Code equivalent to the 'let' keyword in chained LINQ extension method calls

C#LinqExtension MethodsLinq to-Objects

C# Problem Overview


Using the C# compilers query comprehension features, you can write code like:

var names = new string[] { "Dog", "Cat", "Giraffe", "Monkey", "Tortoise" };
var result =
    from animalName in names
    let nameLength = animalName.Length
    where nameLength > 3
    orderby nameLength
    select animalName; 

In the query expression above, the let keyword allows a value to be passed forward to the where and orderby operations without duplicate calls to animalName.Length.

What is the equivalent set of LINQ extension method calls that achieves what the "let" keyword does here?

C# Solutions


Solution 1 - C#

Let doesn't have its own operation; it piggy-backs off of Select. You can see this if you use "reflector" to pull apart an existing dll.

it will be something like:

var result = names
        .Select(animalName => new { nameLength = animalName.Length, animalName})
        .Where(x=>x.nameLength > 3)
        .OrderBy(x=>x.nameLength)
        .Select(x=>x.animalName);

Solution 2 - C#

There's a good article here

Essentially let creates an anonymous tuple. It's equivalent to:

var result = names.Select(
  animal => new { animal = animal, nameLength = animal.Length })
.Where(x => x.nameLength > 3)
.OrderBy(y => y.nameLength)
.Select(z => z.animal);

Solution 3 - C#

There is also a .Let extension method in System.Interactive, but its purpose is to introduce a lambda expression to be evaluated 'in-line' in a fluent expression. For instance, consider (in LinqPad, say) the following expression that creates new random numbers every time it's executed:

var seq = EnumerableEx.Generate(
    new Random(),
    _ => true,
    _ => _,
    x => x.Next());

To see that new random samples show up every time, consider the following

seq.Zip(seq, Tuple.Create).Take(3).Dump();

which produces pairs in which the left and right are different. To produce pairs in which the left and right are always the same, do something like the following:

seq.Take(3).ToList().Let(xs => xs.Zip(xs, Tuple.Create)).Dump(); 

If we could invoke lambda expressions directly, we might write

(xs => xs.Zip(xs, Tuple.Create))(seq.Take(3).ToList()).Dump();

But we can't invoke lambda expressions as if they were methods.

Solution 4 - C#

about https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1092687/code-equivalent-to-the-let-keyword-in-chained-linq-extension-method-calls#comment51041780_1092732

above comment is no more valid

var x = new List<int> { 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 }.AsQueryable();
(from val in x
let val1 = val
let val2 = val + 1
where val2 > val1
select val
).Dump();

produces

System.Collections.Generic.List`1[System.Int32]
.Select(
  val =>
	 new
	 {
		 val = val,
		 val1 = val
	 }
)
.Select(
  temp0 =>
	 new
	 {
		 temp0 = temp0,
		 val2 = (temp0.val + 1)
	 }
)
.Where(temp1 => (temp1.val2 > temp1.temp0.val1))
.Select(temp1 => temp1.temp0.val)

so multiple let are optimized now

Attributions

All content for this solution is sourced from the original question on Stackoverflow.

The content on this page is licensed under the Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0) license.

Content TypeOriginal AuthorOriginal Content on Stackoverflow
QuestionLBushkinView Question on Stackoverflow
Solution 1 - C#Marc GravellView Answer on Stackoverflow
Solution 2 - C#KeltexView Answer on Stackoverflow
Solution 3 - C#Reb.CabinView Answer on Stackoverflow
Solution 4 - C#Not ImportantView Answer on Stackoverflow