Related
I have a number of objects each with 3 numerical properties: "high", "low" and "tiebreaker". They are to be sorted as such: if an object's low is higher than another object's high, it appears before it in the list. Likewise if an object's high is lower than another's low, it appears later in the list. But in the case that two objects have conflicting ranges (eg one's high is between the other object's low and high), the tiebreaker property is considered wherein the object with the higher tiebreaker value gets placed earlier on the list.
I am specifically working with c#, but I think the ideas here are language agnostic enough such that code of any sort (no puns) would be welcome.
Also, I have worked on this myself. I have a nested for-loop that is just not working out for me so far. I'd give up some code but I'm on my phone and that makes it a chore. Besides, this is probably a fun one for you and you don't need my ugly code in your way anyhow.
Are you assuming that Min <= Tie <= Max? You do not say so in your question, and if you do not, the sort order is not well defined because it is not transitive. For instance, writing your ranges as [Min, Tie, Max], consider:
A: [5,-10, 6]
B: [0, 1, 10]
C: [2, 3, 4]
A < B (because they overlap and -10 < 1)
B < C (because they overlap and 1 < 3)
but A > C (because they don't overlap and 5 > 4)
If they are you can define a custom IComparer<Range> for your Range class, and pass it to any c# sort method.
Update and here's one such implementation.
public struct RangeWithTie<T> where T : IEquatable<T>, IComparable<T>
{
readonly T min;
readonly T max;
readonly T tie;
readonly bool isNonEmpty;
public static Range<T> Empty = new Range<T>();
public static IComparer<RangeWithTie<T>> CreateSortingComparer()
{
return new RangeWithTieComparer();
}
public RangeWithTie(T start, T tie, T end)
{
// Enfore start <= tie <= end
var comparer = Comparer<T>.Default;
if (comparer.Compare(start, end) > 0) // if start > end
{
throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException("start and end are reversed");
}
else if (comparer.Compare(start, tie) > 0)
{
throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException("tie is less than start");
}
else if (comparer.Compare(tie, end) > 0)
{
throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException("tie is bigger than end");
}
else
{
this.min = start;
this.max = end;
this.tie = tie;
}
this.isNonEmpty = true;
}
public T Min { get { return min; } }
public T Max { get { return max; } }
public T Tie { get { return tie; } }
public bool IsEmpty { get { return !isNonEmpty; } }
public class RangeWithTieComparer : IComparer<RangeWithTie<T>>
{
#region IComparer<RangeWithTie<T>> Members
public int Compare(RangeWithTie<T> x, RangeWithTie<T> y)
{
// return x - y.
if (x.IsEmpty)
{
if (y.IsEmpty)
return 0;
else
return -1;
}
else if (y.IsEmpty)
{
return 1;
}
var comparer = Comparer<T>.Default;
if (comparer.Compare(y.Min, x.Max) > 0)
return -1;
else if (comparer.Compare(x.Min, y.Max) > 0)
return 1;
return comparer.Compare(x.Tie, y.Tie);
}
#endregion
}
public override string ToString()
{
if (IsEmpty)
return "Empty";
StringBuilder s = new StringBuilder();
s.Append('[');
if (Min != null)
{
s.Append(Min.ToString());
}
s.Append(", ");
if (Tie != null)
{
s.Append(Tie.ToString());
}
s.Append(", ");
if (Max != null)
{
s.Append(Max.ToString());
}
s.Append(']');
return s.ToString();
}
}
This could be used like so:
var sortedRanges = ranges.OrderBy(x => x, RangeWithTie<double>.CreateSortingComparer()).ToArray();
I didn't make the struct implement IComparer<RangeWithTie<T>> directly because ranges with identical comparisons aren't necessarily equal. For instance, [-1,0,1] and [-2,0,1] have identical comparisons but are not equal.
A quick solution, and a console application to test it. This method will return the larger of two objects. Just replace dynamic with the appropriate object type you need.
class Program
{
private static object Sort(dynamic first, dynamic second)
{
if (OverlapExists(first, second))
{
// Note: If tiebreakers are equal, the first will be returned:
return first.tiebreaker >= second.tiebreaker ? first : second;
}
else
{
// Note: Only need to test one value (just high); Since we know
// there is no overlap, the whole object (both high and low) must
// be either over or under that which it is compared to:
return first.high > second.high ? first : second;
}
}
private static bool OverlapExists(dynamic first, dynamic second)
{
return (first.low < second.high) && (second.low < first.high);
}
static void Main(string[] args)
{
dynamic first = new {name="first", high = 10,
tiebreaker = 5, low = 1 };
dynamic second = new {name="second", high = 15,
tiebreaker = 12, low = 11 };
dynamic third = new {name="third", high = 20,
tiebreaker = 9, low = 6 };
var firstResult = Sort(first, second);
var secondResult = Sort(first, third);
var thirdResult = Sort(second, third);
Console.WriteLine("1) " + first.ToString()
+ "\nVS: " + second.ToString());
Console.WriteLine("Winner: " + firstResult.name);
Console.WriteLine("\n2) " + first.ToString()
+ "\nVS: " + third.ToString());
Console.WriteLine("Winner: " + secondResult.name);
Console.WriteLine("\n3) " + second.ToString()
+ "\nVS: " + third.ToString());
Console.WriteLine("Winner: " + thirdResult.name);
Console.ReadKey();
}
}
Let’s say you have a List<T> (T being your objects with High-, Low- and Tie- Property), then you can use
list.Sort(…);
with a Comparison<T> as a Parameter. That’s a delegate that takes 2 of you objects and should return < 0, when the first instance of your object should be a head of the other instance or 0 if they are of equal order (or > 0 if the second second object should be ahead of first).
Or you could pass an custom comparer (implementing IComparer<T>) which does basically the same as the Comparison<T> but inform of an interface.
No matter what your logic is, you may implement IComparable to enable an Array or List's sorting capability. So, as the follow code shows,
public class MyStuff : IComparable<MyStuff>
{
public int High { get; set; }
public int Low { get; set; }
public int TieBreaker { get; set; }
public int CompareTo(MyStuff other)
{
// if an object's low is higher than another object's high,
// it appears before it in the list
if ((this.Low > other.High) ||
// if its high is between the other object's low and
// high then compare their tiebreaker
(this.High > other.Low && this.High < other.High &&
this.TieBreaker > other.TieBreaker))
return 1;
else if (this.Low == other.High)
return 0;
else
return -1;
}
}
The basic idea is CompareTo returns either 1 (move this before other), 0 (retain both positions) or -1 (move this after other), depending on your ordering logic.
See IComparable<T>
class DataObject : IComparable<DataObject>
{
public double High, Low, Tiebreaker;
public int CompareTo(DataObject obj)
{
// this doesn't seem to make sense as a range sort, but seems to match your question...
// low > another high
if (this.Low != obj.High)
return this.Low.CompareTo(obj.High);
// otherwise sort tiebreaker ascending
else this.TieBreaker.CompareTo(obj.TieBreaker);
}
}
used as
var items = new[] { new DataObject(1,2,3), new DataObject(4,5,6) };
Array.Sort<DataObject>(items);
// items is now sorted
I am very new to C#. I have created a List object and then I am performing BinarySearch on a particular item. But the search results seem to strange. Here is the code :
class Element
{
public int x;
public Element(int val) { x = val; }
}
class MyContainer : IComparable<MyContainer>
{
public Element elem;
public MyContainer(int val) { elem = new Element(val); }
public MyContainer(Element e) { elem = e; }
public int CompareTo(MyContainer obj)
{
if (elem.x < obj.elem.x) { return -1; }
else if (elem.x == obj.elem.x) { return 0; }
else { return 1; }
}
}
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
MyContainer container1 = new MyContainer(100);
MyContainer container2 = new MyContainer(21);
MyContainer container3 = new MyContainer(-122);
Element elemObj = new Element(-122);
List<MyContainer> list = new List<MyContainer>();
list.Add(new MyContainer(80));
list.Add(container1);
list.Add(container2);
list.Add(container3);
list.Add(new MyContainer(90));
foreach(MyContainer c in list) Console.WriteLine(c.elem.x);
if (list.Contains(container3) == true) Console.WriteLine("present");
else Console.WriteLine("NOT present");
Console.WriteLine("Search result:::"+list.BinarySearch(new MyContainer(elemObj)));
Console.WriteLine("Search result:::" + list.BinarySearch(container1));
Console.WriteLine("Search result:::" + list.BinarySearch(container2));
Console.WriteLine("Search result:::" + list.BinarySearch(container3));
}
}
The output is as follows :
80
100
21
-122
90
present
Search result:::-1
Search result:::-6
Search result:::2
Search result:::-1
Why is only the element corresponding to value 21 found and why not the others
Your list isn't sorted to start with. Binary search only works when the original input is sorted. The whole point is that you know that if list[x] = y, then list[a] <= y for all a < x and list[a] >= y for all a > x.
So either you need to sort your list first, or you need to choose a different way of searching (e.g. using a separate hash-based dictionary, or just doing a linear search).
Also note that your CompareTo method can be implemented a lot more simply:
public int CompareTo(MyContainer obj)
{
return elem.x.CompareTo(obj.elem.x);
}
A BinarySearch only works on a sorted list. Since your list is not sorted in the way it should be, it may or may not find the result correctly. You could fix this by sorting first:
list.Add(new MyContainer(90));
// after adding all elements
list.Sort();
foreach(MyContainer c in list) Console.WriteLine(c.elem.x);
I have an array X of 10 elements. I would like to create a new array containing all the elements from X that begin at index 3 and ends in index 7. Sure I can easily write a loop that will do it for me but I would like to keep my code as clean as possible. Is there a method in C# that can do it for me?
Something like (pseudo code):
Array NewArray = oldArray.createNewArrayFromRange(int BeginIndex , int EndIndex)
Array.Copy doesn't fit my needs. I need the items in the new array to be clones. Array.copy is just a C-Style memcpy equivalent, it's not what I'm looking for.
You could add it as an extension method:
public static T[] SubArray<T>(this T[] data, int index, int length)
{
T[] result = new T[length];
Array.Copy(data, index, result, 0, length);
return result;
}
static void Main()
{
int[] data = { 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 };
int[] sub = data.SubArray(3, 4); // contains {3,4,5,6}
}
Update re cloning (which wasn't obvious in the original question). If you really want a deep clone; something like:
public static T[] SubArrayDeepClone<T>(this T[] data, int index, int length)
{
T[] arrCopy = new T[length];
Array.Copy(data, index, arrCopy, 0, length);
using (MemoryStream ms = new MemoryStream())
{
var bf = new BinaryFormatter();
bf.Serialize(ms, arrCopy);
ms.Position = 0;
return (T[])bf.Deserialize(ms);
}
}
This does require the objects to be serializable ([Serializable] or ISerializable), though. You could easily substitute for any other serializer as appropriate - XmlSerializer, DataContractSerializer, protobuf-net, etc.
Note that deep clone is tricky without serialization; in particular, ICloneable is hard to trust in most cases.
You can use Array.Copy(...) to copy into the new array after you've created it, but I don't think there's a method which creates the new array and copies a range of elements.
If you're using .NET 3.5 you could use LINQ:
var newArray = array.Skip(3).Take(5).ToArray();
but that will be somewhat less efficient.
See this answer to a similar question for options for more specific situations.
Have you considered using ArraySegment?
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/1hsbd92d.aspx
I see you want to do Cloning, not just copying references.
In this case you can use .Select to project array members to their clones.
For example, if your elements implemented IClonable you could do something like this:
var newArray = array.Skip(3).Take(5).Select(eachElement => eachElement.Clone()).ToArray();
Note: This solution requires .NET Framework 3.5.
The following code does it in one line:
// Source array
string[] Source = new string[] { "A", "B", "C", "D" };
// Extracting a slice into another array
string[] Slice = new List<string>(Source).GetRange(2, 2).ToArray();
In C# 8, they've introduced a new Range and Index type, which can be used like this:
int[] a = { 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 };
Index i1 = 3; // number 3 from beginning
Index i2 = ^4; // number 4 from end
var slice = a[i1..i2]; // { 3, 4, 5 }
References:
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/core/whats-new/dotnet-core-3-0#ranges-and-indices
https://devblogs.microsoft.com/dotnet/building-c-8-0/
string[] arr = { "Parrot" , "Snake" ,"Rabbit" , "Dog" , "cat" };
arr = arr.ToList().GetRange(0, arr.Length -1).ToArray();
Building on Marc's answer but adding the desired cloning behaviour
public static T[] CloneSubArray<T>(this T[] data, int index, int length)
where T : ICloneable
{
T[] result = new T[length];
for (int i = 0; i < length; i++)
{
var original = data[index + i];
if (original != null)
result[i] = (T)original.Clone();
return result;
}
And if implementing ICloneable is too much like hard work a reflective one using Håvard Stranden’s Copyable library to do the heavy lifting required.
using OX.Copyable;
public static T[] DeepCopySubArray<T>(
this T[] data, int index, int length)
{
T[] result = new T[length];
for (int i = 0; i < length; i++)
{
var original = data[index + i];
if (original != null)
result[i] = (T)original.Copy();
return result;
}
Note that the OX.Copyable implementation works with any of:
For the automated copy to work, though, one of the following statements must hold for instance:
Its type must have a parameterless constructor, or
It must be a Copyable, or
It must have an IInstanceProvider registered for its type.
So this should cover almost any situation you have. If you are cloning objects where the sub graph contains things like db connections or file/stream handles you obviously have issues but that it true for any generalized deep copy.
If you want to use some other deep copy approach instead this article lists several others so I would suggest not trying to write your own.
You can do this fairly easially;
object[] foo = new object[10];
object[] bar = new object[7];
Array.Copy(foo, 3, bar, 0, 7);
I think that the code you are looking for is:
Array.Copy(oldArray, 0, newArray, BeginIndex, EndIndex - BeginIndex)
As an alternative to copying the data you can make a wrapper that gives you access to a part of the original array as if it was a copy of the part of the array. The advantage is that you don't get another copy of the data in memory, and the drawback is a slight overhead when accessing the data.
public class SubArray<T> : IEnumerable<T> {
private T[] _original;
private int _start;
public SubArray(T[] original, int start, int len) {
_original = original;
_start = start;
Length = len;
}
public T this[int index] {
get {
if (index < 0 || index >= Length) throw new IndexOutOfRangeException();
return _original[_start + index];
}
}
public int Length { get; private set; }
public IEnumerator<T> GetEnumerator() {
for (int i = 0; i < Length; i++) {
yield return _original[_start + i];
}
}
IEnumerator IEnumerable.GetEnumerator() {
return GetEnumerator();
}
}
Usage:
int[] original = { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 };
SubArray<int> copy = new SubArray<int>(original, 2, 2);
Console.WriteLine(copy.Length); // shows: 2
Console.WriteLine(copy[0]); // shows: 3
foreach (int i in copy) Console.WriteLine(i); // shows 3 and 4
In C# 8.0, you can now do many fancier works including reverse indices and ranges like in Python, such as:
int[] list = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6};
var list2 = list[2..5].Clone() as int[]; // 3, 4, 5
var list3 = list[..5].Clone() as int[]; // 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
var list4 = list[^4..^0].Clone() as int[]; // reverse index
Array.ConstrainedCopy will work.
public static void ConstrainedCopy (
Array sourceArray,
int sourceIndex,
Array destinationArray,
int destinationIndex,
int length
)
It does not meet your cloning requirement, but it seems simpler than many answers to do:
Array NewArray = new ArraySegment(oldArray,BeginIndex , int Count).ToArray();
There's no single method that will do what you want. You will need to make a clone method available for the class in your array. Then, if LINQ is an option:
Foo[] newArray = oldArray.Skip(3).Take(5).Select(item => item.Clone()).ToArray();
class Foo
{
public Foo Clone()
{
return (Foo)MemberwiseClone();
}
}
How about useing Array.ConstrainedCopy:
int[] ArrayOne = new int[8] {1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8};
int[] ArrayTwo = new int[5];
Array.ConstrainedCopy(ArrayOne, 3, ArrayTwo, 0, 7-3);
Below is my original post. It will not work
You could use Array.CopyTo:
int[] ArrayOne = new int[8] {1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8};
int[] ArrayTwo = new int[5];
ArrayOne.CopyTo(ArrayTwo,3); //starts copy at index=3 until it reaches end of
//either array
How about this:
public T[] CloneCopy(T[] array, int startIndex, int endIndex) where T : ICloneable
{
T[] retArray = new T[endIndex - startIndex];
for (int i = startIndex; i < endIndex; i++)
{
array[i - startIndex] = array[i].Clone();
}
return retArray;
}
You then need to implement the ICloneable interface on all of the classes you need to use this on but that should do it.
I'm not sure how deep it really is, but:
MyArray.ToList<TSource>().GetRange(beginningIndex, endIndex).ToArray()
It's a bit of overhead, but it might cut out an unnecessary method.
As far as cloning goes, I don't think serialization calls your constructors. This may break class invariants if you're doing interesting things in the ctor's.
It seems the safer bet is virtual clone methods calling copy constructors.
protected MyDerivedClass(MyDerivedClass myClass)
{
...
}
public override MyBaseClass Clone()
{
return new MyDerivedClass(this);
}
Cloning elements in an array is not something that can be done in a universal way. Do you want deep cloning or a simple copy of all members?
Let's go for the "best effort" approach: cloning objects using the ICloneable interface or binary serialization:
public static class ArrayExtensions
{
public static T[] SubArray<T>(this T[] array, int index, int length)
{
T[] result = new T[length];
for (int i=index;i<length+index && i<array.Length;i++)
{
if (array[i] is ICloneable)
result[i-index] = (T) ((ICloneable)array[i]).Clone();
else
result[i-index] = (T) CloneObject(array[i]);
}
return result;
}
private static object CloneObject(object obj)
{
BinaryFormatter formatter = new BinaryFormatter();
using (MemoryStream stream = new MemoryStream())
{
formatter.Serialize(stream, obj);
stream.Seek(0,SeekOrigin.Begin);
return formatter.Deserialize(stream);
}
}
}
This is not a perfect solution, because there simply is none that will work for any type of object.
You can take class made by Microsoft:
internal class Set<TElement>
{
private int[] _buckets;
private Slot[] _slots;
private int _count;
private int _freeList;
private readonly IEqualityComparer<TElement> _comparer;
public Set()
: this(null)
{
}
public Set(IEqualityComparer<TElement> comparer)
{
if (comparer == null)
comparer = EqualityComparer<TElement>.Default;
_comparer = comparer;
_buckets = new int[7];
_slots = new Slot[7];
_freeList = -1;
}
public bool Add(TElement value)
{
return !Find(value, true);
}
public bool Contains(TElement value)
{
return Find(value, false);
}
public bool Remove(TElement value)
{
var hashCode = InternalGetHashCode(value);
var index1 = hashCode % _buckets.Length;
var index2 = -1;
for (var index3 = _buckets[index1] - 1; index3 >= 0; index3 = _slots[index3].Next)
{
if (_slots[index3].HashCode == hashCode && _comparer.Equals(_slots[index3].Value, value))
{
if (index2 < 0)
_buckets[index1] = _slots[index3].Next + 1;
else
_slots[index2].Next = _slots[index3].Next;
_slots[index3].HashCode = -1;
_slots[index3].Value = default(TElement);
_slots[index3].Next = _freeList;
_freeList = index3;
return true;
}
index2 = index3;
}
return false;
}
private bool Find(TElement value, bool add)
{
var hashCode = InternalGetHashCode(value);
for (var index = _buckets[hashCode % _buckets.Length] - 1; index >= 0; index = _slots[index].Next)
{
if (_slots[index].HashCode == hashCode && _comparer.Equals(_slots[index].Value, value))
return true;
}
if (add)
{
int index1;
if (_freeList >= 0)
{
index1 = _freeList;
_freeList = _slots[index1].Next;
}
else
{
if (_count == _slots.Length)
Resize();
index1 = _count;
++_count;
}
int index2 = hashCode % _buckets.Length;
_slots[index1].HashCode = hashCode;
_slots[index1].Value = value;
_slots[index1].Next = _buckets[index2] - 1;
_buckets[index2] = index1 + 1;
}
return false;
}
private void Resize()
{
var length = checked(_count * 2 + 1);
var numArray = new int[length];
var slotArray = new Slot[length];
Array.Copy(_slots, 0, slotArray, 0, _count);
for (var index1 = 0; index1 < _count; ++index1)
{
int index2 = slotArray[index1].HashCode % length;
slotArray[index1].Next = numArray[index2] - 1;
numArray[index2] = index1 + 1;
}
_buckets = numArray;
_slots = slotArray;
}
internal int InternalGetHashCode(TElement value)
{
if (value != null)
return _comparer.GetHashCode(value) & int.MaxValue;
return 0;
}
internal struct Slot
{
internal int HashCode;
internal TElement Value;
internal int Next;
}
}
and then
public static T[] GetSub<T>(this T[] first, T[] second)
{
var items = IntersectIteratorWithIndex(first, second);
if (!items.Any()) return new T[] { };
var index = items.First().Item2;
var length = first.Count() - index;
var subArray = new T[length];
Array.Copy(first, index, subArray, 0, length);
return subArray;
}
private static IEnumerable<Tuple<T, Int32>> IntersectIteratorWithIndex<T>(IEnumerable<T> first, IEnumerable<T> second)
{
var firstList = first.ToList();
var set = new Set<T>();
foreach (var i in second)
set.Add(i);
foreach (var i in firstList)
{
if (set.Remove(i))
yield return new Tuple<T, Int32>(i, firstList.IndexOf(i));
}
}
This is the optimal way, I found, to do this:
private void GetSubArrayThroughArraySegment() {
int[] array = { 10, 20, 30 };
ArraySegment<int> segment = new ArraySegment<int>(array, 1, 2);
Console.WriteLine("-- Array --");
int[] original = segment.Array;
foreach (int value in original)
{
Console.WriteLine(value);
}
Console.WriteLine("-- Offset --");
Console.WriteLine(segment.Offset);
Console.WriteLine("-- Count --");
Console.WriteLine(segment.Count);
Console.WriteLine("-- Range --");
for (int i = segment.Offset; i <= segment.Count; i++)
{
Console.WriteLine(segment.Array[i]);
}
}
Hope It Helps!
use extention method :
public static T[] Slice<T>(this T[] source, int start, int end)
{
// Handles negative ends.
if (end < 0)
{
end = source.Length + end;
}
int len = end - start;
// Return new array.
T[] res = new T[len];
for (int i = 0; i < len; i++)
{
res[i] = source[i + start];
}
return res;
}
and you can use it
var NewArray = OldArray.Slice(3,7);
Code from the System.Private.CoreLib.dll:
public static T[] GetSubArray<T>(T[] array, Range range)
{
if (array == null)
{
ThrowHelper.ThrowArgumentNullException(ExceptionArgument.array);
}
(int Offset, int Length) offsetAndLength = range.GetOffsetAndLength(array.Length);
int item = offsetAndLength.Offset;
int item2 = offsetAndLength.Length;
if (default(T) != null || typeof(T[]) == array.GetType())
{
if (item2 == 0)
{
return Array.Empty<T>();
}
T[] array2 = new T[item2];
Buffer.Memmove(ref Unsafe.As<byte, T>(ref array2.GetRawSzArrayData()), ref Unsafe.Add(ref Unsafe.As<byte, T>(ref array.GetRawSzArrayData()), item), (uint)item2);
return array2;
}
T[] array3 = (T[])Array.CreateInstance(array.GetType().GetElementType(), item2);
Array.Copy(array, item, array3, 0, item2);
return array3;
}
array1 = [5,6,7,8];
int[] array2 = new int[2];
Array.ConstrainedCopy(array1, 1, array2, 0, 2);
array2 = [6,7];
Array.ConstrainedCopy takes five (5) parameters:
source array (sourceArray)
starting index of source array (sourceIndex)
destination array (destinationArray)
starting index of destination array (destinationIndex)
number of elements to copy (length)
public static T[] SubArray<T>(T[] data, int index, int length)
{
List<T> retVal = new List<T>();
if (data == null || data.Length == 0)
return retVal.ToArray();
bool startRead = false;
int count = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < data.Length; i++)
{
if (i == index && !startRead)
startRead = true;
if (startRead)
{
retVal.Add(data[i]);
count++;
if (count == length)
break;
}
}
return retVal.ToArray();
}
I have an array of arrays - information about selection in Excel using VSTO, where each element means start and end selection position.
For example,
int[][] selection = {
new int[] { 1 }, // column A
new int[] { 6 }, // column F
new int[] { 6 }, // column F
new int[] { 8, 9 } // columns H:I
new int[] { 8, 9 } // columns H:I
new int[] { 12, 15 } // columns L:O
};
Could you please help me to find a way, maybe using LINQ or Extension methods, to remove duplicated elements? I mean: F and F, H:I and H:I, etc.
If you want to use a pure LINQ/extension method solution, then you'll need to define your own implementation of IEqualityComparer for arrays/sequences. (Unless I'm missing something obvious, there's no pre-existing array or sequence comparer in the BCL). This isn't terribly hard however - here's an example of one that should do the job pretty well:
public class SequenceEqualityComparer<T> : IEqualityComparer<IEnumerable<T>>
{
public bool Equals(IEnumerable<T> x, IEnumerable<T> y)
{
return Enumerable.SequenceEqual(x, y);
}
// Probably not the best hash function for an ordered list, but it should do the job in most cases.
public int GetHashCode(IEnumerable<T> obj)
{
int hash = 0;
int i = 0;
foreach (var element in obj)
hash = unchecked((hash * 37 + hash) + (element.GetHashCode() << (i++ % 16)));
return hash;
}
}
The advantage of this is that you can then simply call the following to remove any duplicate arrays.
var result = selection.Distinct(new SequenceEqualityComparer<int>()).ToArray();
Hope that helps.
First you need a way to compare the integer arrays. To use it with the classes in the framework, you do that by making an EquailtyComparer. If the arrays are always sorted, that is rather easy to implement:
public class IntArrayComparer : IEqualityComparer<int[]> {
public bool Equals(int[] x, int[] y) {
if (x.Length != y.Length) return false;
for (int i = 0; i < x.Length; i++) {
if (x[i] != y[i]) return false;
}
return true;
}
public int GetHashCode(int[] obj) {
int code = 0;
foreach (int value in obj) code ^= value;
return code;
}
}
Now you can use an integer array as key in a HashSet to get the unique arrays:
int[][] selection = {
new int[] { 1 }, // column A
new int[] { 6 }, // column F
new int[] { 6 }, // column F
new int[] { 8, 9 }, // columns H:I
new int[] { 8, 9 }, // columns H:I
new int[] { 12, 15 } // columns L:O
};
HashSet<int[]> arrays = new HashSet<int[]>(new IntArrayComparer());
foreach (int[] array in selection) {
arrays.Add(array);
}
The HashSet just throws away duplicate values, so it now contains four integer arrays.
Anyone have a quick method for de-duplicating a generic List in C#?
If you're using .Net 3+, you can use Linq.
List<T> withDupes = LoadSomeData();
List<T> noDupes = withDupes.Distinct().ToList();
Perhaps you should consider using a HashSet.
From the MSDN link:
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
class Program
{
static void Main()
{
HashSet<int> evenNumbers = new HashSet<int>();
HashSet<int> oddNumbers = new HashSet<int>();
for (int i = 0; i < 5; i++)
{
// Populate numbers with just even numbers.
evenNumbers.Add(i * 2);
// Populate oddNumbers with just odd numbers.
oddNumbers.Add((i * 2) + 1);
}
Console.Write("evenNumbers contains {0} elements: ", evenNumbers.Count);
DisplaySet(evenNumbers);
Console.Write("oddNumbers contains {0} elements: ", oddNumbers.Count);
DisplaySet(oddNumbers);
// Create a new HashSet populated with even numbers.
HashSet<int> numbers = new HashSet<int>(evenNumbers);
Console.WriteLine("numbers UnionWith oddNumbers...");
numbers.UnionWith(oddNumbers);
Console.Write("numbers contains {0} elements: ", numbers.Count);
DisplaySet(numbers);
}
private static void DisplaySet(HashSet<int> set)
{
Console.Write("{");
foreach (int i in set)
{
Console.Write(" {0}", i);
}
Console.WriteLine(" }");
}
}
/* This example produces output similar to the following:
* evenNumbers contains 5 elements: { 0 2 4 6 8 }
* oddNumbers contains 5 elements: { 1 3 5 7 9 }
* numbers UnionWith oddNumbers...
* numbers contains 10 elements: { 0 2 4 6 8 1 3 5 7 9 }
*/
How about:
var noDupes = list.Distinct().ToList();
In .net 3.5?
Simply initialize a HashSet with a List of the same type:
var noDupes = new HashSet<T>(withDupes);
Or, if you want a List returned:
var noDupsList = new HashSet<T>(withDupes).ToList();
Sort it, then check two and two next to each others, as the duplicates will clump together.
Something like this:
list.Sort();
Int32 index = list.Count - 1;
while (index > 0)
{
if (list[index] == list[index - 1])
{
if (index < list.Count - 1)
(list[index], list[list.Count - 1]) = (list[list.Count - 1], list[index]);
list.RemoveAt(list.Count - 1);
index--;
}
else
index--;
}
Notes:
Comparison is done from back to front, to avoid having to resort list after each removal
This example now uses C# Value Tuples to do the swapping, substitute with appropriate code if you can't use that
The end-result is no longer sorted
I like to use this command:
List<Store> myStoreList = Service.GetStoreListbyProvince(provinceId)
.GroupBy(s => s.City)
.Select(grp => grp.FirstOrDefault())
.OrderBy(s => s.City)
.ToList();
I have these fields in my list: Id, StoreName, City, PostalCode
I wanted to show list of cities in a dropdown which has duplicate values.
solution: Group by city then pick the first one for the list.
It worked for me. simply use
List<Type> liIDs = liIDs.Distinct().ToList<Type>();
Replace "Type" with your desired type e.g. int.
As kronoz said in .Net 3.5 you can use Distinct().
In .Net 2 you could mimic it:
public IEnumerable<T> DedupCollection<T> (IEnumerable<T> input)
{
var passedValues = new HashSet<T>();
// Relatively simple dupe check alg used as example
foreach(T item in input)
if(passedValues.Add(item)) // True if item is new
yield return item;
}
This could be used to dedupe any collection and will return the values in the original order.
It's normally much quicker to filter a collection (as both Distinct() and this sample does) than it would be to remove items from it.
An extension method might be a decent way to go... something like this:
public static List<T> Deduplicate<T>(this List<T> listToDeduplicate)
{
return listToDeduplicate.Distinct().ToList();
}
And then call like this, for example:
List<int> myFilteredList = unfilteredList.Deduplicate();
In Java (I assume C# is more or less identical):
list = new ArrayList<T>(new HashSet<T>(list))
If you really wanted to mutate the original list:
List<T> noDupes = new ArrayList<T>(new HashSet<T>(list));
list.clear();
list.addAll(noDupes);
To preserve order, simply replace HashSet with LinkedHashSet.
This takes distinct (the elements without duplicating elements) and convert it into a list again:
List<type> myNoneDuplicateValue = listValueWithDuplicate.Distinct().ToList();
Use Linq's Union method.
Note: This solution requires no knowledge of Linq, aside from that it exists.
Code
Begin by adding the following to the top of your class file:
using System.Linq;
Now, you can use the following to remove duplicates from an object called, obj1:
obj1 = obj1.Union(obj1).ToList();
Note: Rename obj1 to the name of your object.
How it works
The Union command lists one of each entry of two source objects. Since obj1 is both source objects, this reduces obj1 to one of each entry.
The ToList() returns a new List. This is necessary, because Linq commands like Union returns the result as an IEnumerable result instead of modifying the original List or returning a new List.
As a helper method (without Linq):
public static List<T> Distinct<T>(this List<T> list)
{
return (new HashSet<T>(list)).ToList();
}
Here's an extension method for removing adjacent duplicates in-situ. Call Sort() first and pass in the same IComparer. This should be more efficient than Lasse V. Karlsen's version which calls RemoveAt repeatedly (resulting in multiple block memory moves).
public static void RemoveAdjacentDuplicates<T>(this List<T> List, IComparer<T> Comparer)
{
int NumUnique = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < List.Count; i++)
if ((i == 0) || (Comparer.Compare(List[NumUnique - 1], List[i]) != 0))
List[NumUnique++] = List[i];
List.RemoveRange(NumUnique, List.Count - NumUnique);
}
Installing the MoreLINQ package via Nuget, you can easily distinct object list by a property
IEnumerable<Catalogue> distinctCatalogues = catalogues.DistinctBy(c => c.CatalogueCode);
If you have tow classes Product and Customer and we want to remove duplicate items from their list
public class Product
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string ProductName { get; set; }
}
public class Customer
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string CustomerName { get; set; }
}
You must define a generic class in the form below
public class ItemEqualityComparer<T> : IEqualityComparer<T> where T : class
{
private readonly PropertyInfo _propertyInfo;
public ItemEqualityComparer(string keyItem)
{
_propertyInfo = typeof(T).GetProperty(keyItem, BindingFlags.GetProperty | BindingFlags.Instance | BindingFlags.Public);
}
public bool Equals(T x, T y)
{
var xValue = _propertyInfo?.GetValue(x, null);
var yValue = _propertyInfo?.GetValue(y, null);
return xValue != null && yValue != null && xValue.Equals(yValue);
}
public int GetHashCode(T obj)
{
var propertyValue = _propertyInfo.GetValue(obj, null);
return propertyValue == null ? 0 : propertyValue.GetHashCode();
}
}
then, You can remove duplicate items in your list.
var products = new List<Product>
{
new Product{ProductName = "product 1" ,Id = 1,},
new Product{ProductName = "product 2" ,Id = 2,},
new Product{ProductName = "product 2" ,Id = 4,},
new Product{ProductName = "product 2" ,Id = 4,},
};
var productList = products.Distinct(new ItemEqualityComparer<Product>(nameof(Product.Id))).ToList();
var customers = new List<Customer>
{
new Customer{CustomerName = "Customer 1" ,Id = 5,},
new Customer{CustomerName = "Customer 2" ,Id = 5,},
new Customer{CustomerName = "Customer 2" ,Id = 5,},
new Customer{CustomerName = "Customer 2" ,Id = 5,},
};
var customerList = customers.Distinct(new ItemEqualityComparer<Customer>(nameof(Customer.Id))).ToList();
this code remove duplicate items by Id if you want remove duplicate items by other property, you can change nameof(YourClass.DuplicateProperty) same nameof(Customer.CustomerName) then remove duplicate items by CustomerName Property.
If you don't care about the order you can just shove the items into a HashSet, if you do want to maintain the order you can do something like this:
var unique = new List<T>();
var hs = new HashSet<T>();
foreach (T t in list)
if (hs.Add(t))
unique.Add(t);
Or the Linq way:
var hs = new HashSet<T>();
list.All( x => hs.Add(x) );
Edit: The HashSet method is O(N) time and O(N) space while sorting and then making unique (as suggested by #lassevk and others) is O(N*lgN) time and O(1) space so it's not so clear to me (as it was at first glance) that the sorting way is inferior
Might be easier to simply make sure that duplicates are not added to the list.
if(items.IndexOf(new_item) < 0)
items.add(new_item)
You can use Union
obj2 = obj1.Union(obj1).ToList();
Another way in .Net 2.0
static void Main(string[] args)
{
List<string> alpha = new List<string>();
for(char a = 'a'; a <= 'd'; a++)
{
alpha.Add(a.ToString());
alpha.Add(a.ToString());
}
Console.WriteLine("Data :");
alpha.ForEach(delegate(string t) { Console.WriteLine(t); });
alpha.ForEach(delegate (string v)
{
if (alpha.FindAll(delegate(string t) { return t == v; }).Count > 1)
alpha.Remove(v);
});
Console.WriteLine("Unique Result :");
alpha.ForEach(delegate(string t) { Console.WriteLine(t);});
Console.ReadKey();
}
There are many ways to solve - the duplicates issue in the List, below is one of them:
List<Container> containerList = LoadContainer();//Assume it has duplicates
List<Container> filteredList = new List<Container>();
foreach (var container in containerList)
{
Container duplicateContainer = containerList.Find(delegate(Container checkContainer)
{ return (checkContainer.UniqueId == container.UniqueId); });
//Assume 'UniqueId' is the property of the Container class on which u r making a search
if(!containerList.Contains(duplicateContainer) //Add object when not found in the new class object
{
filteredList.Add(container);
}
}
Cheers
Ravi Ganesan
Here's a simple solution that doesn't require any hard-to-read LINQ or any prior sorting of the list.
private static void CheckForDuplicateItems(List<string> items)
{
if (items == null ||
items.Count == 0)
return;
for (int outerIndex = 0; outerIndex < items.Count; outerIndex++)
{
for (int innerIndex = 0; innerIndex < items.Count; innerIndex++)
{
if (innerIndex == outerIndex) continue;
if (items[outerIndex].Equals(items[innerIndex]))
{
// Duplicate Found
}
}
}
}
David J.'s answer is a good method, no need for extra objects, sorting, etc. It can be improved on however:
for (int innerIndex = items.Count - 1; innerIndex > outerIndex ; innerIndex--)
So the outer loop goes top bottom for the entire list, but the inner loop goes bottom "until the outer loop position is reached".
The outer loop makes sure the entire list is processed, the inner loop finds the actual duplicates, those can only happen in the part that the outer loop hasn't processed yet.
Or if you don't want to do bottom up for the inner loop you could have the inner loop start at outerIndex + 1.
A simple intuitive implementation:
public static List<PointF> RemoveDuplicates(List<PointF> listPoints)
{
List<PointF> result = new List<PointF>();
for (int i = 0; i < listPoints.Count; i++)
{
if (!result.Contains(listPoints[i]))
result.Add(listPoints[i]);
}
return result;
}
All answers copy lists, or create a new list, or use slow functions, or are just painfully slow.
To my understanding, this is the fastest and cheapest method I know (also, backed by a very experienced programmer specialized on real-time physics optimization).
// Duplicates will be noticed after a sort O(nLogn)
list.Sort();
// Store the current and last items. Current item declaration is not really needed, and probably optimized by the compiler, but in case it's not...
int lastItem = -1;
int currItem = -1;
int size = list.Count;
// Store the index pointing to the last item we want to keep in the list
int last = size - 1;
// Travel the items from last to first O(n)
for (int i = last; i >= 0; --i)
{
currItem = list[i];
// If this item was the same as the previous one, we don't want it
if (currItem == lastItem)
{
// Overwrite last in current place. It is a swap but we don't need the last
list[i] = list[last];
// Reduce the last index, we don't want that one anymore
last--;
}
// A new item, we store it and continue
else
lastItem = currItem;
}
// We now have an unsorted list with the duplicates at the end.
// Remove the last items just once
list.RemoveRange(last + 1, size - last - 1);
// Sort again O(n logn)
list.Sort();
Final cost is:
nlogn + n + nlogn = n + 2nlogn = O(nlogn) which is pretty nice.
Note about RemoveRange:
Since we cannot set the count of the list and avoid using the Remove funcions, I don't know exactly the speed of this operation but I guess it is the fastest way.
Using HashSet this can be done easily.
List<int> listWithDuplicates = new List<int> { 1, 2, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 };
HashSet<int> hashWithoutDuplicates = new HashSet<int> ( listWithDuplicates );
List<int> listWithoutDuplicates = hashWithoutDuplicates.ToList();
Using HashSet:
list = new HashSet<T>(list).ToList();
public static void RemoveDuplicates<T>(IList<T> list )
{
if (list == null)
{
return;
}
int i = 1;
while(i<list.Count)
{
int j = 0;
bool remove = false;
while (j < i && !remove)
{
if (list[i].Equals(list[j]))
{
remove = true;
}
j++;
}
if (remove)
{
list.RemoveAt(i);
}
else
{
i++;
}
}
}
If you need to compare complex objects, you will need to pass a Comparer object inside the Distinct() method.
private void GetDistinctItemList(List<MyListItem> _listWithDuplicates)
{
//It might be a good idea to create MyListItemComparer
//elsewhere and cache it for performance.
List<MyListItem> _listWithoutDuplicates = _listWithDuplicates.Distinct(new MyListItemComparer()).ToList();
//Choose the line below instead, if you have a situation where there is a chance to change the list while Distinct() is running.
//ToArray() is used to solve "Collection was modified; enumeration operation may not execute" error.
//List<MyListItem> _listWithoutDuplicates = _listWithDuplicates.ToArray().Distinct(new MyListItemComparer()).ToList();
return _listWithoutDuplicates;
}
Assuming you have 2 other classes like:
public class MyListItemComparer : IEqualityComparer<MyListItem>
{
public bool Equals(MyListItem x, MyListItem y)
{
return x != null
&& y != null
&& x.A == y.A
&& x.B.Equals(y.B);
&& x.C.ToString().Equals(y.C.ToString());
}
public int GetHashCode(MyListItem codeh)
{
return codeh.GetHashCode();
}
}
And:
public class MyListItem
{
public int A { get; }
public string B { get; }
public MyEnum C { get; }
public MyListItem(int a, string b, MyEnum c)
{
A = a;
B = b;
C = c;
}
}
I think the simplest way is:
Create a new list and add unique item.
Example:
class MyList{
int id;
string date;
string email;
}
List<MyList> ml = new Mylist();
ml.Add(new MyList(){
id = 1;
date = "2020/09/06";
email = "zarezadeh#gmailcom"
});
ml.Add(new MyList(){
id = 2;
date = "2020/09/01";
email = "zarezadeh#gmailcom"
});
List<MyList> New_ml = new Mylist();
foreach (var item in ml)
{
if (New_ml.Where(w => w.email == item.email).SingleOrDefault() == null)
{
New_ml.Add(new MyList()
{
id = item.id,
date = item.date,
email = item.email
});
}
}