Join devRant
Do all the things like
++ or -- rants, post your own rants, comment on others' rants and build your customized dev avatar
Sign Up
Pipeless API
From the creators of devRant, Pipeless lets you power real-time personalized recommendations and activity feeds using a simple API
Learn More
-
@bkwilliams it's good to point out. It's never affected me before because I usually do an OrderBy/Descending() if a specific order is needed after the Union().
Concat() doesn't do any kind of sorting nor duplicate removal, so it's just what I need here.
when your code is a mess but everything work out in the end
When you keep getting +1s on a rant you posted a month ago.
Go big or go home.
!@#GDSGA!Q@#@
In my absolute lack of genius, I just lost way too much time finally realizing that in C# linq-to-objects removes duplicates when you use Union().
At one point I knew this, but I forgot about it because I never want duplicates, slowly forgetting what Union() was doing.
*This time* however, the duplicates are required and it all goes to crap without them.
Save me, Concat()!
You can run but you can't hide from noobery.
Blahb;asdfabnahsdfa.
rant
c#
linq