Related
So I'm trying to write a simple program for practicing purposes, I got this to work the way I want it but I still feel like I can reduce the amount of code used, any suggestions?
Thanks, in advance!
static void Main(string[] args)
{
string playerAnswer = Console.ReadLine();
string potReward = "";
string trueReward = calculateReward(playerAnswer, potReward);
Console.WriteLine("Congratulations, you won {0}! ", trueReward);
}
private static string calculateReward(string answer, string reward)
{
if (answer == "1")
{
reward = "a cat";
}
else if (answer == "2")
{
reward = "power to rival Chuck Norris";
}
else if (answer == "3")
{
reward = "a burger";
}
else
{
reward = "nothing";
}
return reward;
}
I get the feeling this is your graded homework, not just practice, in any case here is some help.
There are plenty of excellent tutorials for free online, here is one example that assumes no previous coding or C# experience.
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/csharp/tutorials/intro-to-csharp/
Some starting points might be to look at:
switch statements
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/csharp/language-reference/keywords/switch
int caseSwitch = 1;
switch (caseSwitch)
{
case 1:
Console.WriteLine("Case 1");
break;
case 2:
Console.WriteLine("Case 2");
break;
default:
Console.WriteLine("Default case");
break;
}
multiple variable assignment
https://www.dotnetperls.com/multiple-local-variable (general C-style guides can often apply too, though stick to C# if unsure at all)
string s = "dot", a = "net", m = "perls";
And are all your variables actually being used/useful?
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/csharp/programming-guide/classes-and-structs/passing-value-type-parameters
A value-type variable contains its data directly as opposed to a reference-type variable, which contains a reference to its data. Passing a value-type variable to a method by value means passing a copy of the variable to the method. Any changes to the parameter that take place inside the method have no affect on the original data stored in the argument variable. If you want the called method to change the value of the argument, you must pass it by reference, using the ref or out keyword. You may also use the in keyword to pass a value parameter by reference to avoid the copy while guaranteeing that the value will not be changed. For simplicity, the following examples use ref.
Also, if its a private function, see if actually needing to be separate, though likely it will be if part of larger solution/project.
Ive deliberately not updated your sample code, very simple to do given examples and the more you type it out yourself the more you get used to the language.
Hope that helps :)
You can also use the ternary operator for filter:
private static string calculateReward(string answer, string reward)
{
reward = answer == "1" ? "a cat" : answer == "2" ? "power to rival Chuck Norris" : answer == "3" ? "a burger" : "nothing";
return reward;
}
A switch-case statement is the best way to go on this one.
switch(answer)
{
case 1:
reward = "A cat.";
break;
case 2:
reward = "Power to rival Chuck Norris.";
break;
case 3:
reward = "A burger";
break;
default:
reward = "Nothing";
break;
}
I want to read a file containing comma-separated values, so have written a finite state machine:
private IList<string> Split(string line)
{
List<string> values = new List<string>();
string value = string.Empty;
ParseState state = ParseState.Initial;
foreach (char c in line)
{
switch (state)
{
case ParseState.Initial:
switch (c)
{
case COMMA:
values.Add(string.Empty);
break;
case QUOTE:
state = ParseState.Quote;
break;
default:
value += c;
state = ParseState.Data;
break;
}
break;
case ParseState.Data:
switch (c)
{
case COMMA:
values.Add(value);
value = string.Empty;
state = ParseState.Initial;
break;
case QUOTE:
throw new InvalidDataException("Improper quotes");
default:
value += c;
break;
}
break;
case ParseState.Quote:
switch (c)
{
case QUOTE:
state = ParseState.QuoteInQuote;
break;
default:
value += c;
break;
}
break;
case ParseState.QuoteInQuote:
switch (c)
{
case COMMA:
values.Add(value);
value = string.Empty;
state = ParseState.Initial;
break;
case QUOTE:
value += c;
state = ParseState.Quote;
break;
default:
throw new InvalidDataException("Unpaired quotes");
}
break;
}
}
switch (state)
{
case ParseState.Initial:
case ParseState.Data:
case ParseState.QuoteInQuote:
values.Add(value);
break;
case ParseState.Quote:
throw new InvalidDataException("Unclosed quotes");
}
return values;
}
Yes, I know the advice about CSV parsers is "don't write your own", but
I needed it quickly and
our download policy at work would take several days to allow me to
get open source off the 'net.
Hey, at least I didn't start with string.Split() or, worse, try using a Regex!
And yes, I know it could be improved by using a StringBuilder, and it's restrictive on quotes in the data, but
performance is not an issue and
this is only to generate well-defined test data in-house,
so I don't care about those.
What I do care about is the apparent trailing block at the end for mopping up all the data after the final comma, and the way that it's starting to look like some sort of an anti-pattern down there, which was exactly the sort of thing that "good" patterns such as a FSM were supposed to avoid.
So my question is this: is this block at the end some sort of anti-pattern, and is it something that's going to come back to bite me in the future?
All of the FSMs I've ever seen (not that I go hunting for them, mind you) all have some kind of "mopping up" step, simply due to the nature of enumeration.
In an FSM you're always acting upon the current state, and then resetting the 'current state' for the next iteration, so once you've hit the end of your iterations you have to do one last operation to act upon the 'current state'. (Might be better to think about it as acting upon the 'previous state' and setting the 'current state').
Therefore, I would consider that what you've done is part of the pattern.
But why didn't you try some of the other answers on SO?
Split CSV String (specifically this answer)
How to properly split a CSV using C# split() function? (specifically this answer)
Adapted solution, still an FSM:
public IEnumerable<string> fsm(string s)
{
int i, a = 0, l = s.Length;
var q = true;
for (i = 0; i < l; i++)
{
switch (s[i])
{
case ',':
if (q)
{
yield return s.Substring(a, i - a).Trim();
a = i + 1;
}
break;
// pick your flavor
case '"':
//case '\'':
q = !q;
break;
}
}
yield return s.Substring(a).Trim();
}
// === usage ===
var row = fsm(csvLine).ToList();
foreach(var column in fsm(csvLine)) { ... }
In a FSM you identify which states are the permitted halting states. So in a typical implementation, when you come out of the loop you need to at least check to make sure that your last state is one of the permitting halting states or throw a jam error. So having that one last state check outside of the loop is part of the pattern.
The source of the problem, if you want to call it that, is the absence of an end-of-line marker in your input data. Add a newline character, for example, at the end of your input string and you will be able to get rid of the "trailing block" that seems to annoy you so much.
As far as I'm concerned, your code is correct and, no, there is no reason why this implementation will come back to bite you in the future!
I had a similiar issue, but i was parsing a text file character by character. I didnt like this big clean-up-switch-block after the while loop. To solve this, I made a wrapper for the streamreader. The wrapper checked when streamreader had no characters left. In this case, the wrapper would return an EOT-ascii character once (EOT is equal to EOF). This way my state machine could react to the EOF depending on the state it was in at that moment.
I have trouble implementing the Y/N or y/n in the loop. I've designed it in a way that a user can use both the capital and small letters of the Y and N for their answer in a loop. by the way here's my code but can't seem to make it work:
do
{
Console.WriteLine("\nSelect additional topping/s\n");
Console.WriteLine("1 - Extra meat: 200");
Console.WriteLine("2 - Extra cheese: 100");
Console.WriteLine("3 - Extra veggies: 80\n");
int selectedTopping = Convert.ToInt32(Console.ReadLine());
switch (selectedTopping)
{
case 1:
pizza = new MeatToppings(pizza);
break;
case 2:
pizza = new CheeseToppings(pizza);
break;
case 3:
pizza = new VeggieToppings(pizza);
break;
default:
break;
}
Console.WriteLine("\nAdd more toppings? Y/N");
}
while ((Console.ReadLine() == "Y") || (Console.ReadLine() == "y"));
while ((Console.ReadLine() == "Y") || (Console.ReadLine() == "y"));
This is going to read 2 different lines since you're calling ReadLine() twice. You need to call it once and save the value.
You can use ToUpper
while ((Console.ReadLine().ToUpper() == "Y") );
Try to use String.Equals and StringComparison:
String.Equals(Console.ReadLine(), "y", StringComparison.CurrentCultureIgnoreCase);
from MSDN:
CurrentCultureIgnoreCase: Compare strings using culture-sensitive sort rules, the current culture, and ignoring the case of the strings being compared.
OrdinalIgnoreCase: Compare strings using ordinal sort rules and ignoring the case of the strings being compared.
To check Y or y ignoring case, you should use string.Equals(string,StringComparison) overload.
while (Console.ReadLine().Equals("Y", StringComparison.InvariantCultureIgnoreCase));
Please see the The Turkish İ Problem and Why You Should Care before using ToUpper or ToLower for string comparison with ignore case.
Your current code is reading the lines from console twice, that is why your code is holding up for the 2nd value.
As Austin just pointed out, you are using ReadLine twice in the while loop statement.
One thing worth mentioning is try to follow the rule of modularity, it will help speed up implementing and debugging our code.
It's been a while since I did any C# programming so sudo-coding this in Java style.
Since it's a command line programming you are probably have to validate user input more than once. One thing I would do is make a utility class to contains common user input tasks.
public class TerminalUtil {
private TerminalUtil() {}
public static boolean isYes(String msg){ return (msg.ToUpper() == "Y" || msg.ToUpper() == "YES"); }
public static boolean isNo(String msg){ return (msg.ToUpper() == "N" || msg.ToUpper() == "NO"); }
// You also might want basic conditionals to check if string is numeric or contains letters.
// I like using recursion for command line utilities so having a method that can re-print messages is handy
public static void display(String[] messages){
for(String msg : messages){
Console.WriteLine(msg);
}
}
public static boolean enterYesOrNo(String[] messages, String[] errorMessages){
display(messages)
String input = Console.ReadLine();
if( isYes(input) ){
return true;
} else if( isNo(input) ){
return false;
} else {
display(errorMessages); // Maybe something like, you didn't enter a yes or no value.
enterYesOrNo(messages, errorMessages); // Recursive loop to try again.
}
}
}
Here is what the code to order a pizza might look like
public class OrderPizza{
public static int selectToppings(){
String[] message = new String[4];
message[0] = ("\nSelect additional topping/s\n");
message[1] = ("1 - Extra meat: 200");
message[2] = ("2 - Extra cheese: 100");
message[3] = ("3 - Extra veggies: 80\n");
int option = TerminalUtils.entryNumeric(message, {"You entered an non-numeric character, try again"} );
if( option > 0 && option <= 3 ){
return option;
} else {
Console.WriteLine("Number must be between 1 - 3, try again.");
return selectToppings();
}
}
public static Pizza order(){
Pizza pizza = new Pizza();
while(true){
int toppingCode = selectTopping();
pizza.addTopping(toppingCode);
if(!TerminalUtil.enterYesOrNo({"\nAdd more toppings? Y/N"}, {"Please enter a 'Y'es or 'N'o"}) ){
break;
}
}
}
}
The main benefit of this is that the business logic of the while loop has been reduced and you can reuse the code in TerminalUtils. Also this is by no mean a elegant solution, I'm lazy and it's 3am IRL, but it's should be enough to the ball rolling.
One thing you should probably reconsider doing is using integer codes to represent toppings. Using an enum might make things easier to implement.
I also notice that you add three different types of pizza's, which I'm assuming three separate objects.
Since you are looping to add toppings to a pizza, make an abstract class of pizza. This way you could extend it generic pre-built pizzas such as pepperoni or cheese and use the abstract pizza class if you want the customer to customize their order.
I didn't found better way than:
while ( str!="N" )
{
str = Console.ReadLine();
str = str.ToUpper();
if (str == "Y");
break;
};
Wondering if there are good alternatives to this that perform no worse than what I have below? The real switch statement has additional sections for other non-English characters.
Note that I'd love to put multiple case statements per line, but StyleCop doesn't like it and will fail our release build as a result.
var retVal = String.Empty;
switch(valToCheck)
{
case "é":
case "ê":
case "è":
case "ë":
retVal = "e";
break;
case "à":
case "â":
case "ä":
case "å":
retVal = "a";
break;
default:
retVal = "-";
break;
}
The first thing that comes to mind is a Dictionary<char,char>()
(I prefer char instead of strings because you are dealing with chars)
Dictionary<char,char> dict = new Dictionary<char,char>();
dict.Add('å', 'a');
......
then you could remove your entire switch
char retValue;
char testValue = 'å';
if(dict.TryGetValue(testValue, out retValue) == false)
retVal = '-';
Well, start off by doing this transformation.
public class CharacterSanitizer
{
private static Dictionary<string, string> characterMappings = new Dictionary<string, string>();
static CharacterSanitizer()
{
characterMappings.Add("é", "e");
characterMappings.Add("ê", "e");
//...
}
public static string mapCharacter(string input)
{
string output;
if (characterMappings.TryGetValue(input, out output))
{
return output;
}
else
{
return input;
}
}
}
Now you're in the position where the character mappings are part of the data, rather than the code. I've hard coded the values here, but at this point it is simple enough to store the mappings in a file, read in the file and then populate the dictionary accordingly. This way you can not only clean up the code a lot by reducing the case statement to one bit text file (outside of code) but you can modify it without needing to re-compile.
You could make a small range check and look at the ascii values.
Assuming InRange(val, min, max) checks if a number is, yep, in range..
if(InRange(System.Convert.ToInt32(valToCheck),232,235))
return 'e';
else if(InRange(System.Convert.ToInt32(valToCheck),224,229))
return 'a';
This makes the code a little confusing, and depends on the standard used, but perhaps something to consider.
This answer presumes that you are going to apply that switch statement to a string, not just to single characters (though that would also work).
The best approach seems to be the one outlined in this StackOverflow answer.
I adapted it to use LINQ:
var chars = from character in valToCheck.Normalize(NormalizationForm.FormD)
where CharUnicodeInfo.GetUnicodeCategory(character)
!= UnicodeCategory.NonSpacingMark
select character;
return string.Join("", chars).Normalize(NormalizationForm.FormC);
you'll need a using directive for System.Globalization;
Sample input:
string valToCheck = "êéÈöü";
Sample output:
eeEou
Based on Michael Kaplan's RemoveDiacritics(), you could do something like this:
static char RemoveDiacritics(char c)
{
string stFormD = c.ToString().Normalize(NormalizationForm.FormD);
StringBuilder sb = new StringBuilder();
for (int ich = 0; ich < stFormD.Length; ich++)
{
UnicodeCategory uc = CharUnicodeInfo.GetUnicodeCategory(stFormD[ich]);
if (uc != UnicodeCategory.NonSpacingMark)
{
sb.Append(stFormD[ich]);
}
}
return (sb.ToString()[0]);
}
switch(RemoveDiacritics(valToCheck))
{
case 'e':
//...
break;
case 'a':
//...
break;
//...
}
or, potentially even:
retval = RemoveDiacritics(valToCheck);
Use Contains instead of switch.
var retVal = String.Empty;
string es = "éêèë";
if (es.Contains(valToCheck)) retVal = "e";
//etc.
If I have a switch-case statement where the object in the switch is string, is it possible to do an ignoreCase compare?
I have for instance:
string s = "house";
switch (s)
{
case "houSe": s = "window";
}
Will s get the value "window"? How do I override the switch-case statement so it will compare the strings using ignoreCase?
A simpler approach is just lowercasing your string before it goes into the switch statement, and have the cases lower.
Actually, upper is a bit better from a pure extreme nanosecond performance standpoint, but less natural to look at.
E.g.:
string s = "house";
switch (s.ToLower()) {
case "house":
s = "window";
break;
}
Sorry for this new post to an old question, but there is a new option for solving this problem using C# 7 (VS 2017).
C# 7 now offers "pattern matching", and it can be used to address this issue thusly:
string houseName = "house"; // value to be tested, ignoring case
string windowName; // switch block will set value here
switch (true)
{
case bool b when houseName.Equals("MyHouse", StringComparison.InvariantCultureIgnoreCase):
windowName = "MyWindow";
break;
case bool b when houseName.Equals("YourHouse", StringComparison.InvariantCultureIgnoreCase):
windowName = "YourWindow";
break;
case bool b when houseName.Equals("House", StringComparison.InvariantCultureIgnoreCase):
windowName = "Window";
break;
default:
windowName = null;
break;
}
This solution also deals with the issue mentioned in the answer by #Jeffrey L Whitledge that case-insensitive comparison of strings is not the same as comparing two lower-cased strings.
By the way, there was an interesting article in February 2017 in Visual Studio Magazine describing pattern matching and how it can be used in case blocks. Please have a look: Pattern Matching in C# 7.0 Case Blocks
EDIT
In light of #LewisM's answer, it's important to point out that the switch statement has some new, interesting behavior. That is that if your case statement contains a variable declaration, then the value specified in the switch part is copied into the variable declared in the case. In the following example, the value true is copied into the local variable b. Further to that, the variable b is unused, and exists only so that the when clause to the case statement can exist:
switch(true)
{
case bool b when houseName.Equals("X", StringComparison.InvariantCultureIgnoreCase):
windowName = "X-Window";):
break;
}
As #LewisM points out, this can be used to benefit - that benefit being that the thing being compared is actually in the switch statement, as it is with the classical use of the switch statement. Also, the temporary values declared in the case statement can prevent unwanted or inadvertent changes to the original value:
switch(houseName)
{
case string hn when hn.Equals("X", StringComparison.InvariantCultureIgnoreCase):
windowName = "X-Window";
break;
}
As you seem to be aware, lowercasing two strings and comparing them is not the same as doing an ignore-case comparison. There are lots of reasons for this. For example, the Unicode standard allows text with diacritics to be encoded multiple ways. Some characters includes both the base character and the diacritic in a single code point. These characters may also be represented as the base character followed by a combining diacritic character. These two representations are equal for all purposes, and the culture-aware string comparisons in the .NET Framework will correctly identify them as equal, with either the CurrentCulture or the InvariantCulture (with or without IgnoreCase). An ordinal comparison, on the other hand, will incorrectly regard them as unequal.
Unfortunately, switch doesn't do anything but an ordinal comparison. An ordinal comparison is fine for certain kinds of applications, like parsing an ASCII file with rigidly defined codes, but ordinal string comparison is wrong for most other uses.
What I have done in the past to get the correct behavior is just mock up my own switch statement. There are lots of ways to do this. One way would be to create a List<T> of pairs of case strings and delegates. The list can be searched using the proper string comparison. When the match is found then the associated delegate may be invoked.
Another option is to do the obvious chain of if statements. This usually turns out to be not as bad as it sounds, since the structure is very regular.
The great thing about this is that there isn't really any performance penalty in mocking up your own switch functionality when comparing against strings. The system isn't going to make a O(1) jump table the way it can with integers, so it's going to be comparing each string one at a time anyway.
If there are many cases to be compared, and performance is an issue, then the List<T> option described above could be replaced with a sorted dictionary or hash table. Then the performance may potentially match or exceed the switch statement option.
Here is an example of the list of delegates:
delegate void CustomSwitchDestination();
List<KeyValuePair<string, CustomSwitchDestination>> customSwitchList;
CustomSwitchDestination defaultSwitchDestination = new CustomSwitchDestination(NoMatchFound);
void CustomSwitch(string value)
{
foreach (var switchOption in customSwitchList)
if (switchOption.Key.Equals(value, StringComparison.InvariantCultureIgnoreCase))
{
switchOption.Value.Invoke();
return;
}
defaultSwitchDestination.Invoke();
}
Of course, you will probably want to add some standard parameters and possibly a return type to the CustomSwitchDestination delegate. And you'll want to make better names!
If the behavior of each of your cases is not amenable to delegate invocation in this manner, such as if differnt parameters are necessary, then you’re stuck with chained if statments. I’ve also done this a few times.
if (s.Equals("house", StringComparison.InvariantCultureIgnoreCase))
{
s = "window";
}
else if (s.Equals("business", StringComparison.InvariantCultureIgnoreCase))
{
s = "really big window";
}
else if (s.Equals("school", StringComparison.InvariantCultureIgnoreCase))
{
s = "broken window";
}
An extension to the answer by #STLDeveloperA. A new way to do statement evaluation without multiple if statements as of C# 7 is using the pattern matching switch statement, similar to the way #STLDeveloper though this way is switching on the variable being switched
string houseName = "house"; // value to be tested
string s;
switch (houseName)
{
case var name when string.Equals(name, "Bungalow", StringComparison.InvariantCultureIgnoreCase):
s = "Single glazed";
break;
case var name when string.Equals(name, "Church", StringComparison.InvariantCultureIgnoreCase):
s = "Stained glass";
break;
...
default:
s = "No windows (cold or dark)";
break;
}
The visual studio magazine has a nice article on pattern matching case blocks that might be worth a look.
In some cases it might be a good idea to use an enum. So first parse the enum (with ignoreCase flag true) and than have a switch on the enum.
SampleEnum Result;
bool Success = SampleEnum.TryParse(inputText, true, out Result);
if(!Success){
//value was not in the enum values
}else{
switch (Result) {
case SampleEnum.Value1:
break;
case SampleEnum.Value2:
break;
default:
//do default behaviour
break;
}
}
One possible way would be to use an ignore case dictionary with an action delegate.
string s = null;
var dic = new Dictionary<string, Action>(StringComparer.CurrentCultureIgnoreCase)
{
{"house", () => s = "window"},
{"house2", () => s = "window2"}
};
dic["HouSe"]();
// Note that the call doesn't return text, but only populates local variable s.
// If you want to return the actual text, replace Action to Func<string> and values in dictionary to something like () => "window2"
Here's a solution that wraps #Magnus 's solution in a class:
public class SwitchCaseIndependent : IEnumerable<KeyValuePair<string, Action>>
{
private readonly Dictionary<string, Action> _cases = new Dictionary<string, Action>(StringComparer.OrdinalIgnoreCase);
public void Add(string theCase, Action theResult)
{
_cases.Add(theCase, theResult);
}
public Action this[string whichCase]
{
get
{
if (!_cases.ContainsKey(whichCase))
{
throw new ArgumentException($"Error in SwitchCaseIndependent, \"{whichCase}\" is not a valid option");
}
//otherwise
return _cases[whichCase];
}
}
public IEnumerator<KeyValuePair<string, Action>> GetEnumerator()
{
return _cases.GetEnumerator();
}
IEnumerator IEnumerable.GetEnumerator()
{
return _cases.GetEnumerator();
}
}
Here's an example of using it in a simple Windows Form's app:
var mySwitch = new SwitchCaseIndependent
{
{"hello", () => MessageBox.Show("hello")},
{"Goodbye", () => MessageBox.Show("Goodbye")},
{"SoLong", () => MessageBox.Show("SoLong")},
};
mySwitch["HELLO"]();
If you use lambdas (like the example), you get closures which will capture your local variables (pretty close to the feeling you get from a switch statement).
Since it uses a Dictionary under the covers, it gets O(1) behavior and doesn't rely on walking through the list of strings. Of course, you need to construct that dictionary, and that probably costs more. If you want to reuse the Switch behavior over and over, you can create and initialize the the SwitchCaseIndependent object once and then use it as many times as you want.
It would probably make sense to add a simple bool ContainsCase(string aCase) method that simply calls the dictionary's ContainsKey method.
I would say that with switch expressions (added in C# 8.0), discard patterns and local functions the approaches suggested by #STLDev and #LewisM can be rewritten in even more clean/shorter way:
string houseName = "house"; // value to be tested
// local method to compare, I prefer to put them at the bottom of the invoking method:
bool Compare(string right) => string.Equals(houseName, right, StringComparison.InvariantCultureIgnoreCase);
var s = houseName switch
{
_ when Compare("Bungalow") => "Single glazed",
_ when Compare("Church") => "Stained glass",
// ...
_ => "No windows (cold or dark)" // default value
};
It should be sufficient to do this:
string s = "houSe";
switch (s.ToLowerInvariant())
{
case "house": s = "window";
break;
}
The switch comparison is thereby culture invariant. As far as I can see this should achieve the same result as the C#7 Pattern-Matching solutions, but more succinctly.
I hope this helps try to convert the whole string into particular case either lower case or Upper case and use the Lowercase string for comparison:
public string ConvertMeasurements(string unitType, string value)
{
switch (unitType.ToLower())
{
case "mmol/l": return (Double.Parse(value) * 0.0555).ToString();
case "mg/dl": return (double.Parse(value) * 18.0182).ToString();
}
}
Using the Case Insensitive Comparison:
Comparing strings while ignoring case.
switch (caseSwitch)
{
case string s when s.Equals("someValue", StringComparison.InvariantCultureIgnoreCase):
// ...
break;
}
for more detail Visit this link: Switch Case When In C# Statement And Expression
Now you can use the switch expression (rewrote the previous example):
return houseName switch
{
_ when houseName.Equals("MyHouse", StringComparison.InvariantCultureIgnoreCase) => "MyWindow",
_ when houseName.Equals("YourHouse", StringComparison.InvariantCultureIgnoreCase) => "YourWindow",
_ when houseName.Equals("House", StringComparison.InvariantCultureIgnoreCase) => "Window",
_ => null
};