List.RemoveAll() efficiency / compiler optimisation





.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ height:90px;width:728px;box-sizing:border-box;
}







20















Regarding efficiency, does anyone know if the compiler is clever enough to not create the array containing 1, 3, 5 for each iteration of the loop in the following code?



var foo = new List<int> { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 };

foo.RemoveAll(i => new { 1, 3, 5 }.Contains(i));


I prefer it for readability, but not at the sake of performance.






c# arrays list linq compiler-optimization







share|improve this question




















  • 24





    try for your self sharplab.io

    – Michael Randall
    20 hours ago






  • 1





    @MichaelRandall Great site. You should write an answer for this with an short example. This is interesseting for everybody, i think.

    – kara
    20 hours ago






  • 1





    I'm really surprised but it looks like it does actually create a new instance of the 3 item array for each iteration inside the method internal bool <M>b__0_0(int i).

    – maxp
    20 hours ago




















20















Regarding efficiency, does anyone know if the compiler is clever enough to not create the array containing 1, 3, 5 for each iteration of the loop in the following code?



var foo = new List<int> { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 };

foo.RemoveAll(i => new { 1, 3, 5 }.Contains(i));


I prefer it for readability, but not at the sake of performance.






c# arrays list linq compiler-optimization







share|improve this question




















  • 24





    try for your self sharplab.io

    – Michael Randall
    20 hours ago






  • 1





    @MichaelRandall Great site. You should write an answer for this with an short example. This is interesseting for everybody, i think.

    – kara
    20 hours ago






  • 1





    I'm really surprised but it looks like it does actually create a new instance of the 3 item array for each iteration inside the method internal bool <M>b__0_0(int i).

    – maxp
    20 hours ago
















20












20








20


6






Regarding efficiency, does anyone know if the compiler is clever enough to not create the array containing 1, 3, 5 for each iteration of the loop in the following code?



var foo = new List<int> { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 };

foo.RemoveAll(i => new { 1, 3, 5 }.Contains(i));


I prefer it for readability, but not at the sake of performance.






c# arrays list linq compiler-optimization







share|improve this question
















Regarding efficiency, does anyone know if the compiler is clever enough to not create the array containing 1, 3, 5 for each iteration of the loop in the following code?



var foo = new List<int> { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 };

foo.RemoveAll(i => new { 1, 3, 5 }.Contains(i));


I prefer it for readability, but not at the sake of performance.






c# arrays list linq compiler-optimization




c# arrays list linq compiler-optimization






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 7 hours ago









Michael Randall

37.1k84171




37.1k84171










asked 20 hours ago









maxpmaxp

9,91735105175




9,91735105175








  • 24





    try for your self sharplab.io

    – Michael Randall
    20 hours ago






  • 1





    @MichaelRandall Great site. You should write an answer for this with an short example. This is interesseting for everybody, i think.

    – kara
    20 hours ago






  • 1





    I'm really surprised but it looks like it does actually create a new instance of the 3 item array for each iteration inside the method internal bool <M>b__0_0(int i).

    – maxp
    20 hours ago
















  • 24





    try for your self sharplab.io

    – Michael Randall
    20 hours ago






  • 1





    @MichaelRandall Great site. You should write an answer for this with an short example. This is interesseting for everybody, i think.

    – kara
    20 hours ago






  • 1





    I'm really surprised but it looks like it does actually create a new instance of the 3 item array for each iteration inside the method internal bool <M>b__0_0(int i).

    – maxp
    20 hours ago










24




24





try for your self sharplab.io

– Michael Randall
20 hours ago





try for your self sharplab.io

– Michael Randall
20 hours ago




1




1





@MichaelRandall Great site. You should write an answer for this with an short example. This is interesseting for everybody, i think.

– kara
20 hours ago





@MichaelRandall Great site. You should write an answer for this with an short example. This is interesseting for everybody, i think.

– kara
20 hours ago




1




1





I'm really surprised but it looks like it does actually create a new instance of the 3 item array for each iteration inside the method internal bool <M>b__0_0(int i).

– maxp
20 hours ago







I'm really surprised but it looks like it does actually create a new instance of the 3 item array for each iteration inside the method internal bool <M>b__0_0(int i).

– maxp
20 hours ago














3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















13














The answer is no it doesn't optimize out the allocation of the array



Basically, every time the predicate is called, it checks against the compiler generated class and initializes a new array to call the Contains (as you can see here)



private sealed class <>c

{

    public static readonly <>c <>9 = new <>c();



    public static Predicate<int> <>9__0_0;



    internal bool <M>b__0_0(int i)

    {

        // bam!

        int obj = new int[3];

        RuntimeHelpers.InitializeArray(obj, (RuntimeFieldHandle)/*OpCode not supported: LdMemberToken*/);

        return Enumerable.Contains(obj, i);

    }

}





share|improve this answer

































    4














    As @Michael Randall already wrote, it looks like it is not possible.



    I agree, that your questioned code is nicely readable, having the list in the RemoveAll method. But to have the instance only once, I have three ideas of doing it:



    int a = null;
    
foo.RemoveAll(i => (a ?? (a = new { 1, 3, 5 })).Contains(i));


    This is actually yours, with little un-beatuness of needing an external variable.



     foo = foo.Except(new { 1, 3, 5 }).ToList();


    That's actually pretty nice solution using Linq.



     new List<int>{1, 3, 5}.ForEach(x => foo.Remove(x));
    

    

    
 new {1, 3, 5}.Iterate(x => foo.Remove(x));


    This is something I'd do. In neary all of my code I have my Extension method "Iterate" to avoid the need of foreach. And also, i dont want to "toList" everything all the time to make a .ForEach(..)



    static class Extensions
    
{
    
    public static void Iterate<TSource>(this IEnumerable<TSource> source, Action<TSource> action)
    
    {
    
        foreach (var item in source)
    
        {
    
            action.Invoke(item);
    
        }
    
    }
    
}





    share|improve this answer



















    • 5





      Beware, RemoveAll performs vastly better that multiple calls to Remove.

      – Theodor Zoulias
      19 hours ago



















    0














    Since the compiler is not that smart, we must outsmart him.



    var foo = new List<int> { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 };
    
var bar = new HashSet<int>() { 1, 3, 5 };
    
foo.RemoveAll(i => bar.Contains(i));





    share|improve this answer



















    • 1





      A hash set of 3 entries will surely not perform better, it would arguably (I have not measured) perform worse.

      – Sefe
      17 hours ago






    • 3





      @Sefe While there is probably a difference between the hash set and the array, I think the point of this answer was to create bar outside of the anonymous function so that's it's created only once and to avoid the creation overhead.

      – Joshua Taylor
      16 hours ago






    • 2





      @Sefe what you say is true, but I think that the OP provided a trivial example just to illustrate a point. In a real world scenario the lists will be probably longer than that.

      – Theodor Zoulias
      12 hours ago














    Your Answer






    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
    StackExchange.snippets.init();
    });
    });
    }, "code-snippets");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "1"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f55531327%2flistt-removeall-efficiency-compiler-optimisation%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes








    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    13














    The answer is no it doesn't optimize out the allocation of the array



    Basically, every time the predicate is called, it checks against the compiler generated class and initializes a new array to call the Contains (as you can see here)



    private sealed class <>c
    
{
    
    public static readonly <>c <>9 = new <>c();
    

    
    public static Predicate<int> <>9__0_0;
    

    
    internal bool <M>b__0_0(int i)
    
    {
    
        // bam!
    
        int obj = new int[3];
    
        RuntimeHelpers.InitializeArray(obj, (RuntimeFieldHandle)/*OpCode not supported: LdMemberToken*/);
    
        return Enumerable.Contains(obj, i);
    
    }
    
}





    share|improve this answer






























      13














      The answer is no it doesn't optimize out the allocation of the array



      Basically, every time the predicate is called, it checks against the compiler generated class and initializes a new array to call the Contains (as you can see here)



      private sealed class <>c
      
{
      
    public static readonly <>c <>9 = new <>c();
      

      
    public static Predicate<int> <>9__0_0;
      

      
    internal bool <M>b__0_0(int i)
      
    {
      
        // bam!
      
        int obj = new int[3];
      
        RuntimeHelpers.InitializeArray(obj, (RuntimeFieldHandle)/*OpCode not supported: LdMemberToken*/);
      
        return Enumerable.Contains(obj, i);
      
    }
      
}





      share|improve this answer




























        13












        13








        13







        The answer is no it doesn't optimize out the allocation of the array



        Basically, every time the predicate is called, it checks against the compiler generated class and initializes a new array to call the Contains (as you can see here)



        private sealed class <>c
        
{
        
    public static readonly <>c <>9 = new <>c();
        

        
    public static Predicate<int> <>9__0_0;
        

        
    internal bool <M>b__0_0(int i)
        
    {
        
        // bam!
        
        int obj = new int[3];
        
        RuntimeHelpers.InitializeArray(obj, (RuntimeFieldHandle)/*OpCode not supported: LdMemberToken*/);
        
        return Enumerable.Contains(obj, i);
        
    }
        
}





        share|improve this answer















        The answer is no it doesn't optimize out the allocation of the array



        Basically, every time the predicate is called, it checks against the compiler generated class and initializes a new array to call the Contains (as you can see here)



        private sealed class <>c
        
{
        
    public static readonly <>c <>9 = new <>c();
        

        
    public static Predicate<int> <>9__0_0;
        

        
    internal bool <M>b__0_0(int i)
        
    {
        
        // bam!
        
        int obj = new int[3];
        
        RuntimeHelpers.InitializeArray(obj, (RuntimeFieldHandle)/*OpCode not supported: LdMemberToken*/);
        
        return Enumerable.Contains(obj, i);
        
    }
        
}






        share|improve this answer














        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer








        edited 20 hours ago









        kara

        2,15731126




        2,15731126










        answered 20 hours ago









        Michael RandallMichael Randall

        37.1k84171




        37.1k84171

























            4














            As @Michael Randall already wrote, it looks like it is not possible.



            I agree, that your questioned code is nicely readable, having the list in the RemoveAll method. But to have the instance only once, I have three ideas of doing it:



            int a = null;
            
foo.RemoveAll(i => (a ?? (a = new { 1, 3, 5 })).Contains(i));


            This is actually yours, with little un-beatuness of needing an external variable.



             foo = foo.Except(new { 1, 3, 5 }).ToList();


            That's actually pretty nice solution using Linq.



             new List<int>{1, 3, 5}.ForEach(x => foo.Remove(x));
            

            

            
 new {1, 3, 5}.Iterate(x => foo.Remove(x));


            This is something I'd do. In neary all of my code I have my Extension method "Iterate" to avoid the need of foreach. And also, i dont want to "toList" everything all the time to make a .ForEach(..)



            static class Extensions
            
{
            
    public static void Iterate<TSource>(this IEnumerable<TSource> source, Action<TSource> action)
            
    {
            
        foreach (var item in source)
            
        {
            
            action.Invoke(item);
            
        }
            
    }
            
}





            share|improve this answer



















            • 5





              Beware, RemoveAll performs vastly better that multiple calls to Remove.

              – Theodor Zoulias
              19 hours ago
















            4














            As @Michael Randall already wrote, it looks like it is not possible.



            I agree, that your questioned code is nicely readable, having the list in the RemoveAll method. But to have the instance only once, I have three ideas of doing it:



            int a = null;
            
foo.RemoveAll(i => (a ?? (a = new { 1, 3, 5 })).Contains(i));


            This is actually yours, with little un-beatuness of needing an external variable.



             foo = foo.Except(new { 1, 3, 5 }).ToList();


            That's actually pretty nice solution using Linq.



             new List<int>{1, 3, 5}.ForEach(x => foo.Remove(x));
            

            

            
 new {1, 3, 5}.Iterate(x => foo.Remove(x));


            This is something I'd do. In neary all of my code I have my Extension method "Iterate" to avoid the need of foreach. And also, i dont want to "toList" everything all the time to make a .ForEach(..)



            static class Extensions
            
{
            
    public static void Iterate<TSource>(this IEnumerable<TSource> source, Action<TSource> action)
            
    {
            
        foreach (var item in source)
            
        {
            
            action.Invoke(item);
            
        }
            
    }
            
}





            share|improve this answer



















            • 5





              Beware, RemoveAll performs vastly better that multiple calls to Remove.

              – Theodor Zoulias
              19 hours ago














            4












            4








            4







            As @Michael Randall already wrote, it looks like it is not possible.



            I agree, that your questioned code is nicely readable, having the list in the RemoveAll method. But to have the instance only once, I have three ideas of doing it:



            int a = null;
            
foo.RemoveAll(i => (a ?? (a = new { 1, 3, 5 })).Contains(i));


            This is actually yours, with little un-beatuness of needing an external variable.



             foo = foo.Except(new { 1, 3, 5 }).ToList();


            That's actually pretty nice solution using Linq.



             new List<int>{1, 3, 5}.ForEach(x => foo.Remove(x));
            

            

            
 new {1, 3, 5}.Iterate(x => foo.Remove(x));


            This is something I'd do. In neary all of my code I have my Extension method "Iterate" to avoid the need of foreach. And also, i dont want to "toList" everything all the time to make a .ForEach(..)



            static class Extensions
            
{
            
    public static void Iterate<TSource>(this IEnumerable<TSource> source, Action<TSource> action)
            
    {
            
        foreach (var item in source)
            
        {
            
            action.Invoke(item);
            
        }
            
    }
            
}





            share|improve this answer













            As @Michael Randall already wrote, it looks like it is not possible.



            I agree, that your questioned code is nicely readable, having the list in the RemoveAll method. But to have the instance only once, I have three ideas of doing it:



            int a = null;
            
foo.RemoveAll(i => (a ?? (a = new { 1, 3, 5 })).Contains(i));


            This is actually yours, with little un-beatuness of needing an external variable.



             foo = foo.Except(new { 1, 3, 5 }).ToList();


            That's actually pretty nice solution using Linq.



             new List<int>{1, 3, 5}.ForEach(x => foo.Remove(x));
            

            

            
 new {1, 3, 5}.Iterate(x => foo.Remove(x));


            This is something I'd do. In neary all of my code I have my Extension method "Iterate" to avoid the need of foreach. And also, i dont want to "toList" everything all the time to make a .ForEach(..)



            static class Extensions
            
{
            
    public static void Iterate<TSource>(this IEnumerable<TSource> source, Action<TSource> action)
            
    {
            
        foreach (var item in source)
            
        {
            
            action.Invoke(item);
            
        }
            
    }
            
}






            share|improve this answer












            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer










            answered 20 hours ago









            MaliorMalior

            798311




            798311








            • 5





              Beware, RemoveAll performs vastly better that multiple calls to Remove.

              – Theodor Zoulias
              19 hours ago














            • 5





              Beware, RemoveAll performs vastly better that multiple calls to Remove.

              – Theodor Zoulias
              19 hours ago








            5




            5





            Beware, RemoveAll performs vastly better that multiple calls to Remove.

            – Theodor Zoulias
            19 hours ago





            Beware, RemoveAll performs vastly better that multiple calls to Remove.

            – Theodor Zoulias
            19 hours ago











            0














            Since the compiler is not that smart, we must outsmart him.



            var foo = new List<int> { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 };
            
var bar = new HashSet<int>() { 1, 3, 5 };
            
foo.RemoveAll(i => bar.Contains(i));





            share|improve this answer



















            • 1





              A hash set of 3 entries will surely not perform better, it would arguably (I have not measured) perform worse.

              – Sefe
              17 hours ago






            • 3





              @Sefe While there is probably a difference between the hash set and the array, I think the point of this answer was to create bar outside of the anonymous function so that's it's created only once and to avoid the creation overhead.

              – Joshua Taylor
              16 hours ago






            • 2





              @Sefe what you say is true, but I think that the OP provided a trivial example just to illustrate a point. In a real world scenario the lists will be probably longer than that.

              – Theodor Zoulias
              12 hours ago


















            0














            Since the compiler is not that smart, we must outsmart him.



            var foo = new List<int> { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 };
            
var bar = new HashSet<int>() { 1, 3, 5 };
            
foo.RemoveAll(i => bar.Contains(i));





            share|improve this answer



















            • 1





              A hash set of 3 entries will surely not perform better, it would arguably (I have not measured) perform worse.

              – Sefe
              17 hours ago






            • 3





              @Sefe While there is probably a difference between the hash set and the array, I think the point of this answer was to create bar outside of the anonymous function so that's it's created only once and to avoid the creation overhead.

              – Joshua Taylor
              16 hours ago






            • 2





              @Sefe what you say is true, but I think that the OP provided a trivial example just to illustrate a point. In a real world scenario the lists will be probably longer than that.

              – Theodor Zoulias
              12 hours ago
















            0












            0








            0







            Since the compiler is not that smart, we must outsmart him.



            var foo = new List<int> { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 };
            
var bar = new HashSet<int>() { 1, 3, 5 };
            
foo.RemoveAll(i => bar.Contains(i));





            share|improve this answer













            Since the compiler is not that smart, we must outsmart him.



            var foo = new List<int> { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 };
            
var bar = new HashSet<int>() { 1, 3, 5 };
            
foo.RemoveAll(i => bar.Contains(i));






            share|improve this answer












            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer










            answered 19 hours ago









            Theodor ZouliasTheodor Zoulias

            1617




            1617








            • 1





              A hash set of 3 entries will surely not perform better, it would arguably (I have not measured) perform worse.

              – Sefe
              17 hours ago






            • 3





              @Sefe While there is probably a difference between the hash set and the array, I think the point of this answer was to create bar outside of the anonymous function so that's it's created only once and to avoid the creation overhead.

              – Joshua Taylor
              16 hours ago






            • 2





              @Sefe what you say is true, but I think that the OP provided a trivial example just to illustrate a point. In a real world scenario the lists will be probably longer than that.

              – Theodor Zoulias
              12 hours ago
















            • 1





              A hash set of 3 entries will surely not perform better, it would arguably (I have not measured) perform worse.

              – Sefe
              17 hours ago






            • 3





              @Sefe While there is probably a difference between the hash set and the array, I think the point of this answer was to create bar outside of the anonymous function so that's it's created only once and to avoid the creation overhead.

              – Joshua Taylor
              16 hours ago






            • 2





              @Sefe what you say is true, but I think that the OP provided a trivial example just to illustrate a point. In a real world scenario the lists will be probably longer than that.

              – Theodor Zoulias
              12 hours ago










            1




            1





            A hash set of 3 entries will surely not perform better, it would arguably (I have not measured) perform worse.

            – Sefe
            17 hours ago





            A hash set of 3 entries will surely not perform better, it would arguably (I have not measured) perform worse.

            – Sefe
            17 hours ago




            3




            3





            @Sefe While there is probably a difference between the hash set and the array, I think the point of this answer was to create bar outside of the anonymous function so that's it's created only once and to avoid the creation overhead.

            – Joshua Taylor
            16 hours ago





            @Sefe While there is probably a difference between the hash set and the array, I think the point of this answer was to create bar outside of the anonymous function so that's it's created only once and to avoid the creation overhead.

            – Joshua Taylor
            16 hours ago




            2




            2





            @Sefe what you say is true, but I think that the OP provided a trivial example just to illustrate a point. In a real world scenario the lists will be probably longer than that.

            – Theodor Zoulias
            12 hours ago







            @Sefe what you say is true, but I think that the OP provided a trivial example just to illustrate a point. In a real world scenario the lists will be probably longer than that.

            – Theodor Zoulias
            12 hours ago




















            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid …



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f55531327%2flistt-removeall-efficiency-compiler-optimisation%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            -

            Popular posts from this blog

            Statuo de Libereco

            Image
            Koordinatoj: 40°41′21″N 74°02′40″W   /   40.68917°N , 74.04444°U  / 40.68917; -74.04444  ( Statuo de Libereco ) Statuo de Libereco angle: Statue of Liberty statuo Statuo de Libereco de antaŭe Oficiala nomo: Liberty Enlightening the World Lando  Usono Ŝtato Novjorkio Regiono Novjorko Insulo Insulo de Libereco Situo Statuo de Libereco  - koordinatoj 40°41′21″N 74°02′40″W   /   40.68917°N , 74.04444°U  / 40.68917; -74.04444  ( Statuo de Libereco ) Alteco de statuo 46 m  - alteco kun soklo 93 m Pezo 205 000 kg (451 948 lb) Materialoj bronzo, ŝtalo Proponinto Gustave Eiffel  - skulptisto Frédéric Auguste Bartholdi  - proponinto de soklo Richard Morris Hunt  - kapo laŭ modelo de Isabella Eugenie Boyer Transdonita 4-an de julio 1886 Por publiko alirebla por publiko Horzono OT (UTC-5)  - somera tempo OT (UTC-4) Loko
            Read more

            Tanganjiko

            Image
            Lago Tanganjiko Situo centra Afriko Ĉefaj fontoj Kalambo, Lufuko, Malagarasi kaj Ruzizi Ĉefaj elfluoj Lukugo Setlejoj Bujumbura, Kalemie Datenoj Koordinatoj 6°  S , 30°  O -6.3827777777778 29.615 782 Koordinatoj: 6°  S , 30°  O DEC Supermara alteco 782 m Surfaca areo 32 893 km² f5 Maksimuma longo 673 km f6 Maksimuma larĝo 72 km f7 Akva volumeno 18.900 km³ dep1 f8 Maksimuma profundo 1470 m f10 Averaĝa profundo 570 m f11 v   •   d   •   r Mapo de la lago Tanganjiko estas lago en orienta Afriko, inter Burundo, Kongo Kinŝasa, Tanzanio kaj Zambio. Ĝi apartenas al la Granda Rifto kaj estas unu el la Afrikaj Grandaj Lagoj. Tanzanio (46%) kaj DRK (40%) havas la majoritaton de la lago. Ĝi havas longon de 673 km, areon de ĉ. 32.900 km² kaj maksimuman profundon taksatan je 1470 metroj; pro tiu ĉi granda profundo ankaŭ ĝia volumeno estas sufiĉe granda, 18.900 km³. Oni konsi
            Read more

            Liste der Baudenkmäler in Enneberg

            Image
            Die Liste der Baudenkmäler in Enneberg (ladinisch Mareo , italienisch Marebbe ) enthält die 36 als Baudenkmäler ausgewiesenen Objekte auf dem Gebiet der Gemeinde Enneberg in Südtirol. Basis ist das im Internet einsehbare offizielle Verzeichnis der Baudenkmäler in Südtirol. Dabei kann es sich beispielsweise um Sakralbauten, Wohnhäuser, Bauernhöfe und Adelsansitze handeln. Die Reihenfolge in dieser Liste orientiert sich an der Bezeichnung, alternativ ist sie auch nach der Adresse oder dem Datum der Unterschutzstellung sortierbar. Liste | Foto   Bezeichnung Standort Eintragung Beschreibung Metadaten ja Altes Gasthaus Janesch ID: 14567 46° 42′ 54″ N, 11° 52′ 42″ O 76882557800 0 8. Sep. 1986 (BLR-LAB 4974) Ländliches Wohnhaus/Bauernhof KG:  Welschellen Bauparzelle: 391 ja Asch (Prack) ID: 14540 46° 43′ 12″ N, 11° 54′ 35″ O 75496485300 20. Nov. 1950 (MD) Ansitz KG:  Enneberg Bauparzelle: 38 ja Biccia mit Stade
            Read more