Selecting, Grouping on child list -> Single statement requested

This gets you a list of objects, each containing one item and a distinct list of customers who bought it:

var items =
   customers
   .SelectMany(c => c.Orders.SelectMany(
      o => o.Items.Select(i => new { item = i, customer = c })
   ))
   .GroupBy(o => o.item.ItemCode)
   .Select(g => new {
      item = g.First().item,
      customers = g.Select(o => o.customer).Distinct()
   });

Test data:

Customer[] customers = {
   new Customer("John Doe", new Order("A", "B")),
   new Customer("Jane Doe", new Order("B", "C", "D"), new Order("B", "D")),
   new Customer("Ford Prefect", new Order("D"), new Order("A", "E"))
};

Result:

A: John Doe, Ford Prefect
B: John Doe, Jane Doe
C: Jane Doe
D: Jane Doe, Ford Prefect
E: Ford Prefect

source : http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1310940/selecting-grouping-on-child-list-single-statement-requested

LINQ: dot notation equivalent for JOIN

Consider this LINQ expression written using query notation:

List<Person> pr = (from p in db.Persons
                     join e in db.PersonExceptions
                     on p.ID equals e.PersonID
                     where e.CreatedOn >= fromDate
                     orderby e.CreatedOn descending
                     select p)
                   .ToList();

Question: how would you write this LINQ expression using dot notation?

List<Person> pr = db.Persons
                    .Join(db.PersonExceptions,
                          p => p.ID,
                          e => e.PersonID,
                          (p, e) => new { p, e })
                    .Where(z => z.e.CreatedOn >= fromDate)
                    .OrderByDescending(z => z.e.CreatedOn)
                    .Select(z => z.p)
                    .ToList();

Note how a new anonymous type is introduced to carry both the p and e bits 
forward. In the specification, query operators which do this use transparent
identifiers to indicate the behaviour.

source: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1511833/linq-dot-notation-equivalent-for-join