There is the enumerable extension method
Take<TSource>(
IEnumerable<TSource> source,
int count
)
which takes the first count elements from the start.
Is there a way to take the elements from the end? or even better a way to take the elements from an offset to the end?
Thanks
finiteList.Reverse().Take(count).Reverse();
or
finiteList.Skip(finiteList.Count() - count)
There is some overhead in doing this so a custom method would be better.
Update: A custom method
public static class EnumerableExtensions
{
public static IEnumerable<T> TakeLast<T>(this IEnumerable<T> source, int count)
{
if (source == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("source");
if (count < 0) throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException("count");
if (count == 0) yield break;
var queue = new Queue<T>(count);
foreach (var t in source)
{
if (queue.Count == count) queue.Dequeue();
queue.Enqueue(t);
}
foreach (var t in queue)
yield return t;
}
}
Update: Changed the code a littlebit with ideas from dtb´s answer :-)
Comment to Bear: Look at this example:
var lastFive = Enumerable.Range(1, 10).TakeLast(5);
var lastFive2 = Enumerable.Range(1, 10).TakeLast2(5); //Bear´s way
Queue<int> q = (Queue<int>)lastFive2;
q.Dequeue();
//Is lastFive2 still last five? no...
You could potentially change the values of lastFive2 and therefore that approach can be unsafe or at least it´s not the functional way.
To Bear:
What I meant about safe is this:
var lastFive2 = Enumerable.Range(1, 10).TakeLast2(5); //Bear´s way
//some = Some method which you don't control - it could be from another assembly which represents a crazy plugin etc.
some(lastFive2);
//Now what?
In these cases you would have to make a copy to be sure. But in most cases your way would be fine - and a little bit more efficient than this so +1 :)
An idea is to use a queue which only have internal Enqueue etc.
MoreLINQ provides a TakeLast extension method:
var last10 = finiteList.TakeLast(10);
To take the elements from an offset to the end, Enumerable.Skip should do the trick:
var allFromOffsetToEnd = finiteList.Skip(offset);
@lasseespeholt:
public static class EnumerableExtensions
{
public static ReadOnlyEnumerable<T> AsReadOnly<T>(
this IEnumerable<T> source)
{
return new ReadOnlyEnumerable<T>(source);
}
}
public sealed class ReadOnlyEnumerable<T> : IEnumerable<T>
{
private readonly IEnumerable<T> _source;
public ReadOnlyEnumerable(IEnumerable<T> source)
{
if (_source == null)
{
throw new ArgumentNullException("source");
}
_source = source;
}
public IEnumerator<T> GetEnumerator()
{
return _source.GetEnumerator();
}
IEnumerator IEnumerable.GetEnumerator()
{
return _source.GetEnumerator();
}
}
public static IEnumerable<T> TakeLast<T>(this IEnumerable<T> source, int count)
{
if (source == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("source");
if (count < 0) throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException("count");
if (count == 0)
return Enumerable.Empty<T>();
var queue = new Queue<T>(count);
foreach (var t in source)
{
if (queue.Count == count) queue.Dequeue();
queue.Enqueue(t);
}
return queue.AsReadOnly();
}
A note on performance. Plenty of answers here operating on IEnumerable<> and that is probably what you need and should use.
But if the datasets are large and of type List<> or similar, you can prevent a lot of unnecessary iterating with something like:
// demo, no errorhandling
public static IEnumerable<T> TakeFrom<T>(this IList<T> list, int offset)
{
for (int i = offset; i < list.Count; i += 1)
{
yield return list[i];
}
}
