using System.Linq;
using System.Text;
using System.Threading.Tasks;
namespace Where_MethodGroup
{
public delegate List<int> WhereDelegate(List<int> list);
class Program :IEnumerable
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
List<int> list = new List<int>();
list.AddRange(new int[] { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 });
WhereDelegate lessThanFive;
lessThanFive = GroupConversionMethod;
IEnumerable<int> query = list.Where(lessThanFive);
foreach (int i in query)
{
Console.WriteLine(i);
}
}
public static List<int> GroupConversionMethod(List<int> list1)
{
Console.WriteLine("Integers less than 5 are :");
foreach (int i in list1)
{
if (i < 5)
{
yield return i;
}
}
}
}
}
I have to Find all the elements less than five by passing a delegate object in the where method. While defining the delegate object use Method Group Conversion Syntax for call back function to be used (Define delegate object through new operator).
I am getting error in the line:
IEnumerable<int> query = list.Where(lessThanFive)
that where method has some invalid arguments, what could be the reasonable fix for this error?
The Where statment get as parameter Func<int,bool> in this case.
You need to write function that get int and return true or false
Try something like this:
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
List<int> list = new List<int>();
list.AddRange(new int[] { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 });
IEnumerable<int> query = list.Where(isInGroup);
foreach (int i in query)
{
Console.WriteLine(i);
}
}
public static bool isInGroup(int elem)
{
return elem < 5;
}
}
The problem is that you are trying to make a delegate which takes as parameter a list and returns a list of integers, while you are sending in linq Where method elemets one by one (so only one integer) and you are expecting to return a bool.
If you change the signature of the delegate to be like this, it will work:
public delegate bool WhereDelegate(int element);
Then you can call it in the following way:
static void Main(string[] args)
{
WhereDelegate del = (int element) => element < 5;
List<int> list = new List<int>();
list.AddRange(new int[] { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 });
IEnumerable<int> query = list.Where(x => del(x));
}
using lambda operator =>
This is equivalent to writing a method and assigning it to the delegate:
public static bool Method(int i)
{
return i < 5;
}
then at the delegate instantiate:
WhereDelegate del = Method;
And if you want to use the new keyword as you specified (even if it is not necessary in this case), you can write:
WhereDelegate del = new WhereDelegate((int element) => element < 5);
or
WhereDelegate del = new WhereDelegate(Method);
When creating the delegate.
You can try the following:
IEnumerable<int> query = list.Where(c => c < 5);
or
IEnumerable<int> query = from e in list
where e < 5
select e;
Related
I need to write a method to find the commons between 2 arrays in C# but the thing is I can't convert my python logic from the past to C#
it used to be like this in python:
def commonfinder(list1, list2):
commonlist = []
for x in list1:
for y in list2:
if x==y:
commonlist.append(x)
return commonlist
but when I tried to convert it to C#:
public int [] Commons(int[] ar1, int[] ar2)
{
int commoncount;
int[] Commonslist = new int[commoncount];
foreach (int x in ar1)
{
foreach (int y in ar2)
{
if (x == y)
{
commoncount++;
// here I should add x to Commonlist
}
}
}
return Commonslist;
}
I couldn't find any method or functions that would append x to my Commonlist
and ofc I got a lot of errors I couldn't solve
can I get a tip?
Your original algorithm has O(n * m) time complexity, which can be too long:
imagine that you have lists of 1 million items each (1 trillion compares to perform). You can implement a better code with O(n + m) complexity only:
Code: (let's generalize the problem)
using System.Linq;
...
public static T[] CommonFinder<T>(IEnumerable<T> left,
IEnumerable<T> right,
IEqualityComparer<T> comparer = null) {
if (null == left || null == right)
return new T[0]; // Or throw ArgumentNullException exception
comparer = comparer ?? EqualityComparer<T>.Default;
Dictionary<T, int> dict = right
.GroupBy(item => item)
.ToDictionary(group => group.Key, group => group.Count());
List<T> result = new List<T>();
foreach (T item in left)
if (dict.TryGetValue(item, out int count)) {
result.Add(item);
if (count <= 1)
dict.Remove(item);
else
dict[item] = count - 1;
}
return result.ToArray();
}
Demo:
int[] left = new int[] { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 };
int[] right = new int[] { 0, 3, 2, 6, 9};
var common = CommonFinder(left, right);
Console.WriteLine(string.Join(", ", common));
Outcome:
2, 3
Note: What I understood is you want a method that takes 2 int arrays and yields 1 int array as the output with the unique intersecting values.
You can use HashSet to speed up to insert and lookup time (amortized O(1)). The running time is O(Max(n,m)) due to us having to go through both the entire arrays (separately). In terms of memory, O(Min(n,m)) because we select the smaller array at the beginning to populate the set and for the rest of the logic naturally won't have more elements than the smaller array because it is the intersect.
The Main method shows you how to utilize the method. CommonIntegers has the logic which you seek.
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Linq;
namespace TestCode.StackOverflow
{
public class So66935672
{
public static void Main(string[] args)
{
int[] intArray1 = new int[] { 9, 9, 1, 3, 5, 6, 10, 9 };
int[] intArray2 = new int[] { 19, 17, 16, 5, 1, 6 };
Console.Write(
CommonIntegers(intArray1, intArray2)
.Select(i => $"{i}, ")
.Aggregate(string.Empty, string.Concat));
}
private static int[] CommonIntegers(int[] intArray1, int[] intArray2)
{
if (intArray1 == null || intArray1.Length == 0
|| intArray2 == null || intArray2.Length == 0)
{
return Array.Empty<int>();
}
var primaryArraySet = new HashSet<int>(); // Contains the unique values from the shorter array
var intersectSet = new HashSet<int>(); // Contains unique values found in both arrays
int[] secondarySet;
// Fill primary set
if (intArray1.Length > intArray2.Length)
{
foreach (var i in intArray2)
primaryArraySet.Add(i);
secondarySet = intArray1;
}
else
{
foreach (var i in intArray1)
primaryArraySet.Add(i);
secondarySet = intArray2;
}
// Fill intersect array
foreach (var i in secondarySet)
if (primaryArraySet.Contains(i))
intersectSet.Add(i);
return intersectSet.ToArray();
}
}
}
You can try this one:
static List<int> CommonFinder(List<int> list1, List<int> list2)
{
List<int> commonList = new List<int>();
foreach (int x in list1)
foreach (int y in list2)
if (x == y)
commonList.Add(x);
return commonList;
}
static void Main()
{
List<int> list1 = new List<int> { 1, 2, 3 };
List<int> list2 = new List<int> { 2, 3, 4};
var common = CommonFinder(list1, list2);
Console.WriteLine(string.Join(", ", common));
}
I found behavior in the interaction between linq and collections, that I can't understand.
I was taught, that changing collection during enumeration through this collection leads to InvalidOperationException.
But that's a bit more complex.
I have an example here (mirror)
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Linq;
public class Program
{
public void Main()
{
Program.Try(Program.HandleArray_Where, "array.where");
Program.Try(Program.HandleArray_Where_OrderBy, "array.where.orderby");
Program.Try(Program.HandleList_Where, "list.where");
Program.Try(Program.HandleList_Where_OrderBy, "list.where.orderby");
}
private static void Try(Action action, string text)
{
Console.WriteLine(text);
try
{
action.Invoke();
}
catch (InvalidOperationException)
{
Console.WriteLine("Invalid operation");
}
Console.WriteLine();
Console.WriteLine();
}
private static void HandleArray_Where()
{
IList<int> arr = new[] { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 };
var enumerable = arr.Where(item => item > 2);
foreach (var item in enumerable)
{
arr[3] = 0;
Console.WriteLine(item);
}
}
private static void HandleArray_Where_OrderBy()
{
IList<int> arr = new[] { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 };
var orderedEnumerable = arr.Where(item => item > 2).OrderBy(asd => asd);
foreach (var item in orderedEnumerable)
{
arr[3] = 0;
Console.WriteLine(item);
}
}
private static void HandleList_Where()
{
IList<int> list = new List<int> { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 };
var enumerable = list.Where(item => item > 2);
foreach (var item in enumerable)
{
list[3] = 0;
Console.WriteLine(item);
}
}
private static void HandleList_Where_OrderBy()
{
IList<int> list = new List<int> { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 };
var orderedEnumerable = list.Where(item => item > 2).OrderBy(asd => asd);
foreach (var item in orderedEnumerable)
{
list[3] = 0;
Console.WriteLine(item);
}
}
}
There are four collections, and I'm trying to change them during enumeration. I was expected to have InvalidOperationException four times, but I had it once only.
Output:
array.where
3
5
array.where.orderby
3
4
5
list.where
3
Invalid operation
list.where.orderby
3
4
5
So, I can interpret the results like this:
.OrderBy() works with the result of .Where(), with a new collection, that doesn't feel changes in the original one, because the sample was taken before changes. So in blocks "array.where.orderby" and "list.where.orderby" there are three numbers.
But I don't understand the behavior of "array.where" and "list.where" blocks. Why I can change int[] and can't change List<int> during iterations, especially if both of them are converted to IList<int>? Now I'm looking at this as a discrepancy with Liskov substitution principle: one parent type has two different behaviors depending on the true type of the variable
Say I have two lists with following entries
List<int> a = new List<int> { 1, 2, 5, 10 };
List<int> b = new List<int> { 6, 20, 3 };
I want to create another List c where its entries are items inserted by position from two lists. So List c would contain the following entries:
List<int> c = {1, 6, 2, 20, 5, 3, 10}
Is there a way to do it in .NET using LINQ? I was looking at .Zip() LINQ extension, but wasn't sure how to use it in this case.
Thanks in advance!
To do it using LINQ, you can use this piece of LINQPad example code:
void Main()
{
List<int> a = new List<int> { 1, 2, 5, 10 };
List<int> b = new List<int> { 6, 20, 3 };
var result = Enumerable.Zip(a, b, (aElement, bElement) => new[] { aElement, bElement })
.SelectMany(ab => ab)
.Concat(a.Skip(Math.Min(a.Count, b.Count)))
.Concat(b.Skip(Math.Min(a.Count, b.Count)));
result.Dump();
}
Output:
This will:
Zip the two lists together (which will stop when either runs out of elements)
Producing an array containing the two elements (one from a, another from b)
Using SelectMany to "flatten" this out to one sequence of values
Concatenate in the remainder from either list (only one or neither of the two calls to Concat should add any elements)
Now, having said that, personally I would've used this:
public static IEnumerable<T> Intertwine<T>(this IEnumerable<T> a, IEnumerable<T> b)
{
using (var enumerator1 = a.GetEnumerator())
using (var enumerator2 = b.GetEnumerator())
{
bool more1 = enumerator1.MoveNext();
bool more2 = enumerator2.MoveNext();
while (more1 && more2)
{
yield return enumerator1.Current;
yield return enumerator2.Current;
more1 = enumerator1.MoveNext();
more2 = enumerator2.MoveNext();
}
while (more1)
{
yield return enumerator1.Current;
more1 = enumerator1.MoveNext();
}
while (more2)
{
yield return enumerator2.Current;
more2 = enumerator2.MoveNext();
}
}
}
Reasons:
It doesn't enumerate a nor b more than once
I'm skeptical about the performance of Skip
It can work with any IEnumerable<T> and not just List<T>
I'd create an extension method to do it.
public static List<T> MergeAll<T>(this List<T> first, List<T> second)
{
int maxCount = (first.Count > second. Count) ? first.Count : second.Count;
var ret = new List<T>();
for (int i = 0; i < maxCount; i++)
{
if (first.Count < maxCount)
ret.Add(first[i]);
if (second.Count < maxCount)
ret.Add(second[i]);
}
return ret;
}
This would iterate through both lists once. If one list is bigger than the other it will continue to add until it's done.
You could try this code:
List<int> c = a.Select((i, index) => new Tuple<int, int>(i, index * 2))
.Union(b.Select((i, index) => new Tuple<int, int>(i, index * 2 + 1)))
.OrderBy(t => t.Second)
.Select(t => t.First).ToList();
It makes a union of two collections and then sorts that union using index. Elements from the first collection have even indices, from the second - odd ones.
Just wrote a little extension for this:
public static class MyEnumerable
{
public static IEnumerable<T> Smash<T>(this IEnumerable<T> one, IEnumerable<T> two)
{
using (IEnumerator<T> enumeratorOne = one.GetEnumerator(),
enumeratorTwo = two.GetEnumerator())
{
bool twoFinished = false;
while (enumeratorOne.MoveNext())
{
yield return enumeratorOne.Current;
if (!twoFinished && enumeratorTwo.MoveNext())
{
yield return enumeratorTwo.Current;
}
}
if (!twoFinished)
{
while (enumeratorTwo.MoveNext())
{
yield return enumeratorTwo.Current;
}
}
}
}
}
Usage:
var a = new List<int> { 1, 2, 5, 10 };
var b = new List<int> { 6, 20, 3 };
var c = a.Smash(b); // 1, 6, 2, 20, 5, 3, 10
var d = b.Smash(a); // 6, 1, 20, 2, 3, 5, 10
This will work for any IEnumerable so you can also do:
var a = new List<string> { "the", "brown", "jumped", "the", "lazy", "dog" };
var b = new List<string> { "quick", "dog", "over" };
var c = a.Smash(b); // the, quick, brown, fox, jumped, over, the, lazy, dog
You could use Concat and an anonymous type which you order by the index:
List<int> c = a
.Select((val, index) => new { val, index })
.Concat(b.Select((val, index) => new { val, index }))
.OrderBy(x => x.index)
.Select(x => x.val)
.ToList();
However, since that's not really elegant and also less efficient than:
c = new List<int>(a.Count + b.Count);
int max = Math.Max(a.Count, b.Count);
int aMax = a.Count;
int bMax = b.Count;
for (int i = 0; i < max; i++)
{
if(i < aMax)
c.Add(a[i]);
if(i < bMax)
c.Add(b[i]);
}
I wouldn't use LINQ at all.
Sorry for adding a third extension method inspired by the other two, but I like it shorter:
static IEnumerable<T> Intertwine<T>(this IEnumerable<T> a, IEnumerable<T> b)
{
using (var enumerator1 = a.GetEnumerator())
using (var enumerator2 = b.GetEnumerator()) {
bool more1 = true, more2 = true;
do {
if (more1 && (more1 = enumerator1.MoveNext()))
yield return enumerator1.Current;
if (more2 && (more2 = enumerator2.MoveNext()))
yield return enumerator2.Current;
} while (more1 || more2);
}
}
I don't think SequenceEqual is working between the two because the "middle" elements (IEnumerable<int>) aren't using SequenceEqual.
oneThingy.SequenceEqual(twoThingy)
Short of using String.Join on the middle elements, is there a way to get equality?
SequenceEqual tests using Equals; to use SequenceEquals you'll need to implement it yourself. Try using the Zip operator with sequence equals.
// example
var first = Enumerable.Range(1, 10).Select(i => Enumerable.Range(1, i));
var second = Enumerable.Range(1, 10).Select(i => Enumerable.Range(1, i));
bool nestedSequencesEqual =
// test if each sequence index is equal
first.Zip(second, (f, s) => f.SequenceEqual(s))
// ensure all like sequences are equal
.All(b => b);
// returns true
+1 for #BleuM937 answer.
As an another approach you can use the SequenceEqual overloads with equality comparer:
IEnumerable<IEnumerable<int>> one = new IEnumerable<int>[] { new int[] { 1 }, new int[] { 1, 2, 3 } };
IEnumerable<IEnumerable<int>> two = new IEnumerable<int>[] { new int[] { 1 }, new int[] { 1, 2, 3 } };
bool nestedSequencesEqual = one.SequenceEqual(two, new SequencesComparer<int>());
class SequencesComparer<T> : IEqualityComparer<IEnumerable<T>> {
public bool Equals(IEnumerable<T> x, IEnumerable<T> y) {
return x.SequenceEqual(y);
}
public int GetHashCode(IEnumerable<T> obj) {
return obj.GetHashCode();
}
}
The following code works for me...
public class IntList : List<int>, IEquatable<IntList>
{
public bool Equals(IntList other)
{
return this.SequenceEqual(other);
}
}
void Main()
{
List<IntList> list1 = new List<IntList>(2);
List<IntList> list2 = new List<IntList>(2);
var list11 = new IntList() {1, 2, 3};
list1.Add(list11);
var list21 = new IntList() {1, 2, 3};
list2.Add(list21);
var result = list1.SequenceEqual(list2);
Console.WriteLine(result);
}
Reference: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb348567(v=vs.100).aspx
I'd like to partition a list into a list of lists, by specifying the number of elements in each partition.
For instance, suppose I have the list {1, 2, ... 11}, and would like to partition it such that each set has 4 elements, with the last set filling as many elements as it can. The resulting partition would look like {{1..4}, {5..8}, {9..11}}
What would be an elegant way of writing this?
Here is an extension method that will do what you want:
public static IEnumerable<List<T>> Partition<T>(this IList<T> source, Int32 size)
{
for (int i = 0; i < (source.Count / size) + (source.Count % size > 0 ? 1 : 0); i++)
yield return new List<T>(source.Skip(size * i).Take(size));
}
Edit: Here is a much cleaner version of the function:
public static IEnumerable<List<T>> Partition<T>(this IList<T> source, Int32 size)
{
for (int i = 0; i < Math.Ceiling(source.Count / (Double)size); i++)
yield return new List<T>(source.Skip(size * i).Take(size));
}
Using LINQ you could cut your groups up in a single line of code like this...
var x = new List<int>() { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 };
var groups = x.Select((i, index) => new
{
i,
index
}).GroupBy(group => group.index / 4, element => element.i);
You could then iterate over the groups like the following...
foreach (var group in groups)
{
Console.WriteLine("Group: {0}", group.Key);
foreach (var item in group)
{
Console.WriteLine("\tValue: {0}", item);
}
}
and you'll get an output that looks like this...
Group: 0
Value: 1
Value: 2
Value: 3
Value: 4
Group: 1
Value: 5
Value: 6
Value: 7
Value: 8
Group: 2
Value: 9
Value: 10
Value: 11
Something like (untested air code):
IEnumerable<IList<T>> PartitionList<T>(IList<T> list, int maxCount)
{
List<T> partialList = new List<T>(maxCount);
foreach(T item in list)
{
if (partialList.Count == maxCount)
{
yield return partialList;
partialList = new List<T>(maxCount);
}
partialList.Add(item);
}
if (partialList.Count > 0) yield return partialList;
}
This returns an enumeration of lists rather than a list of lists, but you can easily wrap the result in a list:
IList<IList<T>> listOfLists = new List<T>(PartitionList<T>(list, maxCount));
To avoid grouping, mathematics and reiteration.
The method avoids unnecessary calculations, comparisons and allocations. Parameter validation is included.
Here is a working demonstration on fiddle.
public static IEnumerable<IList<T>> Partition<T>(
this IEnumerable<T> source,
int size)
{
if (size < 2)
{
throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException(
nameof(size),
size,
"Must be greater or equal to 2.");
}
T[] partition;
int count;
using (var e = source.GetEnumerator())
{
if (e.MoveNext())
{
partition = new T[size];
partition[0] = e.Current;
count = 1;
}
else
{
yield break;
}
while(e.MoveNext())
{
partition[count] = e.Current;
count++;
if (count == size)
{
yield return partition;
count = 0;
partition = new T[size];
}
}
}
if (count > 0)
{
Array.Resize(ref partition, count);
yield return partition;
}
}
var yourList = new List<int> { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 };
var groupSize = 4;
// here's the actual query that does the grouping...
var query = yourList
.Select((x, i) => new { x, i })
.GroupBy(i => i.i / groupSize, x => x.x);
// and here's a quick test to ensure that it worked properly...
foreach (var group in query)
{
foreach (var item in group)
{
Console.Write(item + ",");
}
Console.WriteLine();
}
If you need an actual List<List<T>> rather than an IEnumerable<IEnumerable<T>> then change the query as follows:
var query = yourList
.Select((x, i) => new { x, i })
.GroupBy(i => i.i / groupSize, x => x.x)
.Select(g => g.ToList())
.ToList();
Or in .Net 2.0 you would do this:
static void Main(string[] args)
{
int[] values = new int[] { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 };
List<int[]> items = new List<int[]>(SplitArray(values, 4));
}
static IEnumerable<T[]> SplitArray<T>(T[] items, int size)
{
for (int index = 0; index < items.Length; index += size)
{
int remains = Math.Min(size, items.Length-index);
T[] segment = new T[remains];
Array.Copy(items, index, segment, 0, remains);
yield return segment;
}
}
public static IEnumerable<IEnumerable<T>> Partition<T>(this IEnumerable<T> list, int size)
{
while (list.Any()) { yield return list.Take(size); list = list.Skip(size); }
}
and for the special case of String
public static IEnumerable<string> Partition(this string str, int size)
{
return str.Partition<char>(size).Select(AsString);
}
public static string AsString(this IEnumerable<char> charList)
{
return new string(charList.ToArray());
}
Using ArraySegments might be a readable and short solution (casting your list to array is required):
var list = new List<int>() { 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 }; //Added 0 in front on purpose in order to enhance simplicity.
int[] array = list.ToArray();
int step = 4;
List<int[]> listSegments = new List<int[]>();
for(int i = 0; i < array.Length; i+=step)
{
int[] segment = new ArraySegment<int>(array, i, step).ToArray();
listSegments.Add(segment);
}
I'm not sure why Jochems answer using ArraySegment was voted down. It could be really useful as long as you are not going to need to extend the segments (cast to IList). For example, imagine that what you are trying to do is pass segments into a TPL DataFlow pipeline for concurrent processing. Passing the segments in as IList instances allows the same code to deal with arrays and lists agnostically.
Of course, that begs the question: Why not just derive a ListSegment class that does not require wasting memory by calling ToArray()? The answer is that arrays can actually be processed marginally faster in some situations (slightly faster indexing). But you would have to be doing some fairly hardcore processing to notice much of a difference. More importantly, there is no good way to protect against random insert and remove operations by other code holding a reference to the list.
Calling ToArray() on a million value numeric list takes about 3 milliseconds on my workstation. That's usually not too great a price to pay when you're using it to gain the benefits of more robust thread safety in concurrent operations, without incurring the heavy cost of locking.
You could use an extension method:
public static IList<HashSet<T>> Partition<T>(this IEnumerable<T> input, Func<T, object> partitionFunc)
{
Dictionary<object, HashSet> partitions = new Dictionary<object, HashSet<T>>();
object currentKey = null;
foreach (T item in input ?? Enumerable.Empty<T>())
{
currentKey = partitionFunc(item);
if (!partitions.ContainsKey(currentKey))
{
partitions[currentKey] = new HashSet<T>();
}
partitions[currentKey].Add(item);
}
return partitions.Values.ToList();
}
To avoid multiple checks, unnecessary instantiations, and repetitive iterations, you could use the code:
namespace System.Collections.Generic
{
using Linq;
using Runtime.CompilerServices;
public static class EnumerableExtender
{
[MethodImpl(MethodImplOptions.AggressiveInlining)]
public static bool IsEmpty<T>(this IEnumerable<T> enumerable) => !enumerable?.GetEnumerator()?.MoveNext() ?? true;
public static IEnumerable<IEnumerable<T>> Partition<T>(this IEnumerable<T> source, int size)
{
if (source == null)
throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(source));
if (size < 2)
throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException(nameof(size));
IEnumerable<T> items = source;
IEnumerable<T> partition;
while (true)
{
partition = items.Take(size);
if (partition.IsEmpty())
yield break;
else
yield return partition;
items = items.Skip(size);
}
}
}
}