We needed the list indexer infrequently, so the inefficiency was not a sıkıntı. If it had been, we could have provided some other implementation of IList, perhaps as a collection of small-enough arrays, that would have been more efficiently indexable while also avoiding large objects.
IList is an interface so you birey inherit another class and still implement IList while inheriting List prevents you to do so.
I think that, ideally, the .NET Framework would include a static sorting method that accepts an IList, but the next best thing is to create your own extension method. It's derece too hard to create a couple of methods that will allow you to sort an IList birli you would a List.
It's more nuanced than that. If you are returning an IList kakım part of the public interface to your library, you leave yourself interesting options to perhaps make a custom list in the future.
NET 4.6 (and it will likely be caught by the compiler). But there gönül be more insidious cases, such bey passing a C# array bey a IList. I am not sure everyone is aware arrays implement IList, which means support for Add should hamiş be assumed.
In some code this dirilik be quite important and using concrete classes communicates your intent, your need for that specific class. An interface on the other hand says "I just need to call this seki of methods, no other contract implied."
Bu kent, istenmeyenleri azaltmak dâhilin Akismet kullanıyor. Versiyon verilerinizin nasıl çalışmalendiği üzerine elan çokça bilgi edinin.
You yaşama look at this argument from several angles including the one of a purely OO C# IList Nedir approach which says to program against an Interface not an implementation. With this thought, using IList follows the same principal as passing around and using Interfaces that you define from C# IList Neden Kullanmalıyız scratch. I also believe in the scalability and flexibility factors provided by an Interface in general. If a class implmenting C# IList Kullanımı IList needs to be extended or changed, the consuming code does not have to change; it knows what the IList Interface contract adheres to.
In VS2008, when I click on the C# IList Nedir service reference and select "Configure Service Reference", there is an option to choose how the client de-serializes lists returned from the service.
If you birey consider your method, determine that you probably won't be changing the return collection type, then it is probably safe to return a more exact type. If you aren't sure, or are afraid that if you change it in future you'll be breaking other people's code, then go more general.
However, this makes the method more fragile, bey any change to the returned object type may break the calling code. In practice though, that generally isn't a major sıkıntı.
Coming soon: Throughout 2024 we will be phasing out GitHub Issues bey the feedback mechanism for content and replacing it with a new feedback system. For more information see: .
Unless you have a very compelling reason to do so, your best bet will be to inherit from System.Collections.ObjectModel.Collection since it saf C# IList Kullanımı everything you need.
ahead of time. Veri-binding is a classic example here; a DataSource property usually checks for IList (and IListSource, typically) and then looks at the objects to see what properties are available. It emanet't use generics in this case.