Identifying last loop when using for each

I want to do something different with the last loop iteration when performing 'foreach' on an object. I'm using Ruby but the same goes for C#, Java etc.

  list = ['A','B','C']
  list.each{|i|
    puts "Looping: "+i # if not last loop iteration
    puts "Last one: "+i # if last loop iteration
  }

The output desired is equivalent to:

  Looping: 'A'
  Looping: 'B'
  Last one: 'C'

The obvious workaround is to migrate the code to a for loop using 'for i in 1..list.length', but the for each solution feels more graceful. What is the most graceful way to code a special case during a loop? Can it be done with foreach?

I see a lot of complex, hardly readable code here... why not keep it simple:

var count = list.Length;

foreach(var item in list)
    if (--count > 0)
        Console.WriteLine("Looping: " + item);
    else
        Console.Writeline("Lastone: " + item);

It's only one extra statement!

Another common situation is that you want to do something extra or less with the last item, like putting a separator between the items:

var count = list.Length;

foreach(var item in list)
{
    Console.Write(item);
    if (--count > 0)
        Console.Write(",");
}

The foreach construct (in Java definitely, probably also in other languages) is intended to represent the most general kind if iteration, which includes iteration over collections that have no meaningful iteration order. For example, a hash-based set does not have an ordering, and therefore there is no "last element". The last iteration may yield a different element each time you iterate.

Basically: no, the foreach construct is not meant to be used that way.

How about obtaining a reference to the last item first and then use it for comparison inside the foreach loop? I am not say that you should do this as I myself would use the index based loop as mentioned by KlauseMeier. And sorry I don't know Ruby so the following sample is in C#! Hope u dont mind :-)

string lastItem = list[list.Count - 1];
foreach (string item in list) {
	if (item != lastItem)
		Console.WriteLine("Looping: " + item);
	else	Console.Writeline("Lastone: " + item);
}

I revised the following code to compare by reference not value (can only use reference types not value types). the following code should support multiple objects containing same string (but not same string object) since MattChurcy's example did not specify that the strings must be distinct and I used LINQ Last method instead of calculating the index.

string lastItem = list.Last();
foreach (string item in list) {
    if (!object.ReferenceEquals(item, lastItem))
        Console.WriteLine("Looping: " + item);
    else        Console.WriteLine("Lastone: " + item);
}

Limitations of the above code. (1) It can only work for strings or reference types not value types. (2) Same object can only appear once in the list. You can have different objects containing the same content. Literal strings cannot be used repeatedly since C# does not create a unique object for strings that have the same content.

And i no stupid. I know an index based loop is the one to use. I already said so when i first posted the initial answer. I provided the best answer I can in the context of the question. I am too tired to keep explaining this so can you all just vote to delete my answer. I'll be so happy if this one goes away. thanks

Is this elegant enough? It assumes a non-empty list.

  list[0,list.length-1].each{|i|
    puts "Looping:"+i # if not last loop iteration
  }
  puts "Last one:" + list[list.length-1]

In Ruby I'd use each_with_index in this situation

list = ['A','B','C']
last = list.length-1
list.each_with_index{|i,index|
  if index == last 
    puts "Last one: "+i 
  else 
    puts "Looping: "+i # if not last loop iteration
  end
}

You can define an eachwithlast method in your class to do the same as each on all elements but the last, but something else for the last:

class MyColl
  def eachwithlast
    for i in 0...(size-1)
      yield(self[i], false)
    end
    yield(self[size-1], true)
  end
end

Then you could call it like this (foo being an instance of MyColl or a subclass thereof):

foo.eachwithlast do |value, last|
  if last
    puts "Last one: "+value
  else
    puts "Looping: "+value
  end
end

Edit: Following molf's suggestion:

class MyColl
  def eachwithlast (defaultAction, lastAction)
    for i in 0...(size-1)
      defaultAction.call(self[i])
    end
    lastAction.call(self[size-1])
  end
end

foo.eachwithlast(
    lambda { |x| puts "looping "+x },
    lambda { |x| puts "last "+x } )

C# 3.0 or newer

Firstly, I would write an extension method:

public static void ForEachEx<T>(this IEnumerable<T> s, Action<T, bool> act)
{
    IEnumerator<T> curr = s.GetEnumerator();

    if (curr.MoveNext())
    {
        bool last;

        while (true)
        {
            T item = curr.Current;
            last = !curr.MoveNext();
            
            act(item, last);
            
            if (last)
                break;
        }
    }
}

Then using the new foreach is very simple:

int[] lData = new int[] { 1, 2, 3, 5, -1};

void Run()
{
    lData.ForEachEx((el, last) =>
    {
        if (last)
            Console.Write("last one: ");
        Console.WriteLine(el);
    });
}

You should use foreach only if you handle each one same. Use index based interation instead. Else you must add a different structure around the items, which you can use to differentiate the normal from last one in the foreach call (look at good Papers about the map reduced from google for the background: http://labs.google.com/papers/mapreduce.html, map == foreach, reduced == e.g. sum or filter).

Map has no knowledge about the structure (esp. which position a item is), it only transforms one item by item (no knowledge from one item can be used to transform an other!), but reduce can use a memory to for example count the position and handle the last item.

A common trick is to reverse the list and handle the first (which has now a known index = 0), and later apply reverse again. (Which is elegant but not fast ;) )

Foreach is elegant in that it has no concern for the number of items in a list and treats each element equally, I think your only solution will be using a for loop that either stops at itemcount-1 and then you present your last item outside of the loop or a conditional within the loop that handles that specific condition, i.e. if (i==itemcount) { ... } else { ... }

You could do something like that (C#) :

string previous = null;
foreach(string item in list)
{
    if (previous != null)
        Console.WriteLine("Looping : {0}", previous);
    previous = item;
}
if (previous != null)
    Console.WriteLine("Last one : {0}", previous);

Ruby also has each_index method:

list = ['A','B','C']
list.each_index{|i|
  if i < list.size - 1
    puts "Looping:"+list[i]
  else
    puts "Last one:"+list[i]
}

EDIT:

Or using each (corrected TomatoGG and Kirschstein solution):

list = ['A', 'B', 'C', 'A']
list.each { |i|
   if (i.object_id != list.last.object_id)
      puts "Looping:#{i}"
   else
      puts "Last one:#{i}"
   end
}

Looping:A
Looping:B
Looping:C
Last one:A

Or

list = ['A', 'B', 'C', 'A']
list.each {|i| 
  i.object_id != list.last.object_id ? puts "Looping:#{i}" : puts "Last one:#{i}"       
}

If you're using a collection that exposes a Count property - an assumption made by many of the other answers, so I'll make it too - then you can do something like this using C# and LINQ:

foreach (var item in list.Select((x, i) => new { Val = x, Pos = i }))
{
    Console.Write(item.Pos == (list.Count - 1) ? "Last one: " : "Looping: ");
    Console.WriteLine(item.Val);
}

If we additionally assume that the items in the collection can be accessed directly by index - the currently accepted answer assumes this - then a plain for loop will be more elegant/readable than a foreach:

for (int i = 0; i < list.Count; i++)
{
    Console.Write(i == (list.Count - 1) ? "Last one: " : "Looping: ");
    Console.WriteLine(list[i]);
}

If the collection doesn't expose a Count property and can't be accessed by index then there isn't really any elegant way to do this, at least not in C#. A bug-fixed variation of Thomas Levesque's answer is probably as close as you'll get.

---

Here's the bug-fixed version of Thomas's answer:

string previous = null;
bool isFirst = true;
foreach (var item in list)
{
    if (!isFirst)
    {
        Console.WriteLine("Looping: " + previous);
    }
    previous = item;
    isFirst = false;
}
if (!isFirst)
{
    Console.WriteLine("Last one: " + previous);
}

And here's how I would do it in C# if the collection doesn't expose a Count property and the items aren't directly accessible by index. (Notice that there's no foreach and the code isn't particularly succinct, but it will give decent performance over pretty much any enumerable collection.)

// i'm assuming the non-generic IEnumerable in this code
// wrap the enumerator in a "using" block if dealing with IEnumerable<T>
var e = list.GetEnumerator();
if (e.MoveNext())
{
    var item = e.Current;

    while (e.MoveNext())
    {
        Console.WriteLine("Looping: " + item);
        item = e.Current;
    }
    Console.WriteLine("Last one: " + item);
}

What you are trying to do seems just a little too advanced for the foreach-loop. However, you can use Iterators explicitly. For example, in Java, I would write this:

Collection<String> ss = Arrays.asList("A","B","C");
Iterator<String> it = ss.iterator();
while (it.hasNext()) {
    String s = it.next();
    if(it.hasNext())
        System.out.println("Looping: " + s);
    else 
        System.out.println("Last one: " + s);
}

At least in C# that's not possible without a regular for loop.

The enumerator of the collection decides whether a next elements exists (MoveNext method), the loop doesn't know about this.

I think I prefer kgiannakakis's solution, however you could always do something like this;

list = ['A','B','C']
list.each { |i|
   if (i != list.last)
      puts "Looping:#{i}"
   else
      puts "Last one:#{i}"
   end
}

I notice a number of suggestions assume that you can find the last item in the list before beginning the loop, and then compare every item to this item. If you can do this efficiently, then the underlying data structure is likely a simple array. If that's the case, why bother with the foreach at all? Just write:

for (int x=0;x<list.size()-1;++x)
{
  System.out.println("Looping: "+list.get(x));
}
System.out.println("Last one: "+list.get(list.size()-1));

If you cannot retrieve an item from an arbitrary position efficiently -- like it the underlying structure is a linked list -- then getting the last item probably involved a sequential search of the entire list. Depending on the size of the list, that may be a performance issue. If this is a frequently-executed function, you might want to consider using an array or ArrayList or comparable structure so you can do it this way.

Sounds to me like you're asking, "What's the best way to put a screw in using a hammer?", when of course the better question to ask is, "What's the correct tool to use to put in a screw?"

Would it be a viable solution for your case to just take the first/last elements out of your array before doing the "general" each run?

Like this:

list = ['A','B','C','D']
first = list.shift
last = list.pop

puts "First one: #{first}"
list.each{|i|
  puts "Looping: "+i
}
puts "Last one: #{last}"

This problem can be solved in an elegant way using pattern matching in a functional programming language such as F#:

let rec printList (ls:string list) = 
    match ls with
        | [last] -> "Last " + last
        | head::rest -> "Looping " + head + "\n" + printList (rest)
        | [] -> ""

I don't know how for-each loops works in other languages but java. In java for-each uses the Iterable interface that is used by the for-each to get an Iterator and loop with it. Iterator has a method hasNext that you could use if you could see the iterator within the loop. You can actually do the trick by enclosing an already obtained Iterator in an Iterable object so the for loop got what it needs and you can get a hasNext method inside the loop.

List<X> list = ...

final Iterator<X> it = list.iterator();
Iterable<X> itw = new Iterable<X>(){
  public Iterator<X> iterator () {
    return it;
  }
}

for (X x: itw) {
  doSomething(x);
  if (!it.hasNext()) {
    doSomethingElse(x);
  }
}

You can create a class that wraps all this iterable and iterator stuff so the code looks like this:

IterableIterator<X> itt = new IterableIterator<X>(list);
for (X x: itit) {
  doSomething(x);
  if (!itit.hasNext()) {
    doSomethingElse(x);
  }
}

Similar to kgiannakakis's answer:

list.first(list.size - 1).each { |i| puts "Looping: " + i }
puts "Last one: " + list.last

How about this one? just learnt a little Ruby. hehehe

list.collect {|x|(x!=list.last ? "Looping:"+x:"Lastone:"+x) }.each{|i|puts i}      

        

Remove the last one from the list and retain its avlue.

Spec spec = specs.Find(s=>s.Value == 'C');
  if (spec != null)
  {
    specs.Remove(spec);
  }
foreach(Spec spec in specs)
{

}

Another pattern that works, without having to rewrite the foreach loop:

var delayed = null;
foreach (var X in collection)
{
    if (delayed != null)
    {
        puts("Looping");
        // Use delayed
    }
    delayed = X;
}

puts("Last one");
// Use delayed

This way the compiler keeps the loop straight, iterators (including those without counts) work as expected, and the last one is separated out from the others.

I also use this pattern when I want something to happen in between iterations, but not after the last one. In that case, X is used normally, delayed refers to something else, and the usage of delayed is only at the loop beginning and nothing needs to be done after the loop ends.

Use join whenever possible.

Most often the delimiter is the same between all elements, just join them together with the corresponding function in your language.

Ruby example,

puts array.join(", ")

This should cover 99% of all cases, and if not split the array into head and tail.

Ruby example,

*head, tail = array
head.each { |each| put "looping: " << each }
puts "last element: " << tail 

<hello> what are we thinking here?

public static void main(String[] args) {
	// TODO Auto-generated method stub
	String str = readIndex();
	String comp[] = str.split("}");
	
	StringBuffer sb = new StringBuffer();
	for (String s : comp) {
		sb.append(s);
		sb.append("}\n");
	}
	System.out.println (sb.toString());
}

As a modeling notation, the influence of the OMT notation dominates (e. g., using rectangles for classes and objects). Though the Booch "cloud" notation was dropped, the Booch capability to specify lower-level design detail was embraced. The use case notation from Objectory and the component notation from Booch were integrated with the rest of the notation, but the semantic integration was relatively weak in UML 1.1, and was not really fixed until the UML 2.0 major revision.