Func<User, String> userName = user => user.UserName;
    Func<User, Boolean> userIDOverTen = user => user.UserID < 10;
    Func<User, Boolean> userIDUnderTen = user => user.UserID > 10;

As you can see the first one replaces the lamdba expression to get the user name, the second replaces a lamdba expression used to check if the ID is lower than 10, and let’s face it, the third should be pretty easy to understand now.

NOTE: This is a silly example but it works.

    var userList =
      from user in userList
      where userIDOverTen(user)
      select userName;
Versus

    var otherList =
      userList
      .Where(IDIsBelowNumber)
      .Select(userName)

In this example, the second is a little less verbose since the extension method can make full use of the Func, but he Linq expression can’t since it is look just for a Boolean rather than a Func that returns boolean. However, this is where it might be better to use the expression language. Say you already had a method that takes in more than just a user:

    private Boolean IDIsBelowNumber(User user, Int32 someNumber, Boolean doSomething)
    {
      return user.UserID < someNumber;
    }

Note: doSomething is just there because of the where extension method being ok with a method that takes in a user and integer and returns boolean. Kind of annoying for this example.

Now if you look at the Linq query:

    var completeList =
      from user in userList
      where userIDOverTen(user, 10)
      select userName;

You’re good for it. Now the Extension Method:

    var otherList =
      userList
      .Where(IDIsBelowNumber????)
      .Select(userName)

Without a lambda expression, I really can’t call that method. So now what I have to do is create a method that creates a Func based off the original method call.

    private Func<User, Boolean> IDIsBelowNumberFunc(Int32 number)
    {
      return user => IDIsBelowNumber(user, number, true);
    }

And then plug it in:

    var otherList =
      userList
      .Where(IDIsBelowNumberFunc(10))
      .Select(userName)

What does this all mean? You just lost 5 minutes of your life. I hope it was worth it.

Say you want to order a list of objects by a number. Seems simple. Now if you have been paying attention you would know I like using Funcs.

  Func<SomeClass, Int32> orderByNumber =
    currentClass =>  currentClass.SomeNumber;

  anotherCollection = someCollection.OrderBy(orderByNumber);

Seems simple, but what if you wanted to use a method already defined in the class?

  private Int32 ReturnNumber(SomeClass currentClass)
  {
    return currentClass.SomeNumber;
  }

It seems like this could be the way to go, right?

  someCollection.OrderBy(ReturnNumber);

Compile and BOOOOOOM you get an error. It says it can’t infer the return type of the method. Wait what? It’s pretty obvious right, it’s an integer. It had no problem inferring from the Func and you have to figure that the method itself is “typed” also. Well here’s the problem (And you’re dumb for not knowing this, but I’m not because I’m immune to dumb), ReturnNumber isn’t a method, it’s part of a method group. You can have a million (well maybe not that many) methods named ReturnNumber, all with different parameters. Why is this a problem? Well let’s use lambda expressions:

  someCollection.OrderBy(currentClass =>  currentClass.SomeNumber);

At this point it knows two things: currentClass is a SomeClass and there is a Method that takes in a SomeClass and returns something. So with that in mind, it looks for such a method and finds the return type. This is no different with the Func since the Func is basically unique due to it being a named field. After all you can’t have two fields named orderByNumber, but you can have many methods named ReturnNumber. That is where the problem is. When you use the second example:

  someCollection.OrderBy(ReturnNumber);

It can infer the SomeClass from the list and it sees the method. For there it has to find the method’s return type. Wait, which method? If i Have 10 overloads, each with different return types, how does it know what type to use? Well the answers is, it doesn’t. So basically you’re screwed. Sucks, huh?

Side note: This works

  Func<SomeClass, Int32> orderByNumber = ReturnNumber;

  foreach(Item current in itemList)
  {
     itemNameList.Add(current.Name);
  }

Versus

 var itemNameList = from item in itemList
                    select item.Name;

Or

  Func<Item, String> itemName = current => current.Name;
  itemNameList.Select(itemName);

So at this point it’s really a matter of preference. Problem is, you have to look closer to why the third is so much more than syntax yummies.

Say you want a method that takes in a UserList and you want to select all the users that have a property (Could be name, address, whatever) that matches a string. Well you could do this:

 public IList<User> AllUsersThatMatch(IList<User> userList, NeededProperty property, String value)
 {
    IList<User> returnList;

    returnList = new List();

    foreach(UserItem currentUser in userList)
    {
        switch(property)
        {
            case(NeededProperty.Name):
                if(currentUser.Name == value)
                {
                    userList.Add(currentUser);
                }
                break;
            case(NeededProperty.Phone):
                if(currentUser.Phone == value)
                {
                    userList.Add(currentUser);
                }
                break;
        }
    }
 }

Or you could do this:

 public Func<User, Boolean> MatchesProperty(NeededProperty property, String value)
 {
    Func<User, Boolean> returnValue;

    switch(property)
    {
        case NeededProperty.Name:
            returnValue = currentItem => currentItem.Name == value;
            break;
        case NeededProperty.Phone:
            returnValue = currentItem => currentItem.Phone == value;
            break;
    }
    return returnValue;
  }

 public IList<User> AllUsersThatMatch(IList<User> userList, NeededProperty property, String value)
 {
    IList<User>  returnList;

    returnList = userList.Where(MatchesProperty(property, value));
    return returnList;
 }

Now which do you think is easier to upkeep? For those of you wondering what I did, I simply used a method that would return the Func I needed for the passed in Enum and called it in the Where clause. The amount of code is probably close to the same right now, but add in 5 more values for the NeededProperty enum and you’ll see the code amount differing more and more.

I realize this isn’t the best of example, and probably the first way could be refactored but the idea is still there. The Linq Method approach gives you a lot more flexibility in the long run with dynamic stuff like this.

var you = from factor in seansAwesomeness
          select new FactorLite
          {
             Amount = amount;
          };

or you could do:

Func<Person, FactorLite> selectFactorLite = currentFactor => new FactorLite { Amount = currentFactor.Amount };

seansAwesomeness.Select(selectFactorLite);

I guess it’s a matter of preference, but the first seems way too verbose for something too simple.

Expression:

var result = from knowledge in Sean
             select knowledge.Linq;

As opposed to:

var result = Sean.Select(knowledge => knowledge.Linq);

Personally I would replace the lambda expression with a Func, but I can live with it right now. Anywho, the argument is that the first looks better than the second. I really don’t see this as a looks problem, but a useage problem. Fact is, they both have their uses and you should know how to read both. Why is that? Well here’s an example CAUSE I KNOW YOU WANT ONE!

One of my earlier posts had to do with solving the FizzBuzz thing with Linq where I gave you this bad ass solution:

 var result =
      listToConvert
      .Where(WhereBothDivisible(fizzNumber, buzzNumber))
      .Select(selectKeyValuePair("FizzBuzz"))
      .Concat(
            listToConvert
            .Where(WhereBuzzDivisable(fizzNumber, buzzNumber))
            .Select(selectKeyValuePair("Buzz")))
            .Concat(
                  listToConvert
                  .Where(WhereFizzDivisable(fizzNumber, buzzNumber))
                  .Select(selectKeyValuePair("Fizz")))
                  .Concat(
                         listToConvert
                        .Where(WhereNeitherDivisable(fizzNumber, buzzNumber))
                        .Select(selectKeyValuePair("Nothing")));

As you can see, I’ve used both Func fields and methods to return Funcs to clean up how this would look. I’ll even show what it would look like without this approach:

var result = listToConvert.Where(currentItem =>
             IsDivisible(currentItem, fizzNumber) && IsDivisible(currentItem, buzzNumber)
             ).Select(currentItem => new KeyValuePair(currentItem, "FizzBuzz")).Concat(...

Now I can totally admit that this second one I am showing is just ouch. So the first lesson to be learn is that Funcs and Methods that return Funcs can significantly clean up the Linq Method approach.

Now you could do the same with expressions:

 var fizzBuzz = from currentNumber in listToConvert
                where WhereBuzzDivisable(fizzNumber, buzzNumber)
                select selectKeyValuePair("FizzBuzz");

 var buzz = from currentNumber in listToConvert
            where WhereBuzzDivisable(fizzNumber, buzzNumber)
            select selectKeyValuePair("Buzz");

 var fizz = from currentNumber in listToConvert
            where WhereFizzDivisable(fizzNumber, buzzNumber)
            select selectKeyValuePair("Fizz");

var neither = from currentNumber in listToConvert
              where WhereNeitherDivisable(fizzNumber, buzzNumber)
              select selectKeyValuePair("Fizz");

Ok so nice and pretty, but now what? Concatenation. This is where is gets ugly:

  fizzBuzz.Concat(fizz.Concat(buzz.Concat(neither))));

OR

 var fizzBuzz = from currentNumber in listToConvert
                where WhereBuzzDivisable(fizzNumber, buzzNumber)
                select selectKeyValuePair("FizzBuzz")
                .Concat(
                     from currentNumber in listToConvert
                     where WhereBuzzDivisable(fizzNumber, buzzNumber)
                     select selectKeyValuePair("Buzz"))
                     .Concat(....);

See what I’m getting at? The non expression one is looking a bit better now or maybe this is a fight to see which is less fugly. Now I admit that this may not be the best FizzBuzz solution, but it gives an example or where the Linq queries can go very wrong.

The idea is simple, take something like this:

currentItem => currentItem.BooleanMethodOne() && currentItem.BooleanMethodTwo()

but say you only want to have one clause or both. Well you could make three separate expressions, but what if you wanted to add even more later? What if you wanted to mix and match? What if you’re reading thing because you watched to see what page could possibly be on the last page of a google search? Well I have answers… stolen answers.

First the needed And and Or methods:

public static Expression<Func<T, Boolean>> And<T>(
   Expression<Func<T, Boolean>> expressionOne,
    Expression<Func<T, Boolean>> expressionTwo
)
{
  //Basically this is like a bridge between the two expressions.  It will take the T
  //parameter from expressionOne and apply it to expression two. So if 
  // oneItem => oneItem.OneMethod() is expressionOne
  // twoItem => twoItem.TwoMethod() is expressionTwo
  //it would be like replacing the twoItem with the oneItem so that they now point
  //to the same thing.
  var invokedSecond = Expression.Invoke(expressionTwo, expressionOne.Parameters.Cast<Expression>());

  //Now this is to create the needed expresions to return.  It will take both early expressions
  //and use the item from the first expression in both.
                    
  //It will look something like this:
  //currentItem => (currentItem.OneMethod And Invoke(currentItem => currentItem.TwoMethod()))
  //As you can see, it looks to be running expressionOne and then a new method that basically
  //calls expressionTwo with the same value (currentItem)
  return Expression.Lambda<Func<T, Boolean>>(
   Expression.And(expressionOne.Body, invokedSecond), expressionOne.Parameters
  );
}

public static Expression<Func<T, Boolean>> Or<T>(
Expression<Func<T, Boolean>> expressionOne, 
Expression<Func<T, Boolean>> expressionTwo
)
{
  var invokedSecond = Expression.Invoke(expressionTwo, expressionOne.Parameters.Cast<Expression>());

  return Expression.Lambda<Func<T, Boolean>>(
   Expression.Or(expressionOne.Body, invokedSecond), expressionOne.Parameters
  );
}

And here’s a test for it:

String[] list;

list = new String[] { "a", "b", "c", "ac", "ab", "cc", "d", "dd", "dc" };

Expression<Func<String, Boolean>> stringLikeA = currentString => currentString.Contains("a");
Expression<Func<String, Boolean>> stringLikeB = currentString => currentString.Contains("b");
Expression<Func<String, Boolean>> stringLikeC = currentString => currentString.Contains("c");

Expression<Func<String, Boolean>> neededUser = And<String>(stringLikeA, stringLikeB);
list.Where(neededUser.Compile());

//a
Assert.IsTrue(list.Where(neededUser.Compile()).Count() == 1);  //ab

//a, c, ac, ab, cc, dc
neededUser = Or<String>(stringLikeA, stringLikeC);

Assert.IsTrue(list.Where(neededUser.Compile()).Count() == 6);

//ab, c, ac, cc, dc
neededUser = And<String>(stringLikeA, stringLikeB);
neededUser = Or<String>(neededUser, stringLikeC);
Assert.IsTrue(list.Where(neededUser.Compile()).Count() == 5);

USINGS!!ONEONE

using System;
using System.Linq;
using System.Linq.Expressions;
using Microsoft.VisualStudio.TestTools.UnitTesting;

1

3

5

10

15

If the number is divisible by 3, then return the Fizz string. If the number is divisible by 5, return a Buzz string. If it’s divisible by both, then return FizzBuzz.

1

Fizz

Buzz

Buzz

FizzBuzz

Pretty simple and in actuality pretty easy to do with old C# tools, but I wanted to do this with Linq. With the use of Funcs, Actions, and Linq extension methods it can be done fairly easily. Technically you can do the whole thing in one line if you don’t want to bother with refactoring.

I have no idea how to format this cleanly, so sorry if the format is confusing. Basically it is take a list, get the ones you want, concatenate it with the next list.

public static IList<KeyValuePair<Int32, String>> ConvertListOfIntegersWithLinqMethods(IList<Int32> listToConvert, Int32 fizzNumber, Int32 buzzNumber)
{
var result =
  listToConvert
    .Where(WhereBothDivisible(fizzNumber, buzzNumber))
    .Select(selectKeyValuePair("FizzBuzz"))
    .Concat(
  listToConvert
    .Where(WhereBuzzDivisable(fizzNumber, buzzNumber))
    .Select(selectKeyValuePair("Buzz")))
    .Concat(
  listToConvert
    .Where(WhereFizzDivisable(fizzNumber, buzzNumber))
    .Select(selectKeyValuePair("Fizz")))
    .Concat(
  listToConvert
    .Where(WhereNeitherDivisable(fizzNumber, buzzNumber))
    .Select(selectKeyValuePair("Nothing")));

 return result.ToList().OrderBy(currentItem => currentItem.Key).ToList();
}

Using these:

private static Func<Int32, KeyValuePair<Int32, String>> selectKeyValuePair(String value)
{
 return currentItem => new KeyValuePair<Int32, String>(currentItem, value);
}

private static Func<Int32, Boolean> WhereBothDivisible(Int32 fizzNumber, Int32 buzzNumber)
{
 return  currentItem => IsDivisible(currentItem, fizzNumber) && IsDivisible(currentItem, buzzNumber);
}

private static Func<Int32, Boolean> WhereFizzDivisable(Int32 fizzNumber, Int32 buzzNumber)
{
 return currentItem => IsDivisible(currentItem, fizzNumber) && !IsDivisible(currentItem, buzzNumber);
}

private static Func<Int32, Boolean> WhereBuzzDivisable(Int32 fizzNumber, Int32 buzzNumber)
{
 return currentItem => !IsDivisible(currentItem, fizzNumber) && IsDivisible(currentItem, buzzNumber);
}

 private static Func<Int32, Boolean> WhereNeitherDivisable(Int32 fizzNumber, Int32 buzzNumber)
{
 return currentItem => !IsDivisible(currentItem, fizzNumber) && !IsDivisible(currentItem, buzzNumber);
}

If you recall, this was the main sticking point of creating a Func for a select clause:

Func<User, EHH??> selectUserID = currentUser =>  new { currentUser.ID, currentUser.UserName };

Well there is no one solution to this, but there is an easy and clean solution:

 public class UserQueryItem
 {
   public UserQueryItem ( Int32 userID, String userName )
   {
      UserID = userID;
      UserName = userName;
   }

   public Int32 UserID { get; set; }
   public String UserName { get; set; }
 }

Create a class to hold the information.

 Func<User, UserQueryItem> selectUserID = currentUser =>  new UserQueryItem { UserID = currentUser.ID, UserName = currentUser.UserName };

Or

 Func<User, UserQueryItem> selectUserID = currentUser =>  new UserQueryItem (currentUser.ID, currentUser.UserName);

Pretty simple, just a little more work.

public class First
{
  public String FirstOutput { get; set; }
}

public class Second : First
{
  public String SecondOutput { get; set; }
}

public class Third : Second
{
  public String ThirdOutput { get; set; }
}

So from this you can see that Third inherits Second which in turns inherits First. By terminology this would mean that Third is “smaller” than Second and First is “larger” than both. Here’s an example of Covariance:

public class Covariance
{
  public Covariance()
  {

      Func<First> returnFirstFunc = ReturnFirst;
      //This works since the Func has a return type of First

      Func<Second> returnSecondFunc = ReturnThird;
      Second secondTest = returnSecondFunc();
      secondTest.FirstOutput = "First";
      secondTest.SecondOutput = "First";
      //This works since the Func has a return type of Third which is smaller
       //that Second.  Therefore anyone using this Func will expect a Second to
       //be returned and will only use the methods/properties that a Second object
       //would have.  Methods/Properties that Third has by inheritance.

      Func<Third> returnThirdFunc = ReturnSecond;
      //THIS WILL NOT WORK
       //Due to Covariance, the return of the method must be equal or smaller
       //that the expected type.  returnThirdFunc expects a Third or smaller object
       //but the ReturnSecond method returns a Second which is not smaller than Third.
       //Afterall, Third : Second
       //
       //Third thirdTest = returnThirdFunc();
       //Is the same as:
       //Third thirdTest = new Second();
  }

  private First ReturnFirst()
  {
      return new First();
  }

  private Second ReturnSecond()
  {
      return new Second();
  }

  private Third ReturnThird()
  {
      return new Third();
  }
}

Basically what this all means is that with return types, the return type must be smaller or equal to the field it’s being set to. When you are dealing with Funcs, the return type must be smaller or equal to the return type for the method it’s being set it. Why is that? Well think of it like this:

It’s your first day on the job and some guy tells you to write something with whatever returnFirstFunc() returns. Now you have no way to look at the code, so you can only know that it returns First. For all you know, it could return First, Second, or Third. So you would do this:

First someFirst;

someFirst = returnFirstFunc();  //Could return anything smaller than First
someFirst.FirstOutput;  //Completely legal and safe

But would you do this?

someFirst.ThirdOutput;

Of course not since you only can assume it is a First. Now let’s do this in reverse. Say from the above example you were allowed to do this:

Func<Third> returnThirdFunc = ReturnSecond;

Could you do this?

Third third;

third = returnThirdFunc();
third.ThirdOutput;

Yeah you can’t since the Second type doesn’t have the ThirdOutput property.

In short Covariance is the allowance of Smaller types or equal. If a method returns back Third, then you can use that method for anything that is Third or Smaller (Second, First, Object) but not for something Larger (Fourth, Fifth, ect).

Just something I made for the hell of it to remove:

if(someClass != null && someClass.Property == "hi")
{
  SomeMethod();
}

This can be reduced to one line… yay!

IfTrueRunMethod(() => { someClass != null && someClass.Property == "hi" }, () => SomeMethod());

You could even transform the first part into a method if you want:

IfTrueRunMethod(() => TrueMethod(someClass), () => SomeMethod());

Weeeee!

using System;
using System.Linq;

using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Linq;

public static Func<Int32> ReturnIntegerWithinFuncReturningMethod(WhichMethod methodToReturn)
{
  Int32 integerToIncrement;
  Func<Int32> returnMethod;

  integerToIncrement = 0;
  returnMethod = null;

  switch(methodToReturn)
  {
  case WhichMethod.AddOne:
   returnMethod = new Func<Int32>(() => { return integerToIncrement += 1;} );
   break;
  case WhichMethod.AddTwo:
   returnMethod = new Func<Int32>(() => { return integerToIncrement += 2; });
   break;
}

 return returnMethod;
}

Let’s say we test it like this:

Func<Int32> returnedMethod;
Int32 integerToCheck;

returnedMethod = ReturnIntegerWithinFuncReturningMethod(WhichMethod.AddOne);
integerToCheck = returnedMethod();
Assert.IsTrue(integerToCheck == 1, "Actual value is:" + integerToCheck.ToString());

integerToCheck = returnedMethod();
Assert.IsTrue(integerToCheck == 2, "Actual value is:" + integerToCheck.ToString());

These both pass. How does that make sense? You would think that it would return 1 both times since from first glance integerToIncrement lives outside the actual Func that is returned. You would think from this that Int32 is a reference type. When a value type is “attached” to a Func like this one is, apparently it keeps a reference to it and therefore the original Int32 is updated every time the Func is called. Something to remember.