C# 4.0 'dynamic' and foreach statement

Not long time before I've discovered, that new dynamic keyword doesn't work well with the C#'s foreach statement:

using System;

sealed class Foo {
    public struct FooEnumerator {
        int value;
        public bool MoveNext() { return true; }
        public int Current { get { return value++; } }
    }

    public FooEnumerator GetEnumerator() {
        return new FooEnumerator();
    }

    static void Main() {
        foreach (int x in new Foo()) {
            Console.WriteLine(x);
            if (x >= 100) break;
        }

        foreach (int x in (dynamic)new Foo()) { // :)
            Console.WriteLine(x);
            if (x >= 100) break;
        }
    }
}

I've expected that iterating over the dynamic variable should work completely as if the type of collection variable is known at compile time. I've discovered that the second loop actually is looked like this when is compiled:

foreach (object x in (IEnumerable) /* dynamic cast */ (object) new Foo()) {
    ...
}

and every access to the x variable results with the dynamic lookup/cast so C# ignores that I've specify the correct x's type in the foreach statement - that was a bit surprising for me... And also, C# compiler completely ignores that collection from dynamically typed variable may implements IEnumerable<T> interface!

The full foreach statement behavior is described in the C# 4.0 specification 8.8.4 The foreach statement article.

But... It's perfectly possible to implement the same behavior at runtime! It's possible to add an extra CSharpBinderFlags.ForEachCast flag, correct the emmited code to looks like:

foreach (int x in (IEnumerable<int>) /* dynamic cast with the CSharpBinderFlags.ForEachCast flag */ (object) new Foo()) {
    ...
}

And add some extra logic to CSharpConvertBinder:

• Wrap IEnumerable collections and IEnumerator's to IEnumerable<T>开发者_StackOverflow社区/IEnumerator<T>.
• Wrap collections doesn't implementing Ienumerable<T>/IEnumerator<T> to implement this interfaces.

So today foreach statement iterates over dynamic completely different from iterating over statically known collection variable and completely ignores the type information, specified by user. All that results with the different iteration behavior (IEnumarble<T>-implementing collections is being iterated as only IEnumerable-implementing) and more than 150x slowdown when iterating over dynamic. Simple fix will results a much better performance:

foreach (int x in (IEnumerable<int>) dynamicVariable) {

But why I should write code like this?

It's very nicely to see that sometimes C# 4.0 dynamic works completely the same if the type will be known at compile-time, but it's very sadly to see that dynamic works completely different where IT CAN works the same as statically typed code.

So my question is: why foreach over dynamic works different from foreach over anything else?

---

First off, to explain some background to readers who are confused by the question: the C# language actually does not require that the collection of a "foreach" implement IEnumerable. Rather, it requires either that it implement IEnumerable, or that it implement IEnumerable<T>, or simply that it have a GetEnumerator method (and that the GetEnumerator method returns something with a Current and MoveNext that matches the pattern expected, and so on.)

That might seem like an odd feature for a statically typed language like C# to have. Why should we "match the pattern"? Why not require that collections implement IEnumerable?

Think about the world before generics. If you wanted to make a collection of ints, you'd have to use IEnumerable. And therefore, every call to Current would box an int, and then of course the caller would immediately unbox it back to int. Which is slow and creates pressure on the GC. By going with a pattern-based approach you can make strongly typed collections in C# 1.0!

Nowadays of course no one implements that pattern; if you want a strongly typed collection, you implement IEnumerable<T> and you're done. Had a generic type system been available to C# 1.0, it is unlikely that the "match the pattern" feature would have been implemented in the first place.

As you've noted, instead of looking for the pattern, the code generated for a dynamic collection in a foreach looks for a dynamic conversion to IEnumerable (and then does a conversion from the object returned by Current to the type of the loop variable of course.) So your question basically is "why does the code generated by use of the dynamic type as a collection type of foreach fail to look for the pattern at runtime?"

Because it isn't 1999 anymore, and even when it was back in the C# 1.0 days, collections that used the pattern also almost always implemented IEnumerable too. The probability that a real user is going to be writing production-quality C# 4.0 code which does a foreach over a collection that implements the pattern but not IEnumerable is extremely low. Now, if you're in that situation, well, that's unexpected, and I'm sorry that our design failed to anticipate your needs. If you feel that your scenario is in fact common, and that we've misjudged how rare it is, please post more details about your scenario and we'll consider changing this for hypothetical future versions.

Note that the conversion we generate to IEnumerable is a dynamic conversion, not simply a type test. That way, the dynamic object may participate; if it does not implement IEnumerable but wishes to proffer up a proxy object which does, it is free to do so.

In short, the design of "dynamic foreach" is "dynamically ask the object for an IEnumerable sequence", rather than "dynamically do every type-testing operation we would have done at compile time". This does in theory subtly violate the design principle that dynamic analysis gives the same result as static analysis would have, but in practice it's how we expect the vast majority of dynamically accessed collections to work.

---

But why I should write code like this?

Indeed. And why would the compiler write code like that? You've removed any chance it might have had to guess that the loop could be optimized. Btw, you seem to interpret the IL incorrectly, it is rebinding to obtain IEnumerable.Current, the MoveNext() call is direct and GetEnumerator() is called only once. Which I think is appropriate, the next element might or might not cast to an int without problems. It could be a collection of various types, each with their own binder.