As they say, the devil is in the details...
The biggest difference between the two methods of collection enumeration is that foreach carries state, whereas ForEach(x => { }) does not.
But lets dig a little deeper, because there are some things you should be aware of that can influence your decision, and there are some caveats you should be aware of when coding for either case.
Lets use List<T> in our little experiment to observe behavior. For this experiment, I am using .NET 4.7.2:
var names = new List<string>
{
"Henry",
"Shirley",
"Ann",
"Peter",
"Nancy"
};
Lets iterate over this with foreach first:
foreach (var name in names)
{
Console.WriteLine(name);
}
We could expand this into:
using (var enumerator = names.GetEnumerator())
{
}
With the enumerator in hand, looking under the covers we get:
public List<T>.Enumerator GetEnumerator()
{
return new List<T>.Enumerator(this);
}
internal Enumerator(List<T> list)
{
this.list = list;
this.index = 0;
this.version = list._version;
this.current = default (T);
}
public bool MoveNext()
{
List<T> list = this.list;
if (this.version != list._version || (uint) this.index >= (uint) list._size)
return this.MoveNextRare();
this.current = list._items[this.index];
++this.index;
return true;
}
object IEnumerator.Current
{
{
if (this.index == 0 || this.index == this.list._size + 1)
ThrowHelper.ThrowInvalidOperationException(ExceptionResource.InvalidOperation_EnumOpCantHappen);
return (object) this.Current;
}
}
Two things become immediate evident:
- We are returned a stateful object with intimate knowledge of the underlying collection.
- The copy of the collection is a shallow copy.
This is of course in no way thread safe. As was pointed out above, changing the collection while iterating is just bad mojo.
But what about the problem of the collection becoming invalid during iteration by means outside of us mucking with the collection during iteration? Best practices suggests versioning the collection during operations and iteration, and checking versions to detect when the underlying collection changes.
Here's where things get really murky. According to the Microsoft documentation:
If changes are made to the collection, such as adding, modifying, or
deleting elements, the behavior of the enumerator is undefined.
Well, what does that mean? By way of example, just because List<T> implements exception handling does not mean that all collections that implement IList<T> will do the same. That seems to be a clear violation of the Liskov Substitution Principle:
Objects of a superclass shall be replaceable with objects of its
subclasses without breaking the application.
Another problem is that the enumerator must implement IDisposable -- that means another source of potential memory leaks, not only if the caller gets it wrong, but if the author does not implement the Dispose pattern correctly.
Lastly, we have a lifetime issue... what happens if the iterator is valid, but the underlying collection is gone? We now a snapshot of what was... when you separate the lifetime of a collection and its iterators, you are asking for trouble.
Lets now examine ForEach(x => { }):
names.ForEach(name =>
{
});
This expands to:
public void ForEach(Action<T> action)
{
if (action == null)
ThrowHelper.ThrowArgumentNullException(ExceptionArgument.match);
int version = this._version;
for (int index = 0; index < this._size && (version == this._version || !BinaryCompatibility.TargetsAtLeast_Desktop_V4_5); ++index)
action(this._items[index]);
if (version == this._version || !BinaryCompatibility.TargetsAtLeast_Desktop_V4_5)
return;
ThrowHelper.ThrowInvalidOperationException(ExceptionResource.InvalidOperation_EnumFailedVersion);
}
Of important note is the following:
for (int index = 0; index < this._size && ... ; ++index)
action(this._items[index]);
This code does not allocate any enumerators (nothing to Dispose), and does not pause while iterating.
Note that this also performs a shallow copy of the underlying collection, but the collection is now a snapshot in time. If the author does not correctly implement a check for the collection changing or going 'stale', the snapshot is still valid.
This doesn't in any way protect you from the problem of the lifetime issues... if the underlying collection disappears, you now have a shallow copy that points to what was... but at least you don't have a Dispose problem to deal with on orphaned iterators...
Yes, I said iterators... sometimes its advantageous to have state. Suppose you want to maintain something akin to a database cursor... maybe multiple foreach style Iterator<T>'s is the way to go. I personally dislike this style of design as there are too many lifetime issues, and you rely on the good graces of the authors of the collections you are relying on (unless you literally write everything yourself from scratch).
There is always a third option...
for (var i = 0; i < names.Count; i++)
{
Console.WriteLine(names[i]);
}
It ain't sexy, but its got teeth (apologies to Tom Cruise and the movie The Firm)
Its your choice, but now you know and it can be an informed one.
