I'm trying to obtain the last 10 objects within an arraylist.
Case: Arraylist full of objects[ChartObjectsInt] and [ChartObjectsReal] with indexes from 0-N, i want to obtain the last 10 persons (N-10), and with these last 10 objects I want to call functions from that object; like ChartObjectsInt.getLabelName();
Can anyone help?
Code I've reached so far:
private void getLastTenObjects()
{
foreach (ChartObjectsInt chartRecords in arraylistMonitor)
{
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
{
arraylistMonitor.IndexOf(i);
}
}
}
Why don't you use List rather than ArrayList, if you do so it will be more easy to get last 10 element from list.
example:
var lastTenProducts = products.OrderByDescending(p => p.ProductDate).Take(10);
//here products is the List
If you don't want to use LINQ at all
for (var i = Math.Max(arraylistMonitor.Count - 10, 0); i < arraylistMonitor.Count; i++)
{
YourFunctionCallHere(arraylistMonitor[i]);
}
The above code will loop through the last 10 items of the ArrayList by setting i to the appropriate starting index - the Math.Max call there is in case the ArrayList has 9 or fewer elements in it.
If you are willing to use LINQ
var last10 = arraylistMonitor.Cast<object>().Reverse().Take(10);
will do what you want. You may also wish to add ToList after Take(10), depending on how you wish to consume last10.
Firstly it casts it to an IEnumerable<object> then goes through the IEnumerable backwards until it has (up to) 10 items.
If you specifically want last10 to be an ArrayList (which I wouldn't recommend) then use:
var last10 = new ArrayList(arraylistMonitor.Cast<object>().Reverse().Take(10).ToList());
As others have already said, I would use List<T> as ArrayList is effectively deprecated for that as it exists from a time when C# didn't have generics.
With that said, you could write a function that would work for a list of any size and take however many like so
public List<T> GetLastX<T>(List<T> list, int amountToTake)
{
return list.Skip(list.Count - amountToTake).ToList();
}
Related
there's an exercise i need to do, given a List i need to sort the content using ONLY recursive methods (no while, do while, for, foreach).
So... i'm struggling (for over 2 hours now) and i dont know how to even begin.
The function must be
List<int> SortHighestToLowest (List<int> list) {
}
I THINK i should check if the previous number is greater than the actual number and so on but what if the last number is greater than the first number on the list?, that's why im having a headache.
I appreciate your help, thanks a lot.
[EDIT]
I delivered the exercise but then teacher said i shouldn't use external variables like i did here:
List<int> _tempList2 = new List<int>();
int _actualListIndex = 0;
int _actualMaxNumber = 0;
int _actualMaxNumberIndex = 0;
List<int> SortHighestToLowest(List<int> list)
{
if (list.Count == 0)
return _tempList2;
if (_actualListIndex == 0)
_actualMaxNumber = list[0];
if (_actualListIndex < list.Count -1)
{
_actualListIndex++;
if (list[_actualListIndex] > _actualMaxNumber)
{
_actualMaxNumberIndex = _actualListIndex;
_actualMaxNumber = list[_actualListIndex];
}
return SortHighestToLowest(list);
}
_tempList2.Add(_actualMaxNumber);
list.RemoveAt(_actualMaxNumberIndex);
_actualListIndex = 0;
_actualMaxNumberIndex = 0;
return SortHighestToLowest(list);
}
Exercise is done and i approved (thanks to other exercises as well) but i was wondering if there's a way of doing this without external variables and without using System.Linq like String.Empty's response (im just curious, the community helped me to solve my issue and im thankful).
I am taking your instructions to the letter here.
Only recursive methods
No while, do while, for, foreach
Signature must be List<int> SortHighestToLowest(List<int> list)
Now, I do assume you may use at least the built-in properties and methods of the List<T> type. If not, you would have a hard time even reading the elements of your list.
That said, any calls to Sort or OrderBy methods would be beyond the point here, since they would render any recursive method useless.
I also assume it is okay to use other lists in the process, since you didn't mention anything in regards to that.
With all that in mind, I came to this piece below, making use of Max and Remove methods from List<T> class, and a new list of integers for each recursive call:
public static List<int> SortHighestToLowest(List<int> list)
{
// recursivity breaker
if (list.Count <= 1)
return list;
// remove highest item
var max = list.Max();
list.Remove(max);
// append highest item to recursive call for the remainder of the list
return new List<int>(SortHighestToLowest(list)) { max };
}
For solving this problem, try to solve smaller subsets. Consider the following list
[1,5,3,2]
Let's take the last element out of list, and consider the rest as sorted which will be [1,3,5] and 2. Now the problem reduces to another problem of inserting this 2 in its correct position. If we can insert it in correct position then the array becomes sorted. This can be applied recursively.
For every recursive problem there should be a base condition w.r.t the hypothesis we make. For the first problem the base condition is array with single element. A single element array is always sorted.
For the second insert problem the base condition will be an empty array or the last element in array is less than the element to be inserted. In both cases the element is inserted at the end.
Algorithm
---------
Sort(list)
if(list.count==1)
return
temp = last element of list
temp_list = list with last element removed
Sort(temp_list)
Insert(temp_list, temp)
Insert(list, temp)
if(list.count ==0 || list[n-1] <= temp)
list.insert(temp)
return
insert_temp = last element of list
insert_temp_list = list with last element removed
Insert(insert_temo_list, insert_temp)
For Insert after base condition its calling recursively till it find the correct position for the last element which is removed.
Recently, I've got interested in the List.GetRange() function. It can retrieve a sub-list from a bigger list. Usage requires two arguments:
List<T> SubList = List<T>.GetRange(10, 20) //Get 20 items, starting from index 10
But what if I wanted to take every remaining item from a specific index, with this function?
List<T> RemainingItemsFromList = MyList.GetRange(7, /*REST*/) //What can I insert into REST to make it retrieve everything?
Is there
Any built-in RestOfTheList statement without doing something like Length - Index?
Any replacement function (that already exists)?
Any other alternative?
or am I simply doing something wrong?
Since List does not provide built-in method with required functionality, your options are:
1) Create extension method yourself:
public static class ListExtensions {
public static List<T> GetRange<T>(this List<T> list, int start) {
return list.GetRange(start, list.Count - start);
}
}
var remaining = list.GetRange(7);
2) Use LINQ:
var remaining = list.Skip(7).ToList(); // a bit less efficient, but usually that does not matter
I've tested List<string> vs IEnumerable<string>
iterations with for and foreach loops , is it possible that the List is much faster ?
these are 2 of few links I could find that are publicly stating that performance is better iterating IEnumerable over List.
Link1
Link2
my tests was loading 10K lines from a text file that holds a list of URLs.
I've first loaded it in to a List , then copied List to an IEnumerable
List<string> StrByLst = ...method to load records from the file .
IEnumerable StrsByIE = StrByLst;
so each has 10k items Type <string>
looping on each collection for 100 times , meaning 100K iterations, resulted with
List<string> is faster by amazing 50 x than the IEnumerable<string>
is that predictable ?
update
this is the code that is doing the tests
string WorkDirtPath = HostingEnvironment.ApplicationPhysicalPath;
string fileName = "tst.txt";
string fileToLoad = Path.Combine(WorkDirtPath, fileName);
List<string> ListfromStream = new List<string>();
ListfromStream = PopulateListStrwithAnyFile(fileToLoad) ;
IEnumerable<string> IEnumFromStream = ListfromStream ;
string trslt = "";
Stopwatch SwFr = new Stopwatch();
Stopwatch SwFe = new Stopwatch();
string resultFrLst = "",resultFrIEnumrable, resultFe = "", Container = "";
SwFr.Start();
for (int itr = 0; itr < 100; itr++)
{
for (int i = 0; i < ListfromStream.Count(); i++)
{
Container = ListfromStream.ElementAt(i);
}
//the stop() was here , i was doing changes , so my mistake.
}
SwFr.Stop();
resultFrLst = SwFr.Elapsed.ToString();
//forgot to do this reset though still it is faster (x56??)
SwFr.Reset();
SwFr.Start();
for(int itr = 0; itr<100; itr++)
{
for (int i = 0; i < IEnumFromStream.Count(); i++)
{
Container = IEnumFromStream.ElementAt(i);
}
}
SwFr.Stop();
resultFrIEnumrable = SwFr.Elapsed.ToString();
Update ... final
taking out the counter to outside of the for loops ,
int counter = ..countfor both IEnumerable & List
then passed counter(int) as a count of total items as suggested by #ScottChamberlain .
re checked that every thing is in place, now the results are 5 % faster IEnumerable.
so that concludes , use by scenario - use case... no performance difference at all ...
You are doing something wrong.
The times that you get should be very close to each other, because you are running essentially the same code.
IEnumerable is just an interface, which List implements, so when you call some method on the IEnumerable reference it ends up calling the corresponding method of List.
There is no code implemented in the IEnumerable - this is what interfaces are - they only specify what functionality a class should have, but say nothing about how it's implemented.
You have a few problems with your test, one is the IEnumFromStream.Count() inside the for loop, every time it want to get that value it must enumerate over the entire list to get the count and the value is not cached between loops. Move that call outside of the for loop and save the result in a int and use that value for the for loop, you will see a shorter time for your IEnumerable.
Also the IEnumFromStream.ElementAt(i) behaves similarly to Count() it must iterate over the whole list up to i (eg: first time it goes 0, second time 0,1, third 0,1,2, and so on...) every time where List can jump directly to the index it needs. You should be working with the IEnumerator returned from GetEnumerator() instead.
IEnumerable's and for loop's don't mix well. Use the correct tool for the job, either call GetEnumerator() and work with that or use it in a foreach loop.
Now, I know a lot of you may be saying "But it is a interface it will be just mapping the calls and it should make no difference", but there is a key thing, IEnumerable<T> Does not have a Count() or ElementAt() method!. Those methods are extension methods added by LINQ, and the LINQ classes do not know the underlying collection is a List, so it does what it knows the underlying object can do, and that is iterating over the list every time the method is called.
IEnumerable using IEnumerator
using(var enu = IEnumFromStream.GetEnumerator())
{
//You have to call "MoveNext()" once before getting "Current" the first time,
// this is done so you can have a nice clean while loop like this.
while(enu.MoveNext())
{
Container = enu.Current;
}
}
The above code is basically the same thing as
foreach(var enu in IEnumFromStream)
{
Container = enu;
}
The important thing to remember is IEnumerable's do not have a length, in fact they can be infinitely long. There is a whole field of computer science on detecting a infinitely long IEnumerable
Based on the code you posted I think the problem is with your use of the Stopwatch class.
You declare two of these, SwFr and SwFe, but only use the former. Because of this, the last call to SwFr.Elapsed will get the total amount of time across both sets of for loops.
If you are wanting to reuse that object in this way, place a call to SwFr.Reset() right after resultFrLst = SwFr.Elapsed.ToString();.
Alternatively, you could use SwFe when running the second test.
Some time ago I read that foreach works with "copies" of objects and thus it can be used for information retrieval instead of its updating. I do not get it as it is entirely possible to loop through list of classes and change its field. Thanks!
What you may have read is that you can't modify a collection while iterating over it using foreach whereas you can (if you're careful) using a for loop. For example:
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
class Test
{
static void Main()
{
var list = new List<int> { 1, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10 };
/* This version fails with an InvalidOperationException
foreach (int x in list)
{
if (x < 5)
{
list.Add(100);
}
Console.WriteLine(x);
}
*/
// This version is okay
for (int i = 0; i < list.Count; i++)
{
int x = list[i];
if (x < 5)
{
list.Add(100);
}
Console.WriteLine(x);
}
}
}
If that's not what you were referring to, please give more details - it's hard to explain what you've read without knowing exactly what it said.
You cannot modify the element in a foreach:
var list = new List<string>();
list.AddRange(new string[] { "A", "B", "C" });
foreach (var i in list)
{
// compilation error: Cannot assign 'i' because it is a 'foreach iteration variable'
i = "X";
}
Although when working with for you are accessing the element on the list with its index, and not the iterator, so this way you can modify the collection.
foreach use an Iterator to get each element of a sequence. The sequence can be Anything that implements IEnumerable. The IEnumerable does not need to be finite (the sequence 0 1 2 3 4... 1000... ) is IEnumerable.
for is only a C# constructs which allow you to declare a loop (used to do all sort of things, not only iterating through collections)
It's worth noting that the Iterator implementation in .NET for the collections does not support sequence modification during iteration.
foreach is using IEnumerable to loop through collection. This makes it impossible to modify this collection(remove, add items), but you still can modify objects inside, if they are reference types.
for is simple combination of simple loop combined with direct access to items in collection. There is no kind of blocking while this loop is going.
Compare it with a readonly field:
private readonly List<int> MyList = new List<int>();
Now, in this code I cannot do MyList = new List<int>() as that will alter what MyList points to, but I can alter the list pointed to with MyList.Add(3).
Likewise, you cannot alter the variable used by the foreach iteration, but can what it refers to:
foreach(List<int> lst in MyListOfLists)
{
lst = new List<int>(); // not allowed
lst.Add(3); // allowed
}
Finally, the enumerator used to implement foreach is not required to remain valid if the underlying collection is being used:
foreach(int x in SomeEnumerable)
{
if(x != 0)
SomeEnumerable.Add(0);
}
Assuming that Add modifies SomeEnumerable then the above might work, it might "work" in a strange and hard to understand way and it might throw an exception. No behaviour is guaranteed with such code and modifying a collection during enumeration is considered incorrect for this reason.
.NET offers a generic list container whose performance is almost identical (see Performance of Arrays vs. Lists question). However they are quite different in initialization.
Arrays are very easy to initialize with a default value, and by definition they already have certain size:
string[] Ar = new string[10];
Which allows one to safely assign random items, say:
Ar[5]="hello";
with list things are more tricky. I can see two ways of doing the same initialization, neither of which is what you would call elegant:
List<string> L = new List<string>(10);
for (int i=0;i<10;i++) L.Add(null);
or
string[] Ar = new string[10];
List<string> L = new List<string>(Ar);
What would be a cleaner way?
EDIT: The answers so far refer to capacity, which is something else than pre-populating a list. For example, on a list just created with a capacity of 10, one cannot do L[2]="somevalue"
EDIT 2: People wonder why I want to use lists this way, as it is not the way they are intended to be used. I can see two reasons:
One could quite convincingly argue that lists are the "next generation" arrays, adding flexibility with almost no penalty. Therefore one should use them by default. I'm pointing out they might not be as easy to initialize.
What I'm currently writing is a base class offering default functionality as part of a bigger framework. In the default functionality I offer, the size of the List is known in advanced and therefore I could have used an array. However, I want to offer any base class the chance to dynamically extend it and therefore I opt for a list.
List<string> L = new List<string> ( new string[10] );
I can't say I need this very often - could you give more details as to why you want this? I'd probably put it as a static method in a helper class:
public static class Lists
{
public static List<T> RepeatedDefault<T>(int count)
{
return Repeated(default(T), count);
}
public static List<T> Repeated<T>(T value, int count)
{
List<T> ret = new List<T>(count);
ret.AddRange(Enumerable.Repeat(value, count));
return ret;
}
}
You could use Enumerable.Repeat(default(T), count).ToList() but that would be inefficient due to buffer resizing.
Note that if T is a reference type, it will store count copies of the reference passed for the value parameter - so they will all refer to the same object. That may or may not be what you want, depending on your use case.
EDIT: As noted in comments, you could make Repeated use a loop to populate the list if you wanted to. That would be slightly faster too. Personally I find the code using Repeat more descriptive, and suspect that in the real world the performance difference would be irrelevant, but your mileage may vary.
Use the constructor which takes an int ("capacity") as an argument:
List<string> = new List<string>(10);
EDIT: I should add that I agree with Frederik. You are using the List in a way that goes against the entire reasoning behind using it in the first place.
EDIT2:
EDIT 2: What I'm currently writing is a base class offering default functionality as part of a bigger framework. In the default functionality I offer, the size of the List is known in advanced and therefore I could have used an array. However, I want to offer any base class the chance to dynamically extend it and therefore I opt for a list.
Why would anyone need to know the size of a List with all null values? If there are no real values in the list, I would expect the length to be 0. Anyhow, the fact that this is cludgy demonstrates that it is going against the intended use of the class.
Create an array with the number of items you want first and then convert the array in to a List.
int[] fakeArray = new int[10];
List<int> list = fakeArray.ToList();
If you want to initialize the list with N elements of some fixed value:
public List<T> InitList<T>(int count, T initValue)
{
return Enumerable.Repeat(initValue, count).ToList();
}
Why are you using a List if you want to initialize it with a fixed value ?
I can understand that -for the sake of performance- you want to give it an initial capacity, but isn't one of the advantages of a list over a regular array that it can grow when needed ?
When you do this:
List<int> = new List<int>(100);
You create a list whose capacity is 100 integers. This means that your List won't need to 'grow' until you add the 101th item.
The underlying array of the list will be initialized with a length of 100.
This is an old question, but I have two solutions. One is fast and dirty reflection; the other is a solution that actually answers the question (set the size not the capacity) while still being performant, which none of the answers here do.
Reflection
This is quick and dirty, and should be pretty obvious what the code does. If you want to speed it up, cache the result of GetField, or create a DynamicMethod to do it:
public static void SetSize<T>(this List<T> l, int newSize) =>
l.GetType().GetField("_size", BindingFlags.NonPublic | BindingFlags.Instance).SetValue(l, newSize);
Obviously a lot of people will be hesitant to put such code into production.
ICollection<T>
This solution is based around the fact that the constructor List(IEnumerable<T> collection) optimizes for ICollection<T> and immediately adjusts the size to the correct amount, without iterating it. It then calls the collections CopyTo to do the copy.
The code for the List<T> constructor is as follows:
public List(IEnumerable<T> collection) {
....
ICollection<T> c = collection as ICollection<T>;
if (collection is ICollection<T> c)
{
int count = c.Count;
if (count == 0)
{
_items = s_emptyArray;
}
else {
_items = new T[count];
c.CopyTo(_items, 0);
_size = count;
}
}
So we can completely optimally pre-initialize the List to the correct size, without any extra copying.
How so? By creating an ICollection<T> object that does nothing other than return a Count. Specifically, we will not implement anything in CopyTo which is the only other function called.
private struct SizeCollection<T> : ICollection<T>
{
public SizeCollection(int size) =>
Count = size;
public void Add(T i){}
public void Clear(){}
public bool Contains(T i)=>true;
public void CopyTo(T[]a, int i){}
public bool Remove(T i)=>true;
public int Count {get;}
public bool IsReadOnly=>true;
public IEnumerator<T> GetEnumerator()=>null;
IEnumerator IEnumerable.GetEnumerator()=>null;
}
public List<T> InitializedList<T>(int size) =>
new List<T>(new SizeCollection<T>(size));
We could in theory do the same thing for AddRange/InsertRange for an existing array, which also accounts for ICollection<T>, but the code there creates a new array for the supposed items, then copies them in. In such case, it would be faster to just empty-loop Add:
public void SetSize<T>(this List<T> l, int size)
{
if(size < l.Count)
l.RemoveRange(size, l.Count - size);
else
for(size -= l.Count; size > 0; size--)
l.Add(default(T));
}
Initializing the contents of a list like that isn't really what lists are for. Lists are designed to hold objects. If you want to map particular numbers to particular objects, consider using a key-value pair structure like a hash table or dictionary instead of a list.
You seem to be emphasizing the need for a positional association with your data, so wouldn't an associative array be more fitting?
Dictionary<int, string> foo = new Dictionary<int, string>();
foo[2] = "string";
The accepted answer (the one with the green check mark) has an issue.
The problem:
var result = Lists.Repeated(new MyType(), sizeOfList);
// each item in the list references the same MyType() object
// if you edit item 1 in the list, you are also editing item 2 in the list
I recommend changing the line above to perform a copy of the object. There are many different articles about that:
String.MemberwiseClone() method called through reflection doesn't work, why?
https://code.msdn.microsoft.com/windowsdesktop/CSDeepCloneObject-8a53311e
If you want to initialize every item in your list with the default constructor, rather than NULL, then add the following method:
public static List<T> RepeatedDefaultInstance<T>(int count)
{
List<T> ret = new List<T>(count);
for (var i = 0; i < count; i++)
{
ret.Add((T)Activator.CreateInstance(typeof(T)));
}
return ret;
}
You can use Linq to cleverly initialize your list with a default value. (Similar to David B's answer.)
var defaultStrings = (new int[10]).Select(x => "my value").ToList();
Go one step farther and initialize each string with distinct values "string 1", "string 2", "string 3", etc:
int x = 1;
var numberedStrings = (new int[10]).Select(x => "string " + x++).ToList();
string [] temp = new string[] {"1","2","3"};
List<string> temp2 = temp.ToList();
After thinking again, I had found the non-reflection answer to the OP question, but Charlieface beat me to it. So I believe that the correct and complete answer is https://stackoverflow.com/a/65766955/4572240
My old answer:
If I understand correctly, you want the List<T> version of new T[size], without the overhead of adding values to it.
If you are not afraid the implementation of List<T> will change dramatically in the future (and in this case I believe the probability is close to 0), you can use reflection:
public static List<T> NewOfSize<T>(int size) {
var list = new List<T>(size);
var sizeField = list.GetType().GetField("_size",BindingFlags.Instance|BindingFlags.NonPublic);
sizeField.SetValue(list, size);
return list;
}
Note that this takes into account the default functionality of the underlying array to prefill with the default value of the item type. All int arrays will have values of 0 and all reference type arrays will have values of null. Also note that for a list of reference types, only the space for the pointer to each item is created.
If you, for some reason, decide on not using reflection, I would have liked to offer an option of AddRange with a generator method, but underneath List<T> just calls Insert a zillion times, which doesn't serve.
I would also like to point out that the Array class has a static method called ResizeArray, if you want to go the other way around and start from Array.
To end, I really hate when I ask a question and everybody points out that it's the wrong question. Maybe it is, and thanks for the info, but I would still like an answer, because you have no idea why I am asking it. That being said, if you want to create a framework that has an optimal use of resources, List<T> is a pretty inefficient class for anything than holding and adding stuff to the end of a collection.
A notice about IList:
MSDN IList Remarks:
"IList implementations fall into three categories: read-only, fixed-size, and variable-size. (...). For the generic version of this interface, see
System.Collections.Generic.IList<T>."
IList<T> does NOT inherits from IList (but List<T> does implement both IList<T> and IList), but is always variable-size.
Since .NET 4.5, we have also IReadOnlyList<T> but AFAIK, there is no fixed-size generic List which would be what you are looking for.
This is a sample I used for my unit test. I created a list of class object. Then I used forloop to add 'X' number of objects that I am expecting from the service.
This way you can add/initialize a List for any given size.
public void TestMethod1()
{
var expected = new List<DotaViewer.Interface.DotaHero>();
for (int i = 0; i < 22; i++)//You add empty initialization here
{
var temp = new DotaViewer.Interface.DotaHero();
expected.Add(temp);
}
var nw = new DotaHeroCsvService();
var items = nw.GetHero();
CollectionAssert.AreEqual(expected,items);
}
Hope I was of help to you guys.
A bit late but first solution you proposed seems far cleaner to me : you dont allocate memory twice.
Even List constrcutor needs to loop through array in order to copy it; it doesn't even know by advance there is only null elements inside.
1.
- allocate N
- loop N
Cost: 1 * allocate(N) + N * loop_iteration
2.
- allocate N
- allocate N + loop ()
Cost : 2 * allocate(N) + N * loop_iteration
However List's allocation an loops might be faster since List is a built-in class, but C# is jit-compiled sooo...