Can I conditionally create an IEnumerable with LINQ?

I have to following code:

List<Obj> coll = new List<Obj>();

if (cond1) coll.Add(new Obj { /*...*/ });
if (cond2) coll.Add(new Obj { /*...*/ });
if (cond3) coll.Add(new Obj { /*...*/ });

Is there a way to use LINQ or collection initializers for that?

EDIT:

The reason I want to use a collection initializer here is because I have an object tree which I do completely initialize with initialiers and LINQ. This spot is the only one which doesn't follow this principle.

var myobj = new MyBigObj 
{
    Prop1 = from .. select ..,
    Prop2 = from .. select ..,
    ...
    Prop3 = new MySmallerObj 
    {
      PropSmall1 = from .. select ..,
      PropSmall2 = from .. select ..,
      ...
    }
};

And now this simply doesn't fit in my scheme:

List<Obj> coll = new List<Obj>();

if (cond1) coll.Add(new Obj { /*...*/ });
if (cond2) coll.Add(new Obj { /*...*/ });
if (cond3) coll.Add(new Obj { /*...*/ });

myobj.Prop4 = coll;

Sure I could put this code in a separate function that returns IEnumerable and call that.. :)

EDIT2:

It looks like I have to code some extension method which I would call like:

new Obj[0]
.ConditionalConcat(cond1, 开发者_JS百科x=>new Obj { /*...*/ })
.ConditionalConcat(cond2, x=>new Obj { /*...*/ })
.ConditionalConcat(cond3, x=>new Obj { /*...*/ })

---

One fairly horrible option:

var conditions = new[] { cond1, cond2, cond3 };
var values = new[] { new Obj {...}, // First value
                     new Obj {...}, // Second value
                     new Obj { ...} // Third value
                   };

var list = conditions.Zip(values, (condition, value) => new { condition, value })
                     .Where(pair => pair.condition)
                     .Select(pair => pair.value)
                     .ToList();

It's not exactly simpler than the original code though ;) (And also it unconditionally creates all the values - it's only conditionally including them in the collection.)

EDIT: An alternative which only constructs the values when it needs to:

var conditions = new[] { cond1, cond2, cond3 };
var valueProviders = new Func<Obj>[] { 
    () => new Obj {...}, // First value
    () => new Obj {...}, // Second value
    () => new Obj { ...} // Third value
};


var list = conditions.Zip(valueProviders,
                          (condition, provider) => new { condition, provider })
                     .Where(pair => pair.condition)
                     .Select(pair => pair.provider())
                     .ToList();

EDIT: Given your requested syntax, this is a fairly easy option:

new List<Obj>()
    .ConditionalConcat(cond1, x=>new Obj { /*...*/ })
    .ConditionalConcat(cond2, x=>new Obj { /*...*/ })
    .ConditionalConcat(cond3, x=>new Obj { /*...*/ })

with an extension method:

public static List<T> ConditionalConcat<T>(this List<T> source,
                                           bool condition,
                                           Func<T> provider)
{
    if (condition)
    {
        source.Add(provider);
    }
    return source;
}

---

If your conditions depend on a single status object (or something that can reduced to), you can create a method using yield, like the following:

IEnumerable<Obj> GetElemets(MyStatus currentStatus)
{
    if(currentStatus.Prop1 == "Foo")
       yield return new Obj {...};
    if(currentStatus.IsSomething())
       yield return new Obj {...};
    if(currentStatus.Items.Any())
       yield return new Obj {...};
    // etc...
    yield break;
}

In this way, you will separate the IEnumerable<Obj> generation logic, from the consumer logic.

---

Old question, but here is another approach using ternery operators ? :, .Concat() and Enumerable.Empty<T>()

var range1 = Enumerable.Range(1,10);
var range2 = Enumerable.Range(100,10);
var range3 = Enumerable.Range(1000,10);

var flag1 = true;
var flag2 = false;
var flag3 = true;

var sumOfCollections = (flag1 ? range1 : Enumerable.Empty<int>())
.Concat(flag2 ? range2 : Enumerable.Empty<int>())
.Concat(flag3 ? range3 : Enumerable.Empty<int>());

---

Though an old question, but I have an option to solve it in a somewhat clear way and without extensions or any other methods.

Assuming that conditions and initial collection of objects to be created are of same size, I used indexed Where overload approach, so it is not adding objects conditionally, but rather filtering them, with a use of funcs/lambdas we get also laziness, if we want.

The actual creation of objects is not relevant, so I put just boxing of ints (you could replace it with real creation, i.e. getting them from another collection using index), and list manipulation is for getting ints back - but values collection already has 2 elements, so all this could be thrown away (maybe except select with func call in case of using laziness). Here is the all the code for running sample test right in MSVS

using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Linq;
using Microsoft.VisualStudio.TestTools.UnitTesting;

namespace UnitTests
{
    [TestClass]
    public class Tests
    {
        [TestMethod]
        public void Test()
        {
            var conds = new[] { true, false, true };
            var values = conds.Select((c, i) => new Func<object>(() => i)).Where((f, i) => conds[i]);
            var list = values.Select(f => f()).Cast<int>().ToList();
            Assert.AreEqual(list.Count, 2);
        }
    }
}

UPD. Here also lazy and non-lazy one-liners with "getting object"

var lazy1line = new[] { true, false, true }.Select((c, i) => new Func<object>(() => (DayOfWeek)i)).Where((f, i) => conds[i]).Select(f => f());
var simple1line = new[] { true, false, true }.Select((c, i) => (DayOfWeek)i).Where((f, i) => conds[i]);
Assert.AreEqual(lazy1line.Count(), simple1line.Count());