There is actually a (subtle) difference between the two. Imagine you have the following code in File1.cs:
// File1.cs
using System;
namespace Outer.Inner
{
class Foo
{
static void Bar()
{
double d = Math.PI;
}
}
}
Now imagine that someone adds another file (File2.cs) to the project that looks like this:
// File2.cs
namespace Outer
{
class Math
{
}
}
The compiler searches Outer before looking at those using directives outside the namespace, so it finds Outer.Math instead of System.Math. Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately?), Outer.Math has no PI member, so File1 is now broken.
This changes if you put the using inside your namespace declaration, as follows:
// File1b.cs
namespace Outer.Inner
{
using System;
class Foo
{
static void Bar()
{
double d = Math.PI;
}
}
}
Now the compiler searches System before searching Outer, finds System.Math, and all is well.
Some would argue that Math might be a bad name for a user-defined class, since there's already one in System; the point here is just that there is a difference, and it affects the maintainability of your code.
It's also interesting to note what happens if Foo is in namespace Outer, rather than Outer.Inner. In that case, adding Outer.Math in File2 breaks File1 regardless of where the using goes. This implies that the compiler searches the innermost enclosing namespace before it looks at any using directive.
There is no ForEach extension for IEnumerable; only for List<T>. So you could do
items.ToList().ForEach(i => i.DoStuff());
Alternatively, write your own ForEach extension method:
public static void ForEach<T>(this IEnumerable<T> enumeration, Action<T> action)
{
foreach(T item in enumeration)
{
action(item);
}
}
Best Answer
Framework design guidelines recommend using the class Collection when you need to return a collection that is modifiable by the caller or ReadOnlyCollection for read only collections.
The reason this is preferred to a simple
IListis thatIListdoes not inform the caller if its read only or not.If you return an
IEnumerable<T>instead, certain operations may be a little trickier for the caller to perform. Also you no longer will give the caller the flexibility to modify the collection, something that you may or may not want.Keep in mind that LINQ contains a few tricks up its sleeve and will optimize certain calls based on the type they are performed on. So, for example, if you perform a
Countand the underlying collection is a List it will NOT walk through all the elements.Personally, for an ORM I would probably stick with
Collection<T>as my return value.