Welcome to the Lounge

irneb wrote:

your sample is quite litterally performing 3 loops where one for loop would have sufficed.

Sentenryu wrote:

you should really take a look on what the compiler does when it enconters the yield keyword

harold aptroot wrote:

Is this style cancer?

someStuff.Where(c => c != What).Select(d => d + The).Foreach(e => Hell(e));

List<SomeStuff> tmpStuffList = new List<SomeStuff>();
for (int i = 0; i < someStuff.Count - 1; i++)
{
  if (someStuff[i] != What)
  {
    tmpStuffList.Add(someStuff[i]);
  }
}

for (int n = 0; n < tmpStuffList.Count - 1; n++)
{
  Hell(tmpStuffList[n]);
}

foreach(var stuff in someStuff) {
  if(stuff == What) {
    Hell(stuff + The)
  }
  else if(stuff == Who) {
    Heaven(stuff)
  }
}

harold aptroot wrote:

Is this style cancer?

harold aptroot wrote:

Side question, why is this style popular?

1. It's inefficient
2. There's not enough good guidance on not doing dumb things (ToArray etc being case in point).

var chs = AllChBoxes.Where(box => box.IsCheched);// DONE!

var chs = new List<CheckBox>();// - note, you have to create materialized list, not just Enumerable!
foreach(var ch in AllChBoxes)
    if (ch.IsChecked) chs.Add(ch);

Thornik wrote:

You said "for vs LINQ",

Thornik wrote:

You don't understand word "materialized". If you use "for", you have to create physical list, where you keep your objects.

someStuff.Where(c => c != What) // comment why you do it
         .Select(d => d + The)  // comment why you do it
         .Foreach(e => Hell(e));// comment why you do it

Oh you mean the source, sure. foreach it is then, problem solved.

Thornik wrote:

because hell knows how it will be used later