I have IntegerRectangle class. I want it to have an internal_perimeter() method which returns all points of its perimeter and internal_perimeter(Action<Integer> processor) which applies processor to all points of its perimeter.
One of my classes has a variable IntegerRect canvas; and HashSet<IntegerPoint> forbidden_points It calls:
canvas.internal_perimeter((IntegerPoint p)=>{forbidden_points.Add(p); print("[f]" + forbidden_points.Contains(p).ToString());});
The result differs between different implementations of internal_perimeter()
This works:
public IEnumerable<IntegerPoint> internal_perimeter()
{
for(int i=0;i<width;++i)
{
yield return new IntegerPoint(x+i,y);
}
for(int i=1;i<height;++i)
{
yield return new IntegerPoint(x+width-1,y-i);
}
for(int i=width-2;i>=0;--i)
{
yield return new IntegerPoint(x+i,y-height+1);
}
for(int i=height-2;i>=0;--i)
{
yield return new IntegerPoint(x,y-i);
}
}
public void internal_perimeter(Action<IntegerPoint> processor)
{
foreach(IntegerPoint i in internal_perimeter())
processor(i);
}
This doesn't:
public IEnumerable<IntegerPoint> internal_perimeter(Action<IntegerPoint> processor=null)
{
if(processor==null)
{
for(int i=0;i<width;++i)
{
yield return new IntegerPoint(x+i,y);
}
for(int i=1;i<height;++i)
{
yield return new IntegerPoint(x+width-1,y-i);
}
for(int i=width-2;i>=0;--i)
{
yield return new IntegerPoint(x+i,y-height+1);
}
for(int i=height-2;i>=0;--i)
{
yield return new IntegerPoint(x,y-i);
}
}
else
foreach(IntegerPoint i in internal_perimeter())
processor(i);
}
I don't understand what is wrong with the second one
To add to #Lucas' answer, which answers why your code doesn't work, you should also consider refactoring your code:
internal_perimeter is a bad name for the method. If its purpose is to mutate internal points, then it should be named void Process(Action a) or something like that.
The second example is rather problematic because it returns nothing (an empty sequence) when you don't pass null for the action parameter. It would make more sense to use a Func<T, Tresult (like LINQ Select) and yield return all processed parameters. Also, the null branch is really uncommon (it is rarely recommended to pass a null delegate like this).
Next, the method really does too little. Why do you need a new method which has an existing LINQ alternative? I.e.:
var rect = new IntegerRectangle();
// this gets a list of points
var forbiddenPoints = rect.internal_perimeter().ToList();
// this filters them and projects them
// (i.e. "get all x coordinates larger then 10")
var xLargerThan10 = rect
.internal_perimeter()
.Where(p => p.X > 10)
.Select(p => p.X)
.ToList();
Even the original internal_perimeter overload might have a better name, e.g. simply GetPoints would be pretty indicative of what its purpose is:
foreach (var point in rect.GetPoints())
DoStuff(point);
Your second example is an iterator (ie it uses yield return). This kind of function is not executed until you enumerate it.
If you do: var x = internal_perimeter(i => {});
The variable x will hold an IEnumerable<IntegerPoint> of a class constructed by the compiler from your function. Your code is not executed yet at this point.
Now, try to consume it: foreach(var point in x) {}. This will execute your function. Actually in your particular case, it will all be executed on the first iteration, so calling x.FirstOrDefault(); will be enough. Indeed, calling MoveNext on the enumerator will execute the code up to the first yield return, and there are none in the else branch of your code.
Now, I'd go with your first example because of this. It is less error prone.
In C# I am trying to get an item from a list at a random index. When it has been retrieved I want it to be removed so that it can't be selected anymore. It seems as if I need a lot of operations to do this, isn't there a function where I can simply extract an item from the list? the RemoveAt(index) function is void. I would like one with a return value.
What I am doing:
List<int> numLst = new List<int>();
numLst.Add(1);
numLst.Add(2);
do
{
int index = rand.Next(numLst.Count);
int extracted = numLst[index];
// do something with extracted value...
numLst.removeAt(index);
}
while(numLst.Count > 0);
What I would like to do:
List<int> numLst = new List<int>();
numLst.Add(1);
numLst.Add(2);
do
{
int extracted = numLst.removeAndGetItem(rand.Next(numLst.Count));
// do something with this value...
}
while(numLst.Count > 0);
Does such a "removeAndGetItem" function exist?
No, as it's a breach of pure function etiquette, where a method either has a side effect, or returns a useful value (i.e. not just indicating an error state) - never both.
If you want the function to appear atomic, you can acquire a lock on the list, which will stop other threads from accessing the list while you are modifying it, provided they also use lock:
public static class Extensions
{
public static T RemoveAndGet<T>(this IList<T> list, int index)
{
lock(list)
{
T value = list[index];
list.RemoveAt(index);
return value;
}
}
}
public static class ListExtensions
{
public static T RemoveAndGetItem<T>(this IList<T> list, int iIndexToRemove}
{
var item = list[iIndexToRemove];
list.RemoveAt(iIndexToRemove);
return item;
}
}
These are called extension methods, call as new List<T>().RemoveAndGetItem(0).
Things to consider in the extension method
Exception handling with the index that you pass, check that the index is withing 0 and the count of the list before doing this.
IQueryable<SomeType> collection = GetCollection();
foreach (var c in collection)
{
//do some complex checking that can't be embedded in a query
//based on results from prev line we want to discard the 'c' object
}
//here I only want the results of collection - the discarded objects
So with that simple code what is the best way to get the results. Should I created a List just before the foreach and insert the objects I want to keep, or is there some other way that would be better to do this type of thing.
I know there are other posts on similar topics but I just don't feel I'm getting what I need out of them.
Edit I tried this
var collection = GetCollection().Where(s =>
{
if (s.property == 1)
{
int num= Number(s);
double avg = Avg(s.x);
if (num > avg)
return true;
else
return false;
}
else return false;
});
I tried this but was given "A lambda expression with a statement body cannot be converted to an expression tree" on compile. Did I not do something right?
//do some complex checking that can't be embedded in a query
I don't get it. You can pass a delegate which can point to a very complex function (Turing-complete) that checks whether you should discard it or not:
var result = GetCollection().AsEnumerable().Where(c => {
// ...
// process "c"
// return true if you want it in the collection
});
If you want, you can refactor it in another function:
var result = GetCollection.Where(FunctionThatChecksToDiscardOrNot);
If you wrap it into another method, you can use yield return and then iterate over the returned collection, like so:
public IEnumerable<SomeType> FindResults(IQueryable<SomeType> collection) {
foreach (var c in collection)
{
if (doComplicatedQuery(c)) {
yield return c;
}
}
}
// elsewhere
foreach (var goodItem in FindResults(GetCollection())) {
// do stuff.
}
I am using .NET 3.5. What method of the Array class is best for returning a empty index in an array (which can then be used for populating). The Single/SingleOrDefault() methods look good, but if there is more than one empty slot, I want the first with the lowest index.
EDIT: This is pretty easy with a loop, but I am looking at ways to do this in LINQ.
My current result in code is this:
var x = from s in BaseArray
where s == null
select s;
But not tested and not sure how it will behave (will get more than one result in an empty array).
Thanks
var result = list.Where(i => IsItemEmpty(i)).FirstOrDefault();
This simple linq statement will return the first "empty" item from the list. Of course, I've abstracted out how to decide if the item is empty as I don't know what your data structure looks like, but that should do it.
I've implemented this extension method. See if it's useful:
public static int? FirstEmptyIndex<T>(this IEnumerable<T> src)
{
using (IEnumerator<T> e = src.GetEnumerator())
{
int index = 0;
while (e.MoveNext())
{
if (e.Current == null)
return index;
else
index++;
}
}
return null;
}
What's the "best" (taking both speed and readability into account) way to determine if a list is empty? Even if the list is of type IEnumerable<T> and doesn't have a Count property.
Right now I'm tossing up between this:
if (myList.Count() == 0) { ... }
and this:
if (!myList.Any()) { ... }
My guess is that the second option is faster, since it'll come back with a result as soon as it sees the first item, whereas the second option (for an IEnumerable) will need to visit every item to return the count.
That being said, does the second option look as readable to you? Which would you prefer? Or can you think of a better way to test for an empty list?
Edit #lassevk's response seems to be the most logical, coupled with a bit of runtime checking to use a cached count if possible, like this:
public static bool IsEmpty<T>(this IEnumerable<T> list)
{
if (list is ICollection<T>) return ((ICollection<T>)list).Count == 0;
return !list.Any();
}
You could do this:
public static Boolean IsEmpty<T>(this IEnumerable<T> source)
{
if (source == null)
return true; // or throw an exception
return !source.Any();
}
Edit: Note that simply using the .Count method will be fast if the underlying source actually has a fast Count property. A valid optimization above would be to detect a few base types and simply use the .Count property of those, instead of the .Any() approach, but then fall back to .Any() if no guarantee can be made.
I would make one small addition to the code you seem to have settled on: check also for ICollection, as this is implemented even by some non-obsolete generic classes as well (i.e., Queue<T> and Stack<T>). I would also use as instead of is as it's more idiomatic and has been shown to be faster.
public static bool IsEmpty<T>(this IEnumerable<T> list)
{
if (list == null)
{
throw new ArgumentNullException("list");
}
var genericCollection = list as ICollection<T>;
if (genericCollection != null)
{
return genericCollection.Count == 0;
}
var nonGenericCollection = list as ICollection;
if (nonGenericCollection != null)
{
return nonGenericCollection.Count == 0;
}
return !list.Any();
}
LINQ itself must be doing some serious optimization around the Count() method somehow.
Does this surprise you? I imagine that for IList implementations, Count simply reads the number of elements directly while Any has to query the IEnumerable.GetEnumerator method, create an instance and call MoveNext at least once.
/EDIT #Matt:
I can only assume that the Count() extension method for IEnumerable is doing something like this:
Yes, of course it does. This is what I meant. Actually, it uses ICollection instead of IList but the result is the same.
I just wrote up a quick test, try this:
IEnumerable<Object> myList = new List<Object>();
Stopwatch watch = new Stopwatch();
int x;
watch.Start();
for (var i = 0; i <= 1000000; i++)
{
if (myList.Count() == 0) x = i;
}
watch.Stop();
Stopwatch watch2 = new Stopwatch();
watch2.Start();
for (var i = 0; i <= 1000000; i++)
{
if (!myList.Any()) x = i;
}
watch2.Stop();
Console.WriteLine("myList.Count() = " + watch.ElapsedMilliseconds.ToString());
Console.WriteLine("myList.Any() = " + watch2.ElapsedMilliseconds.ToString());
Console.ReadLine();
The second is almost three times slower :)
Trying the stopwatch test again with a Stack or array or other scenarios it really depends on the type of list it seems - because they prove Count to be slower.
So I guess it depends on the type of list you're using!
(Just to point out, I put 2000+ objects in the List and count was still faster, opposite with other types)
List.Count is O(1) according to Microsoft's documentation:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/27b47ht3.aspx
so just use List.Count == 0 it's much faster than a query
This is because it has a data member called Count which is updated any time something is added or removed from the list, so when you call List.Count it doesn't have to iterate through every element to get it, it just returns the data member.
The second option is much quicker if you have multiple items.
Any() returns as soon as 1 item is found.
Count() has to keep going through the entire list.
For instance suppose the enumeration had 1000 items.
Any() would check the first one, then return true.
Count() would return 1000 after traversing the entire enumeration.
This is potentially worse if you use one of the predicate overrides - Count() still has to check every single item, even it there is only one match.
You get used to using the Any one - it does make sense and is readable.
One caveat - if you have a List, rather than just an IEnumerable then use that list's Count property.
#Konrad what surprises me is that in my tests, I'm passing the list into a method that accepts IEnumerable<T>, so the runtime can't optimize it by calling the Count() extension method for IList<T>.
I can only assume that the Count() extension method for IEnumerable is doing something like this:
public static int Count<T>(this IEnumerable<T> list)
{
if (list is IList<T>) return ((IList<T>)list).Count;
int i = 0;
foreach (var t in list) i++;
return i;
}
... in other words, a bit of runtime optimization for the special case of IList<T>.
/EDIT #Konrad +1 mate - you're right about it more likely being on ICollection<T>.
Ok, so what about this one?
public static bool IsEmpty<T>(this IEnumerable<T> enumerable)
{
return !enumerable.GetEnumerator().MoveNext();
}
EDIT: I've just realized that someone has sketched this solution already. It was mentioned that the Any() method will do this, but why not do it yourself? Regards
Another idea:
if(enumerable.FirstOrDefault() != null)
However I like the Any() approach more.
This was critical to get this to work with Entity Framework:
var genericCollection = list as ICollection<T>;
if (genericCollection != null)
{
//your code
}
If I check with Count() Linq executes a "SELECT COUNT(*).." in the database, but I need to check if the results contains data, I resolved to introducing FirstOrDefault() instead of Count();
Before
var cfop = from tabelaCFOPs in ERPDAOManager.GetTable<TabelaCFOPs>()
if (cfop.Count() > 0)
{
var itemCfop = cfop.First();
//....
}
After
var cfop = from tabelaCFOPs in ERPDAOManager.GetTable<TabelaCFOPs>()
var itemCfop = cfop.FirstOrDefault();
if (itemCfop != null)
{
//....
}
private bool NullTest<T>(T[] list, string attribute)
{
bool status = false;
if (list != null)
{
int flag = 0;
var property = GetProperty(list.FirstOrDefault(), attribute);
foreach (T obj in list)
{
if (property.GetValue(obj, null) == null)
flag++;
}
status = flag == 0 ? true : false;
}
return status;
}
public PropertyInfo GetProperty<T>(T obj, string str)
{
Expression<Func<T, string, PropertyInfo>> GetProperty = (TypeObj, Column) => TypeObj.GetType().GetProperty(TypeObj
.GetType().GetProperties().ToList()
.Find(property => property.Name
.ToLower() == Column
.ToLower()).Name.ToString());
return GetProperty.Compile()(obj, str);
}
Here's my implementation of Dan Tao's answer, allowing for a predicate:
public static bool IsEmpty<TSource>(this IEnumerable<TSource> source, Func<TSource, bool> predicate)
{
if (source == null) throw new ArgumentNullException();
if (IsCollectionAndEmpty(source)) return true;
return !source.Any(predicate);
}
public static bool IsEmpty<TSource>(this IEnumerable<TSource> source)
{
if (source == null) throw new ArgumentNullException();
if (IsCollectionAndEmpty(source)) return true;
return !source.Any();
}
private static bool IsCollectionAndEmpty<TSource>(IEnumerable<TSource> source)
{
var genericCollection = source as ICollection<TSource>;
if (genericCollection != null) return genericCollection.Count == 0;
var nonGenericCollection = source as ICollection;
if (nonGenericCollection != null) return nonGenericCollection.Count == 0;
return false;
}
List<T> li = new List<T>();
(li.First().DefaultValue.HasValue) ? string.Format("{0:yyyy/MM/dd}", sender.First().DefaultValue.Value) : string.Empty;
myList.ToList().Count == 0. That's all
This extension method works for me:
public static bool IsEmpty<T>(this IEnumerable<T> enumerable)
{
try
{
enumerable.First();
return false;
}
catch (InvalidOperationException)
{
return true;
}
}