Using string interpolation, I'm attempting to write a method which iterates over an arbitrary amount of objects to evaluating both the name and value of each.
So, consider the following:
private string ParametersMessage(params object[] parameters)
{
var msg = "Parameters: ";
for (int i = 0; i < parameters.Length; i++)
{
msg += $"{nameof(parameters[i])}:{parameters[i]}\r\n";
}
return msg;
}
You can't tell from the StackOverflow syntax highlighting - but this ain't working, not in a million years, because parameters[i] has no name, so nameof can't do the job.
I may call this method like so:
int myNumber = 123;
string myWord = "hello";
var myMessage = ParametersMessage(myNumber, myWord);
Now since I've passed myNumber and myWord as arguments, they've lost their name. Do I need to pass a pointer or some other way of referring to the variable name? How can I build a string from each of the objects' names and values in the list?
Context
During logging, I'll often concatenate a whole host of parameter names and values to help diagnose issues more specifically by seeing which particular record/object failed XYZ. I'm trying to make my method generic enough to avoid having to write many string builder methods.
What I've Tried
I've tried the above (you can see my attempt), but I've also considered passing in the result of nameof with the value. But at that point, I've quickly reverted back to making it too specific again.
Note
I'm no expert, but I'm experienced enough to know the above syntax is silly. I suppose you could interpret my question as 'offer me an alternative approach to what I'm illustrating with my code sample above'.
You can't.
And the signature of the method gives it away: From the compilers point of view , and for all practical purposes, it's an anonymized array of values, with no names associated with them.
And to more clearly illustrate, let's for the sake of argument assume you were to call it like:
ParametersMessage(1, 2, 3, 4, 5);
What would the parameter names be in that case?
I am not sure if this is going to help, but you could make something like a fluent interface so that you can construct the message like this:
string msg = Parameters("name1", value1).And("name2", value2).ToString();
UPDATE
This is neither elegant nor rubust, but you can still pass "parameter names" implicitly:
public void Test()
{
var foo = "bla";
var bar = "blub";
var msg = Parameters(() => foo).And(() => bar).ToString();
// msg contains now "foo = bla, bar = blub"
}
Implementation
public class Params
{
private readonly IDictionary<string, object> _params = new Dictionary<string, object>();
public Params And(Expression<Func<object>> exp)
{
var body = exp.Body as MemberExpression;
_params[body.Member.Name] = exp.Compile().Invoke();
return this;
}
public override string ToString()
{
return String.Join(", ", _params.Select(pair => String.Format("{0} = {1}", pair.Key, pair.Value)));
}
}
public Params Parameters(Expression<Func<object>>expr)
{
return new Params().And(expr);
}
Related
Currently I'm working on an web-API dependent application. I have made a class with a lot of API strings like: /api/lol/static-data/{region}/v1/champion/{id}. Also I made a method:
public static String request(String type, Object[] param)
{
return "";
}
This is going to do the requesting stuff. Because it's very different with each request type how many parameters are being used, I'm using an array for this. Now the question is, is it posssible to String.Format using an array for the paramaters while the keys in the strings are not numbers? Or does anyone know how to do this in a different way?
No, string.Format only supports index-based parameter specifications.
This:
"/api/lol/static-data/{region}/v1/champion/{id}"
^^^^^^^^ ^^^^
will have to be handled using a different method, like string.Replace or a Regex.
You will need to:
Decide on the appropriate method for doing the replacements
Decide how an array with index-based values should map to the parameters, are they positional? ie. {region} is the first element of the array, {id} is the second, etc.?
Here is a simple LINQPad program that demonstrates how I would do it (though I would add a bit more error handling, maybe caching of the reflection info if this is executed a lot, some unit-tests, etc.):
void Main()
{
string input = "/api/lol/static-data/{region}/v1/champion/{id}";
string output = ReplaceArguments(input, new
{
region = "Europe",
id = 42
});
output.Dump();
}
public static string ReplaceArguments(string input, object arguments)
{
if (arguments == null || input == null)
return input;
var argumentsType = arguments.GetType();
var re = new Regex(#"\{(?<name>[^}]+)\}");
return re.Replace(input, match =>
{
var pi = argumentsType.GetProperty(match.Groups["name"].Value);
if (pi == null)
return match.Value;
return (pi.GetValue(arguments) ?? string.Empty).ToString();
});
}
Let's say a program like this:
class MyClass
{
public int Numbers;
public char Letters;
}
class Program
{
static void Main()
{
var mc = new MyClass[5];
for (var i = 0; i < 5; i++)
{
mc[i].Numbers = i + 1;
mc[i].Letters = (char) (i + 65);
}
}
}
Now, let's suppose an 'X' method that requires ALL the numbers contained in the object mc, in a separate array, that's sent as a parameter.
My first idea is a for, a new integers array, and copy one by one onto its respective position. But, what if the MyClass gets different, now it has strings and floats, and I wanna pull out the strings, now the for has to be completely redefined in its inside part to create the needed array for another 'X' method.
I know of cases where Linq helps a lot, for example, generics for Sum, Average, Count and another numeric functions, and of course, it's combination with lambda expressions.
I'm wondering if something similar exists to make the above arrays of MyClass (and anothers of course) in a faster-generic way?
If you want to use LINQ, you can do something like the following:
int [] numbers = mc.Select<MyClass, int>(m => mc.Number).ToArray();
To make it more generic than that, it gets a bit more complicated, and you may need reflection, or dynamic objects. A simple example with reflection would be:
private TValue[] ExtractFields<TClass, TValue>(TClass[] classObjs, string fieldName)
{
FieldInfo fInfo = typeof(TClass).GetField(fieldName, BindingFlags.Public | BindingFlags.Instance);
if (fInfo != null && fInfo.FieldType.Equals(typeof(TValue)))
return classObjs.Select<TClass, TValue>(c => (TValue)fInfo.GetValue(c)).ToArray();
else
throw new NotSupportedException("Unidentified field, or different field type");
}
And then just call it like:
int [] fields = ExtractField<MyClass, int>(mc, "Number");
If you are using C# 4.0, then you may use dynamic
class MyClass
{
public dynamic Numbers;
public char Letters;
}
EDIT: based on comments
I am not sure if this is what you want:
int[] arr = mc.Select(a => a.Numbers).ToArray<int>();
or without casting
int[] arr = mc.Select(a => a.Numbers).ToArray();
Why not just use Dictionary<int, char>, or if the data type is unknown then simply Dictionary<object, object>
If your goal is to generate a new array which is detached from the original array, but contains data copied from it, the most generic thing you could do would be to define a method like:
T my_array[]; // The array which holds the real things
U[] CopyAsConvertedArray<U>(Func<T,U> ConversionMethod);
That would allow one to generate a new array which extracts items from the original using any desired method.
I get from an input a group of double variables named: weight0, weight1...weight49.
I want to dynamically insert them into a double Array for easier manipulation.
But instead of calling each one like: Weights[0] = weight0...Weights[49] = weight49 I want to do it with a single loop.
Is there a way to do it?
No, basically - unless you mean at the same time that you create the array:
var weights = new[] {weight0, weight1, weight2, ... , weight48, weight49};
Personally, I'd be tempted to get rid of the 50 variables, and use the array from the outset, but that may not be possible in all cases.
you could use reflection to determine the index of the array from the variable names but this is far from efficient. See this post for details.
I would try to do it with a KeyValuePair- Listobject
// sample data
var weight = 1.00;
// create a list
var tmp = new List<KeyValuePair<string,object>>();
// Here you can add your variables
tmp.Add(new KeyValuePair<string,object>("weights" + tmp.Count.ToString()
, weight));
// If needed convert to array
var weights = tmp.ToArray();
// get the information out of the array
var weightValue = weights[0].Value;
var weightKey = weights[0].Key;
I think this will give you all the options, you might need for the array. Give it a try.
I'm putting this up because you can do it - so long as these variables are actually fields/properties. Whether you should is another matter - this solution, while reusable, is slow (needs delegate caching) and I have to say I agree with Marc Gravell - consider using an array throughout if you can.
If the variables are properties then it needs changing. Also if you need to write the array back to the variables in one shot (because this solution generates an array with copies of all the doubles, I wouldn't consider creating an object array with boxed doubles), that requires another method...
So here goes. First a holy wall of code/extension method:
//paste this as a direct child of a namespace (not a nested class)
public static class SO8877853Extensions
{
public static TArray[] FieldsToArray<TObj, TArray>(this TObj o,string fieldPrefix)
{
if(string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(fieldPrefix))
throw new ArgumentException("fieldPrefix must not null/empty/whitespace",
"fieldPrefix");
//I've done this slightly more expanded than it really needs to be...
var fields = typeof(TObj).GetFields(System.Reflection.BindingFlags.Instance
| System.Reflection.BindingFlags.Public
| System.Reflection.BindingFlags.NonPublic)
.Where(f =>f.Name.StartsWith(fieldPrefix) && f.FieldType.Equals(typeof(TArray)))
.Select(f =>new{ Field = f, OrdinalStr = f.Name.Substring(fieldPrefix.Length)})
.Where(f => { int unused; return int.TryParse(f.OrdinalStr, out unused);})
.Select(f => new { Field = f.Field, Ordinal = int.Parse(f.OrdinalStr) })
.OrderBy(f => f.Ordinal).ToArray();
//doesn't handle ordinal gaps e.g. 0,1,2,7
if(fields.Length == 0)
throw new ArgumentException(
string.Format("No fields found with the prefix {0}",
fieldPrefix),
"fieldPrefix");
//could instead bake the 'o' reference as a constant - but if
//you are caching the delegate, it makes it non-reusable.
ParameterExpression pThis = Expression.Parameter(o.GetType());
//generates a dynamic new double[] { var0, var1 ... } expression
var lambda = Expression.Lambda<Func<TObj, TArray[]>>(
Expression.NewArrayInit(typeof(TArray),
fields.Select(f => Expression.Field(pThis, f.Field))), pThis);
//you could cache this delegate here by typeof(TObj),
//fieldPrefix and typeof(TArray) in a Dictionary/ConcurrentDictionary
return lambda.Compile()(o);
}
}
The extension method above will work on any type. It's generic over both the instance type and desired array type to simplify the creation of the lambda in code - it doesn't have to be generic though.
You pass in the name prefix for a group of fields - in your case "weight" - it then searches all the public and private instance fields for those with that prefix that also have a suffix which can be parsed into an integer. It then orders those fields based on that ordinal. It does not check for gaps in the ordinal list - so a type with weight0 and weight2 would work, but would only create a two-element array.
Then it bakes a dynamic piece of code using Expression trees, compiles it (at this point, as mentioned in the code, it would be good to cache the delegate against TObj and TArray for future use) and then executes it, returning the result.
Now add this to a test class in a standard unit test project:
private class SO8877853
{
private double field0 = 1.0;
private double field1 = -5.0;
private double field2 = 10.0;
public double[] AsArray()
{
//it would be nice not to have to pass both type names here - that
//can be achieved by making the extension method pass out the array
//via an 'out TArray[]' instead.
return this.FieldsToArray<SO8877853, double>("field");
}
}
[TestMethod]
public void TestThatItWorks()
{
var asArray = new SO8877853().AsArray();
Assert.IsTrue(new[] { 1.0, -5.0, 10.0 }.SequenceEqual(asArray));
}
Like I say - I'm not condoning doing this, nor am I expecting any +1s for it - but I'm a sucker for a challenge :)
I'm not familiar with delegates and lambdas but at this moment, I have to do these two things:
One of them is:
I need to pass the function to SortedList. I don't know how it can be done.
Why I need it, is:
private string Func1(string s) { return s + "1"; }
private string Func2(string s) { return s + "2"; }
private string Func3(string s) { return s + "3"; }
private void WhatEver()
{
SortedList<string, ???> list = new SortedList<string, ???>;
list.Add("Func1", Func1);
list.Add("Func2", Func2);
list.Add("Func3", Func3);
// And after that I have to pass values and get results from functions
// Like
Console.WriteLine(list["Func1"]("Test"));
Console.WriteLine(list["Func2"]("Test"));
Console.WriteLine(list["Func3"]("Test"));
// Output should be:
//
// Test1
// Test2
// Test3
}
Second:
Is it possible to call functions with strings?
Ex:
Let's say I've got three textboxes and a function:
tbFunction
tbArgument
tbResult
private string Test(string number)
{
int x = int.Parse(number);
return (x * x).ToString();
}
Let's say I've got "Test" in tbFunction.Text and "2" in tbArgument.Text, How Can I bring the result to tbResult.Text
It took a while to figure out what you wanted. So, if I follow you correctly, you want:
Given the name of a method in a string variable, call than method.
The simple answer is that there is no intrinsic means of doing that. You could probably cobble together something using Reflection, but it would be more efforts than it's worth.
So, we'll need to create our own dispatch table:
// class member
var jumptbl = new SortedList<string, Func<string, string> >();
// : (in ctor)
jumptbl.Add("Test", Test);
// : (I'm guessing this is in a Click handler)
tbResult.Text = jumptbl[tbFunction.Text](tbArgument.Text)
Carrying this further, the name (in the string) used to call it need not have any connection to the name of the function itself. The method doesn't even have to have a name:
jumptbl.Add("Func1", s=> s + "1");
jumptbl.Add("Func2", s=> s + "2");
jumptbl.Add("Func3", s=> s + "3");
This is actually a job for reflection, has nothing to do with lambdas or delegates.
You will need to do something like...
MethodInfo method = typeof(ClassWithMethods).GetMethod(tbFunction.Text);
ClassWithMethods obj = new ClassWithMethods();
string result = method.Invoke(obj, new[] {tbArgument.Text});
tbResult.Text = result;
Check around in the System.Reflection documentation.
public delegate string YourDelegate(string number);
SortedList<string, YourDelegate> methods = new SortedList<string, YourDelegate>();
// Add more methods here
methods .Add("Test", Test);
...
public string CallMethod(string methodName, string number)
{
YourDelegate method;
if (methods.TryGetValue(methodName, out method))
return method(number);
else
return "Unknown method";
}
...
public void button1_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
tbResult.Text = CallMethod(tbFunction.Text, tbArgument.Text);
}
I think that this is just about what you are asking for.
Personally I would use Dictinary but that is probably just a matter of taste.
Alternatively you could use reflection, that way you would not need to register each method in a list.
What is the most efficient way to parse a C# string in the form of
"(params (abc 1.3)(sdc 2.0)(www 3.05)....)"
into a struct in the form
struct Params
{
double abc,sdc,www....;
}
Thanks
EDIT
The structure always have the same parameters (same names,only doubles, known at compile time).. but the order is not granted.. only one struct at a time..
using System;
namespace ConsoleApplication1
{
class Program
{
struct Params
{
public double abc, sdc;
};
static void Main(string[] args)
{
string s = "(params (abc 1.3)(sdc 2.0))";
Params p = new Params();
object pbox = (object)p; // structs must be boxed for SetValue() to work
string[] arr = s.Substring(8).Replace(")", "").Split(new char[] { ' ', '(', }, StringSplitOptions.RemoveEmptyEntries);
for (int i = 0; i < arr.Length; i+=2)
typeof(Params).GetField(arr[i]).SetValue(pbox, double.Parse(arr[i + 1]));
p = (Params)pbox;
Console.WriteLine("p.abc={0} p.sdc={1}", p.abc, p.sdc);
}
}
}
Note: if you used a class instead of a struct the boxing/unboxing would not be necessary.
Depending on your complete grammar you have a few options:
if it's a very simple grammar and you don't have to test for errors in it you could simply go with the below (which will be fast)
var input = "(params (abc 1.3)(sdc 2.0)(www 3.05)....)";
var tokens = input.Split('(');
var typeName = tokens[0];
//you'll need more than the type name (assembly/namespace) so I'll leave that to you
Type t = getStructFromType(typeName);
var obj = TypeDescriptor.CreateInstance(null, t, null, null);
for(var i = 1;i<tokens.Length;i++)
{
var innerTokens = tokens[i].Trim(' ', ')').Split(' ');
var fieldName = innerTokens[0];
var value = Convert.ToDouble(innerTokens[1]);
var field = t.GetField(fieldName);
field.SetValue(obj, value);
}
that simple approach however requires a well conforming string or it will misbehave.
If the grammar is a bit more complicated e.g. nested ( ) then that simple approach won't work.
you could try to use a regEx but that still requires a rather simple grammar so if you end up having a complex grammar your best choice is a real parser. Irony is easy to use since you can write it all in simple c# (some knowledge of BNF is a plus though).
Do you need to support multiple structs ? In other words, does this need to be dynamic; or do you know the struct definition at compile time ?
Parsing the string with a regex would be the obvious choice.
Here is a regex, that will parse your string format:
private static readonly Regex regParser = new Regex(#"^\(params\s(\((?<name>[a-zA-Z]+)\s(?<value>[\d\.]+)\))+\)$", RegexOptions.Compiled);
Running that regex on a string will give you two groups named "name" and "value". The Captures property of each group will contain the names and values.
If the struct type is unknown at compile time, then you will need to use reflection to fill in the fields.
If you mean to generate the struct definition at runtime, you will need to use Reflection to emit the type; or you will need to generate the source code.
Which part are you having trouble with ?
A regex can do the job for you:
public Dictionary<string, double> ParseString(string input){
var dict = new Dictionary<string, double>();
try
{
var re = new Regex(#"(?:\(params\s)?(?:\((?<n>[^\s]+)\s(?<v>[^\)]+)\))");
foreach (Match m in re.Matches(input))
dict.Add(m.Groups["n"].Value, double.Parse(m.Groups["v"].Value));
}
catch
{
throw new Exception("Invalid format!");
}
return dict;
}
use it like:
string str = "(params (abc 1.3)(sdc 2.0)(www 3.05))";
var parsed = ParseString(str);
// parsed["abc"] would now return 1.3
That might fit better than creating a lot of different structs for every possible input string, and using reflection for filling them. I dont think that is worth the effort.
Furthermore I assumed the input string is always in exactly the format you posted.
You might consider performing just enough string manipulation to make the input look like standard command line arguments then use an off-the-shelf command line argument parser like NDesk.Options to populate the Params object. You give up some efficiency but you make it up in maintainability.
public Params Parse(string input)
{
var #params = new Params();
var argv = ConvertToArgv(input);
new NDesk.Options.OptionSet
{
{"abc=", v => Double.TryParse(v, out #params.abc)},
{"sdc=", v => Double.TryParse(v, out #params.sdc)},
{"www=", v => Double.TryParse(v, out #params.www)}
}
.Parse(argv);
return #params;
}
private string[] ConvertToArgv(string input)
{
return input
.Replace('(', '-')
.Split(new[] {')', ' '});
}
Do you want to build a data representation of your defined syntax?
If you are looking for easily maintainability, without having to write long RegEx statements you could build your own Lexer parser. here is a prior discussion on SO with good links in the answers as well to help you
Poor man's "lexer" for C#
I would just do a basic recursive-descent parser. It may be more general than you want, but nothing else will be much faster.
Here's an out-of-the-box approach:
convert () to {} and [SPACE] to ":", then use System.Web.Script.Serialization.JavaScriptSerializer.Deserialize
string s = "(params (abc 1.3)(sdc 2.0))"
.Replace(" ", ":")
.Replace("(", "{")
.Replace(")","}");
return new System.Web.Script.Serialization.JavaScriptSerializer().Deserialize(s);