tags:

views:

858

answers:

12

How do I limit the loop below to 50 so it stops when it reaches the 51st item?

foreach (ListViewItem lvi in listView.Items)
{

}

Thanks

+7  A: 

Use a for loop.

for(int index = 0; index < collection.Count && index < 50; index++)
{
   collection[index];
}
Chuck Conway
This will fail if the collection doesn't have 50 items though.
Tom Anderson
very true good point.
Chuck Conway
This still doesn't work. If it has less than 50 items it doesn't execute at all.
Orion Adrian
It will work. A for loop is nothing but a fancy while loop. (while you have less than the "Count" AND less than 50 (0-49) do the loop.
Atømix
+14  A: 
foreach (ListViewItem lvi in listView.Items) {
  // do code here
  if (listView.Items.IndexOf(lvi) == 49)
    break;
}

OR since it is a list view item

foreach (ListViewItem lvi in listView.Items) {
  // do code here
  if (lvi.Index == 49) break;
}

Using Linq as Per LukeDuff

foreach (ListViewItem lvi in listView.Items.Take(50)) {
  // do code here
}

Using For Loop as Per Atomiton

// loop through collection to a max of 50 or the number of items
for(int i = 0; i < listView.Items.Count && i < 50; i++){
    listView.Items[i]; //access the current item

}
Tom Anderson
s/=/==/ and it might be off by one. But you got the break correct.
BCS
i added the //do code here so it will exit at the end of processing the 50th record to clarify :)
Tom Anderson
this is not nearly as nice as using Linq to Objects... see @LukeDuff's answer below
Shawn Miller
@smiller - not as neat, but functional to spec :) @Jade M - NP
Tom Anderson
Why the downvotes? I will make it better if needed.
Tom Anderson
Checking listView.Items.IndexOf(lvi) on every iteration is very expensive relative to maintaining an independent counter. The LINQ to objects Take(50) method is the quickest way, if your key criterion is just to get 50 items.
Jon Artus
Or if you need a counter, search this site for ForEach with Index - again, there's a really neat way of doing this with extension methods which is much faster than IndexOf.
Jon Artus
which is why i included the other two entries along with the primary answer to keep the answer up to date with the best information.
Tom Anderson
Thanks for updating your post with the different solutions!
Chuck Conway
np, they are obviously very recommended, and since the poster marked this as the answer, i figured i would toss them in for wiki reference purposes :)
Tom Anderson
Your last solution only works if the object being iterated has an indexer property - IEnumerable for example has no such indexer. Just something to keep in mind.
Erik Forbes
+16  A: 

Well, the foreach may not be the best solution, but if you must:

int ctr = 0;
foreach (ListViewItem lvi in listView.Items) {
    ctr++;
    if (ctr == 50) break;

    // do code here

}

Note: a for loop is generally lighter than using a foreach to go through a collection.

Better to use a for loop:

// loop through collection to a max of 50 or the number of items
for(int i = 0; i < listView.Items.Count && i < 50; i++){
    listView.Items[i]; //access the current item

}
Atømix
This will fail if the collection doesn't have 50 items though.
Tom Anderson
The for loop you have there will fail unless the the list happens to have 50 items - either it will iterate past the end if there are less than 50 items, or it will iterate past the 50 items if there are more.
Eclipse
That's what the second condition is for in the for loop (|| i < listView.Items.Count;). In the foreach loop, it will terminate naturally when it finishes. (I added the 2nd condition when I realized the same thing)
Atømix
@Atomiton - much better
Tom Anderson
Also what's everyone's distaste with 'if (++index == 50) break;'. It seems like no one is comfortable with incrementers and decrementers anymore.
Orion Adrian
@Josh... thanks.. I have the conditions reversed. Fixed.
Atømix
@Orion. I was going to do that... but the solution is more clear this way. Most new programmers have difficulty with ++index and index++... or wait... is that only in c++?
Atømix
+3  A: 

If you want to still use a foreach loop try the following:

int counter = 0;
foreach (ListViewItem lvi in listView.Items) 
{
  counter++;
  if ( counter == 50 )
  {
   break;
  }
}
Ray Booysen
+1  A: 

I would use a for loop as charles suggested instead of a foreach with an index check. The intent is more obvious as a for loop is used when you need to keep track of the current iteration.

for (int i = 0; i < listView.Items.Count && i < 50; ++i)
{
    //do something with listView.Items[i]
}
Ed Swangren
Use for (int i = 0; i < listView.Items.Count ++i) to include the < 50 requirement.
AaronSieb
As AaronSieb alluded to, if there are more than 50 items, you won't exit the loop after 50.
Atømix
lol, yeah, oops, I'll fix that
Ed Swangren
+1  A: 
int i = 50;
foreach(T t in TList)
{
   if(i-- <= 0) break;

   code;

   // or: i--; if(i<=0) break;
}
BCS
+4  A: 
for(int index = 0; index < Math.Min(50, collection.Count); index++)
{
   collection[index];
}
Orion Adrian
Interesting solution, perhaps not the most clear one though, especially if you don't use the Math library often.
Atømix
Interesting, except Math.Min() will be evaluated with each iteration. Better to store this in a local int before the for-loop, and compare the index to that local.
Erik Forbes
I'm fairly certain that the compiler is smart enough to optimize that away so that it will only run once.
Orion Adrian
Actually my guess is that this would be the fastest of the solutions given that you could determine the limit before running the loop, but it would be such a small number of actual computations, it wouldn't matter.
Orion Adrian
@Atomiton: Honestly I think the Min and Max (along with the other math functions) should be in most people's toolboxes. They're pretty fundamental. Additionally this to me seems the most strait-forward. I want to iterate to the smaller number of 50 or the collection size. Then I actually do it.
Orion Adrian
+3  A: 
for (int i = 0; i < 50 && i < listView.Items.Count; ++i)
{
    ListViewItem item = listView.Items[i];
}
Eclipse
Atømix
@Atomiton - that's assuming that the common case is less than 50 items.. If the average case is 1000 items, then this way is more efficient ;).
markt
But anyway - it is only more efficient by one comparison. Doesn't really buy you anything in the way of performance.. and not worth worrying about.
markt
A: 

People have given plenty of examples, and in this specific case since ListView.Items is an indexed collection, an old fashioned for loop is probably best. If it were something like an IEnumerable where you couldn't use Items[i] then you'd have to do like the other examples with an external counter variable.

Davy8
+23  A: 

Easy with Linq

foreach (ListViewItem lvi in listView.Items.Take(50)) {

}

From the MSDN documentation:

Take<(Of <(TSource>)>) enumerates source and yields elements until count elements have been yielded or source contains no more elements.

If count is less than or equal to zero, source is not enumerated and an empty IEnumerable<(Of <(T>)>) is returned.

LukeDuff
Love it, extremely clear what is happening.
Spence
linked in answer with credit, good usage if used in .Net 3.5
Tom Anderson
Very nice and clear... almost Ruby-esque
Atømix
+1  A: 

A for loop will work, but you can still setup a ListViewItem named lvi like so.

int maxItems = listViewItems.Count > 50 ? 50 : listViewItems.Count;
for(int counter = 0; counter < maxItems; counter ++)
{ 
    ListViewItem lvi = listView.Items[counter];

    // Rest of your code here will stile work

}
PostMan
Except that you won't exit the loop after 50 iterations.
Atømix
This is now fixed.
PostMan
+1  A: 

Using LINQ, this could be implemented as:

foreach (ListViewItem lvi in listView.Items.Take(50))
{
  // do stuff
}

Take(n) returns the first n elements or all element if less than n are available.

M4N
Already suggested by LukeDuff above
Atømix