The .Net enumeration story based on IEnumerable<T> is a very succesful pattern. It’s the backbone of many different language and framework features including foreach , LINQ, iterators, etc … And yet when switching between C++ and C# and I’m often frustrated by its inefficiencs and quirks:

Accessing a single value requires 2 interface invocations: MoveNext and Current. Interface method invocation has extra overhead associated with it. Why pay that price twice instead of using a single method call?

It forces the allocation of a IEnumerable<T> value on the heap even when the enumerator could be implemented as a struct . Allocations in .Net are cheap not free and it’s frustrating to have one on such a core path.

value on the heap even when the enumerator could be implemented as a . Allocations in .Net are cheap not free and it’s frustrating to have one on such a core path. The legacy of pre-generics .Net forces type safe collections to eventually implement the non-generic IEnumerable , IEnumerator and even IDisposable . I can’t remember the last time I actually used one of these and yet I have to write this boiler plate code every time I author a new collection.

, and even . I can’t remember the last time I actually used one of these and yet I have to write this boiler plate code every time I author a new collection. Many collections, like List<T> , implement pattern based enumeration in part to avoid the above inefficiencies . This is more code to write, test and maintain yet really doesn’t add any new features. At the same time it also complicates the ability of the developers to understand the mechanisms behind a given foreach block.

Recently as an experiment I decided to sit down and explore a new design for IEnumerable<T> which addressed these issues. In particular it had the following goals:

Use a single method call to advance the enumeration and access the next value

Use strongly typed generics

Do not force an allocation for the enumerator type

Have a single code path for enumeration

Dispose of all the legacy baggage

After some tinkering I settled on the following design:

public interface IEnumerable < TElement , TEnumerator > { TEnumerator Start { get ; } bool TryGetNext ( ref TEnumerator enumerator , out TElement value ); }

The most visible change here is the elimination of IEnumerator<T> in favor of an enumerator type parameter. This eliminates the forced allocation of enumerators and allows types like List<T> to use a more natural enumerator type like int .

The real advantage in this pattern is that it greatly simplifies the code necessary to implement enumerable:

class MyList < T > : IEnumerable < T , int > { T [] _array ; public int Start { get { return 0 ; } } public bool TryGetNext ( ref int index , out T value ) { if ( index >= Count ) { value = default ( T ); return false ; } value = _array [ index ++]; return true ; } }

This implementation is free from all of the boiler plate code necessary to implement .Net IEnumerable<T> . Instead it focuses on the actual code necessary to enumerate values. The full example of .Net enumeration is included at the bottom of this post. The code difference is staggering.

The code generation for a foreach over the new pattern is the following:

void M < TElement , TEnumerator >( IEnumerable < TElement , TEnumerator > enumerable ) { // Developer types foreach ( TElement current in enumerable ) { // Loop body } // Compiler emits TElement current ; TEnumerator e = enumerable . Start ; while ( enumerable . TryGetNext ( ref e , out current )) { // Loop body } }

This enumeration pattern for MyList<T> will now be consistent no matter the context in which it is enumerated: through MyList<T> or IEnumerable<T> . The enumerator type will now always be an int , it will always execute the same code path and this is the only enumeration code path to test.

The downside to this approach is that it makes the consumption of enumeration in generics more complicated: all methods and types now require 2 type parameters instead of 1. For advanced developers this isn’t a significant overhead but for the average .Net developer it’s a big increase in complexity.

The biggest problem though using this in practice is that it doesn’t work with existing foreach syntax. Hence all loops needed to be typed out by hand and the actual looping pattern is not a great pattern for humans to be dealing with. That would obviously go away if this was a first class language construct.

Overall I’m pretty happy with this design though. Maybe I’ll take a stab at prototyping Roslyn support for this feature at some point to get my foreach problems solved.

As promised before, this is what the MyList<T> implementation of .Net IEnumerable<T> would look like (55 lines of code vs. 19 for the new pattern).