LINQ Min and Max

[qglyirnyfgfo]

I noticed that LINQ Min and Max methods have concrete implementations
for some of the primitive data types but not for all. For example,
LINQ has a Max concrete implementation for int collections defined as:

public static int Max(this IEnumerable<int> source)

Other concrete implementations avalable are, Decimal, Decimal?,
Double, Double? Etc.

My question is, why does LINQ not have concrete implementation for
*all* primitive types? For example, if you have a uint collection you
will need to use the generic Max method and this method will not be as
efficient as if there was a concrete implementation for unit
collections such as:

public static int Max(this IEnumerable< uint > source)

I realize that some of the privative types that were left out are not
used as much as the ones that were implemented but come on, how long
would have taken a Microsoft employee to implement this methods? It’s
basically copy and paste from the other methods.

Certainly, there must be other reasons for why they decided to go this
way. Perhaps I will find such reason later as I learn more LINQ but
for now, I was wondering if someone could shed some length to me.

Thank you.

 

[Jeroen Mostert]

I noticed that LINQ Min and Max methods have concrete implementations
for some of the primitive data types but not for all. For example,
LINQ has a Max concrete implementation for int collections defined as:

public static int Max(this IEnumerable<int> source)

Other concrete implementations avalable are, Decimal, Decimal?,
Double, Double? Etc.

My question is, why does LINQ not have concrete implementation for
*all* primitive types? For example, if you have a uint collection you
will need to use the generic Max method and this method will not be as
efficient as if there was a concrete implementation for unit
collections such as:

public static int Max(this IEnumerable< uint > source)

"uint" is not CLS-compliant. There are a rare few classes and methods in the
framework library that operate on non-CLS compliant types, but those are
special cases (like the ones taking pointers) and they have alternatives. It
would make sense that LINQ doesn't bother with them.

If you happen to have a collection of uints that you need to find the
maximum of a lot *and* you really think you're getting a significant
performance hit on the generic .Max() (which is doubtful to begin with)
absolutely nothing is preventing you from writing your own extension method
for it, which is rather trivial.

I realize that some of the privative types that were left out are not
used as much as the ones that were implemented but come on, how long
would have taken a Microsoft employee to implement this methods? It’s
basically copy and paste from the other methods.

Exactly, so go right ahead.