100000000;
DateTime dt;
uint[] ints={1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10};
uint len=10;
uint x=0;
ulong count=0;
dt=DateTime.Now;
ulong total=0;
while (count<iterations)
{
for (x=0;x<len;x++)
total+=ints[x];
count++;
}
TimeSpan ts1=DateTime.Now-dt;
count=0;
total=0;
dt=DateTime.Now;
while (count<iterations)
{
foreach (uint i in ints)
total+=i;
count++;
}
TimeSpan ts2=DateTime.Now-dt;
Console.WriteLine("For statement: {0} {1}ForEach statement: {2}",
ts1.ToString(), Environment.NewLine, ts2.ToString());
Console.ReadLine();
Austin Ehlers
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 02:55:09 +1000, Andre <fo********@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Also, foreach incurs an array bounds check on every iteration.. I
suggest you change the count to 1000 and time again - you'll see a
noticeable difference. For me (i have a P4 2.4Ghz), a similar test
showed that For is atleast twice as fast as foreach.
-Andre
Austin Ehlers wrote:
>On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 16:56:25 +1000, Phil <""nospam \"@ nospam> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>I read somewhere that the new version (v1.1) has improved the
>>performance of 'foreach' over 'for'. Is that true? I did some
>>measurements and I still think for has an upperhand... ?
>>
>>Phil
>
>I did a simple test. I cycled through an array of integers
>{1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10} and added them to a total counter.
>I did this 100 million times. On an Athlon XP 2400+, here are the
>times:
>
>for statement: 00:00:08.1093750
>foreach statement: 00:00:08.1406250
>
>As you can see, 4 hundredths of a second for 100 million times in
>neglible. So, I'd say that in all but the most performance intensive
>apps, foreach is equal to for in speed. (Don't forget, foreach is
>readonly)
>
>Austin Ehlers
I have a Pentium 4 2.4 Ghz, 256 MB RAM, .NET V1.1 here's what I get:
For loop:
Done in time(sec): 0.0169739450125644
Foreach loop:
Done in time(sec): 0.020767443906977
Can it be something to do with the hardware then?! I have no other
explanation.
-Andre
Austin Ehlers wrote: An Athlon XP 2100+ (1.733GHz) overclocked to 1.911GHz (~2350+) on an
Asus A7N8X Deluxe with 512MB PC3200.
What numbers are you getting?
Austin Ehlers
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 02:35:46 +1000, Andre <fo********@hotmail.com>
wrote:
What machine do you have?
-Andre
Austin Ehlers wrote:
Using your code, compiled with as "csc for.cs" and "csc foreach.cs",
I get:
C:\>for.exe
Done in time(sec): 0.0318314199151009
C:\>foreach
Done in time(sec): 0.0212663900020813
I changed the j<n to j<arr.Length
Austin Ehlers
<snip unneeded replies>
A couple of things. First, if you are sure of your array access code, you
can shut off bounds checking on each indexer access by marking the code as
unsafe. You can then obtain a pointer to the first element then move the
pointer since arrays are stored in contiguous memory space. This only works
for primitive types.
Also, as an FYI, you won't be able to change any values using the foreach
syntax since under the hood this loads up an enumerator with a copy of the
array.
"Andre" <fo********@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3F**************@hotmail.com... There are a number of faults in your test program.. in the for loop,
you're using a constant for the range.. you should use ints.Length
instead as the JIT compiler optimizes it further (and easily). Secondly,
use the profiling API instead for accurate results.
Try the following two tests:
using System;
class Class1
{
[System.Runtime.InteropServices.DllImport ("Kernel32.dll")]
static extern bool QueryPerformanceCounter(ref long count);
[System.Runtime.InteropServices.DllImport ("Kernel32.dll")]
static extern bool QueryPerformanceFrequency(ref long count);
[STAThread]
static void Main(string[] args)
{
long count = 0;
long count1 = 0;
long freq = 0;
double result = 0;
int tmp = 0;
int[] arr = new int[1000];
QueryPerformanceFrequency(ref freq);
QueryPerformanceCounter(ref count);
for (int i=0; i<20000; i++) {
for(int j=0; j<n; j++)
{
tmp+=arr[j];
}
}
QueryPerformanceCounter(ref count1);
count = count1-count;
result = (double)(count)/(double)freq;
Console.WriteLine("Done in time(sec): {0}", result);
Console.ReadLine();
}
}
And:
using System;
class Class1
{
[System.Runtime.InteropServices.DllImport ("Kernel32.dll")]
static extern bool QueryPerformanceCounter(ref long count);
[System.Runtime.InteropServices.DllImport ("Kernel32.dll")]
static extern bool QueryPerformanceFrequency(ref long count);
[STAThread]
static void Main(string[] args)
{
long count = 0;
long count1 = 0;
long freq = 0;
double result = 0;
int tmp = 0;
int[] arr = new int[1000];
QueryPerformanceFrequency(ref freq);
QueryPerformanceCounter(ref count);
for (int i=0; i<20000; i++) {
foreach(int u in arr)
{
tmp+=u;
}
}
QueryPerformanceCounter(ref count1);
count = count1-count;
result = (double)(count)/(double)freq;
Console.WriteLine("Done in time(sec): {0}", result);
Console.ReadLine();
}
}
Justify this.
-Andre
Austin Ehlers wrote: I think you are noticing not the looping but the actual math being
done. Here's my code:
const ulong iterations=100000000;
DateTime dt;
uint[] ints={1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10};
uint len=10;
uint x=0;
ulong count=0;
dt=DateTime.Now;
ulong total=0;
while (count<iterations)
{
for (x=0;x<len;x++)
total+=ints[x];
count++;
}
TimeSpan ts1=DateTime.Now-dt;
count=0;
total=0;
dt=DateTime.Now;
while (count<iterations)
{
foreach (uint i in ints)
total+=i;
count++;
}
TimeSpan ts2=DateTime.Now-dt;
Console.WriteLine("For statement: {0} {1}ForEach statement: {2}",
ts1.ToString(), Environment.NewLine, ts2.ToString());
Console.ReadLine();
Austin Ehlers
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 02:55:09 +1000, Andre <fo********@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Also, foreach incurs an array bounds check on every iteration.. I
suggest you change the count to 1000 and time again - you'll see a
noticeable difference. For me (i have a P4 2.4Ghz), a similar test
showed that For is atleast twice as fast as foreach.
-Andre
Austin Ehlers wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 16:56:25 +1000, Phil <""nospam \"@ nospam> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I read somewhere that the new version (v1.1) has improved the
>performance of 'foreach' over 'for'. Is that true? I did some
>measurements and I still think for has an upperhand... ?
>
>Phil
I did a simple test. I cycled through an array of integers
{1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10} and added them to a total counter.
I did this 100 million times. On an Athlon XP 2400+, here are the
times:
for statement: 00:00:08.1093750
foreach statement: 00:00:08.1406250
As you can see, 4 hundredths of a second for 100 million times in
neglible. So, I'd say that in all but the most performance intensive
apps, foreach is equal to for in speed. (Don't forget, foreach is
readonly)
Austin Ehlers This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. Similar topics
by: James Curran |
last post by:
I'd like to make the following proposal for a new feature for the C#
language. I have no connection with the C# team at Microsoft. I'm posting
it here to gather input to refine it, in an "open...
|
by: cody |
last post by:
currently, foreach takes a IEnumerable as parameter, so we can do:
foreach (int i in array){}
what about an additional form of foreach that takes an IEnumerator as
parameter, so we can do:
...
|
by: cody |
last post by:
What about an enhancement of foreach loops which allows a syntax like that:
foeach(int i in 1..10) { } // forward
foeach(int i in 99..2) { } // backwards
foeach(char c in 'a'..'z') { } // chars...
|
by: cody |
last post by:
why foreach does always have to declare a new variable?
I have to write
foreach (int n in array){}
but Iam not allowed to write:
int n=0;
foreach (n in array){}
|
by: TrintCSD |
last post by:
How can I reset the collections within a foreach to be read as a change from
within the foreach loop then restart the foreach after collections has been
changed?
foreach(string invoice in...
|
by: Tripper |
last post by:
Which is the better way to go and why?
//trivial example
List<string> strings = GetStrings();
foreach (string s in strings)
{
// some operation;
}
strings.ForEach(
|
by: Wiktor Zychla [C# MVP] |
last post by:
since generics allow us to implement several IEnumerable<T> interfaces on a
single class, I think that "foreach" should somehow reflect that.
suppose we have a enumerable class
class C :...
|
by: Osiris |
last post by:
Just something I would like to share:
I just learned the hard way (2 days detective work on a bug) that foreach
loops are not at all like for loops, not intuitive at all. BEWARE: arrays
and...
|
by: mattehz |
last post by:
Hey there,
I am trying to upload old source files and came across these errors:
Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/mattehz/public_html/acssr/trunk/inc_html.php on line 59...
|
by: BarryA |
last post by:
What are the essential steps and strategies outlined in the Data Structures and Algorithms (DSA) roadmap for aspiring data scientists? How can individuals effectively utilize this roadmap to progress...
|
by: marktang |
last post by:
ONU (Optical Network Unit) is one of the key components for providing high-speed Internet services. Its primary function is to act as an endpoint device located at the user's premises. However,...
|
by: Oralloy |
last post by:
Hello folks,
I am unable to find appropriate documentation on the type promotion of bit-fields when using the generalised comparison operator "<=>".
The problem is that using the GNU compilers,...
|
by: jinu1996 |
last post by:
In today's digital age, having a compelling online presence is paramount for businesses aiming to thrive in a competitive landscape. At the heart of this digital strategy lies an intricately woven...
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
Overview:
Windows 11 and 10 have less user interface control over operating system update behaviour than previous versions of Windows. In Windows 11 and 10, there is no way to turn off the Windows...
|
by: tracyyun |
last post by:
Dear forum friends,
With the development of smart home technology, a variety of wireless communication protocols have appeared on the market, such as Zigbee, Z-Wave, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, etc. Each...
|
by: agi2029 |
last post by:
Let's talk about the concept of autonomous AI software engineers and no-code agents. These AIs are designed to manage the entire lifecycle of a software development project—planning, coding, testing,...
|
by: isladogs |
last post by:
The next Access Europe User Group meeting will be on Wednesday 1 May 2024 starting at 18:00 UK time (6PM UTC+1) and finishing by 19:30 (7.30PM).
In this session, we are pleased to welcome a new...
|
by: conductexam |
last post by:
I have .net C# application in which I am extracting data from word file and save it in database particularly. To store word all data as it is I am converting the whole word file firstly in HTML and...
| |
