28

When programming it's almost instinctive deciding when to use a for loop, or foreach, but what is the determining factors or problem space for choosing to use Enumerable.Range?

A For Loop is chosen when we want to iterate a set number of times (over a simple data type) to calculate/do a repetitive task.

A For Each is similar, but chosen when we want to iterate over a list of complex objects to calculate/do a repetitive task.

Again, what's the determining factors for using an Enumerable.Range?

IEnumerable<int> squares = Enumerable.Range(4, 3).Select(x => x * x);
leppie
  • 115,091
  • 17
  • 196
  • 297
Dane Balia
  • 5,271
  • 5
  • 32
  • 57
  • For joining it with another sequence? – Ufuk Hacıoğulları Jun 20 '14 at 06:50
  • 2
    Generating data for a unit test? – Gusdor Jun 20 '14 at 06:50
  • 3
    Your squares example already displays it, you can't use a for loop in a linq expression (unless it's used to fill a collection first). So I'd say that's a definite case for using Enumerable.Range. – Me.Name Jun 20 '14 at 06:51
  • @Me.Name Thank you very much. But that is only one scenario, I could do the same code with a for loop building the result. I'm really just trying to come to clear statement as above (with For/Foreach), that tells me, now it's time to use Enumerable.Range. – Dane Balia Jun 20 '14 at 06:55
  • @DaneBalia: I think the clear statement is: **Use whatever makes your code easier to read.** Your squares example (almost) *literally* reads: I want x*x for the range 4-6... it won't get much better than that, so Enumerable.Range is the correct choice here. – Heinzi Jun 20 '14 at 07:02
  • 2
    @DaneBalia: well, everything you can do with LINQ you can do with a loop as well (and it's usually how LINQ methods are implemented under the hood). They're two different ways of doing the same things, one more "functional" (LINQ) and the other more "imperative", hence, `Enumerable.Range` is necessary to make the LINQ library complete (otherwise how would you implement a `for(int i ...)` loops ?) – digEmAll Jun 20 '14 at 07:03
  • @DaneBalia You're right that it can be done with a for/foreach, and as mentioned by others, practically all of linq could be done in other ways, and I don't think there's a golden rule when you *must* use it, but I've added an answer with some scenarios that hint towards that feeling of preferring Enumerable.Range. – Me.Name Jun 20 '14 at 07:54

6 Answers6

32

foreach is about iterating over an existing set/collection.

Enumerable.Range is for generating a set/collection. You wouldn't, generally, want to write a for loop just to generate a set if it can be generated by Enumerable.Range - you'd just be writing boilerplate code that's longer and requires you to allocate some kind of storage (e.g. a List<int>) to populate first.

Bakudan
  • 19,134
  • 9
  • 53
  • 73
Damien_The_Unbeliever
  • 234,701
  • 27
  • 340
  • 448
13

As mentioned, Enumerable.Range isn't directed at looping, but rather creating the range. This makes one liners in Linq possible without the need of creating subsets. One additional advantage of that power is, you could even generate a subrange within a sub statement, something that is not always possible with a for and lambda's, because yield is not possible inside lambdas.

For example, a SelectMany could also use an Enumerable.Range. Test collection:

class House
{
    public string Name { get; set; }
    public int Rooms;
}

    var houses = new List<House>
    {
        new House{Name = "Condo", Rooms = 3},
        new House{Name = "Villa", Rooms = 10}
    };

The example on itself doesn't hold much value of course, but for getting all the rooms, the implementation in Linq would be:

   var roomsLinq = houses.SelectMany(h => Enumerable.Range(1, h.Rooms).Select(i => h.Name + ", room " + i));

With iteration, it would require 2 iterations:

   var roomsIterate = new List<string>();
    foreach (var h in houses)
    {
        for (int i = 1; i < h.Rooms + 1; i++)
        {
            roomsIterate.Add(h.Name + ", room " + i);
        }
    }

You could still say, the 2nd code is more readable, but that boils down to using Linq or not in general.


So, one step further, we want a IEnumerable<IEnumerable<string>> of all the rooms (a string enumerable of rooms per house).

Linq:

listrooms = houses.Select(h => Enumerable.Range(1, h.Rooms).Select(i => h.Name + ", room " + i));

But now, we would need 2 collections when using iteration:

    var list = new List<IEnumerable<string>>();
    foreach (var h in houses)
    {
        var rooms = new List<string>();
        for (int i = 1; i < h.Rooms + 1; i++)
        {
            rooms.Add(h.Name + ", room " + i);
        }
        list.Add(rooms);
    }

Another scenario, imo one of the great things about Linqs and lambdas, is that you can use them as parameters (e.g. for injections purposes), which is made possible in an easier way with Enumerable.Range.

For example, you have a function, that takes a parameter roomgenerator

static IEnumerable<Furniture> CreateFurniture(Func<House,IEnumerable<string>> roomgenerator){
   //some house fetching code on which the roomgenerator is used, but only the first 4 rooms are used, so not the entire collection is used.
}

The rooms iteration above could be returned with Enumerable.Range, but with iteration either a sub collection for rooms must be created first, or a separate function that yields the results. The subcollection would have the great disadvantage that it is always populated completely, even if only one item is needed from the enumeration. The separate method is often overkill, since it is only needed for a single parameter use, hence Enumerable.Range can save the day.

Me.Name
  • 12,259
  • 3
  • 31
  • 48
6

Enumerable.Range() is a generator, i.e. it is a simple and powerfull way to generate n items of some sort.

Need a collection with random number of instances of some class? No problem:

Enumerable.Range(1,_random.Next())
    .Select(_ => new SomeClass
    {
        // Properties
    });
RePierre
  • 9,358
  • 2
  • 20
  • 37
3

Your example is already good enough.

I could do the same code with a for loop building the result

There are basically two ways of how you could build it using loops:

// building a collection for the numbers first
List<int> numbers = new List();
for (int i = 4; i < 7; i++)
    numbers.Add(i);

IEnumerable<int> squares = numbers.Select(x => x * x);

// or building the result directly
List<int> squares = new List();
for (int i = 4; i < 7; i++)
    numbers.Add(i * i);

The thing with both solutions is that you actually need to create a collection which you add to. So you have a collection of numbers somewhere.

But look at the Enumerable.Range solution: Enumerable.Range is a generator, it returns an IEnumerable just like all other Linq methods and only creates the things when they are iterated. So there never exists a collection with all the numbers.

poke
  • 369,085
  • 72
  • 557
  • 602
2

You can think about Enumerable.Range like a tool of retriveing subset of a collection.

If content of collection are value types, you create also a new instance of every of them.

Yes, you can do it with for loop, by setting correctly bounds of iteration, but thinking such way, almost all LINQ can be implemented in other ways (at the end it's just a library).

But it have short, concise and clear syntax, that's why it's used so widely.

Tigran
  • 61,654
  • 8
  • 86
  • 123
1

Answer

for is faster

Enumerable.Range is more readable / cleaner

If you are dealing with massive arrays, use a for loop. If you are dealing with smaller input, Enumerable.Range is preferred - pick your trade-off.

Performance Test

public static void Main(string[] args)
{
    var stopwatch = new Stopwatch();
    var size = 1000000;
    int[] arrRange;
    
    stopwatch.Start();
    arrRange = Enumerable.Range(0, size).ToArray();
    stopwatch.Stop();
    P(stopwatch, "Enumerable.Range");

    stopwatch.Reset();
    var arrFor = new int[size];
    stopwatch.Start();
    for (var i = 0; i < size; i++)
        arrFor[i] = i;
    stopwatch.Stop();
    P(stopwatch, "For");

    var arrWhile = new int[size];
    var iw = 0;
    stopwatch.Reset();
    stopwatch.Start();
    while (iw < size)
    {
        arrWhile[iw] = iw;
        iw++;
    }
    stopwatch.Stop();
    P(stopwatch, "while");

    stopwatch.Reset();
    stopwatch.Start();
    var arrRepeat = Enumerable.Repeat(1, size);
    stopwatch.Stop();
    P(stopwatch, "Enumerable.Repeat");
}

public static void P(Stopwatch s, string type)
{
    Console.WriteLine($"{type}: {s.Elapsed}");
}

And here's the output of this program (in .NET 6.0)

Enumerable.Range: 00:00:00.0070907
For: 00:00:00.0036731
while: 00:00:00.0036175
Enumerable.Repeat: 00:00:00.0003927
Kellen Stuart
  • 7,775
  • 7
  • 59
  • 82