In the following code, I'm merging two arrays of types int and string. The first one's length is bigger than the second one, and as a result, the last index (which is 5) doesn't get merged:
int[] numbers = new[] { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 };
string[] words = new string[] { "one", "two", "three", "four" };
var numbersAndWords = numbers.Zip(words, (n, w) => new { Number = n, Word = w });
foreach (var nw in numbersAndWords)
{
Console.WriteLine(nw.Number + nw.Word);
}
I would like to know a way of getting it merged. For example, creating a null or empty string after the last one that exists in words and using it to merge with the last numbers index. Couldn't figure it out.
Edit:
Result I get
1one
2two
3three
4four
Result I want
1one
2two
3three
4four
5
Thanks!
Edit: Not a duplicate, my other question is about calling method on a null object.
You can easily write your own LINQ-like extension method that will do it:
public static class MyEnumerable
{
public static IEnumerable<TResult> ZipWithDefault<TFirst, TSecond, TResult>(this IEnumerable<TFirst> first, IEnumerable<TSecond> second, Func<TFirst, TSecond, TResult> selector)
{
bool firstMoveNext, secondMoveNext;
using (var enum1 = first.GetEnumerator())
using (var enum2 = second.GetEnumerator())
{
while ((firstMoveNext = enum1.MoveNext()) & (secondMoveNext = enum2.MoveNext()))
yield return selector(enum1.Current, enum2.Current);
if (firstMoveNext && !secondMoveNext)
{
yield return selector(enum1.Current, default(TSecond));
while (enum1.MoveNext())
{
yield return selector(enum1.Current, default(TSecond));
}
}
else if (!firstMoveNext && secondMoveNext)
{
yield return selector(default(TFirst), enum2.Current);
while (enum2.MoveNext())
{
yield return selector(default(TFirst), enum2.Current);
}
}
}
}
}
But if your source is always a pair of arrays, it might be easier to simply use for loop:
public static IEnumerable<TResult> ZipWithDefault<TFirst, TSecond, TResult>(this TFirst[] first, TSecond[] second, Func<TFirst, TSecond, TResult> selector)
{
var maxLength = Math.Max(first.Length, second.Length);
for(var i = 0; i < maxLength; i++)
{
var firstItem = i < first.Length ? first[i] : default(TFirst);
var secondItem = i < second.Length ? second[i] : default(TSecond);
yield return selector(firstItem, secondItem);
}
}
You can just extend the smaller of the two collections before zipping them up, e.g. something like this:
int[] numbers = new[] { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 };
string[] words = new string[] { "one", "two", "three", "four" };
IEnumerable<string> wordsExtended = words;
if(words.Length < numbers.Length)
{
wordsExtended = words.Concat(Enumerable.Repeat("", numbers.Length - words.Length));
}
var numbersAndWords = numbers.Zip(wordsExtended, (n, w) => new { Number = n, Word = w });
foreach (var nw in numbersAndWords)
{
Console.WriteLine(nw.Number + nw.Word);
}
Ideally you want to wrap this up in a utility method and be generic so it works for any collections that are zipped.
Looks like someone wrote a generic implementation already on this Programmers StackExchange answer.
This is an asymmetric solution which uses the first sequence as an anchor, pairing corresponding elements from the second sequence when available, or a default value otherwise. No length calculation is required, nor early forced evaluation of enumerables.
Add an extension to IEnumerable:
public static class EnumerableExtensions {
public static IEnumerable<T> PadRight<T>(this IEnumerable<T> s)
{
foreach (var t in s)
yield return t;
while (true)
yield return default(T);
}
}
Use the extension to "pad" the second sequence before zipping:
int[] numbers = new[] { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 };
string[] words = new string[] { "one", "two", "three", "four" };
var numbersAndWords = numbers.Zip(words.PadRight(), (n, w) => new { Number = n, Word = w });
foreach (var nw in numbersAndWords)
{
Console.WriteLine(nw.Number + nw.Word ?? string.Empty);
}
Related
I have an unknown number of buckets(collections), and each bucket having an unknown number of entities
I need to produce a cartesian product of all the entities, so that I endup with a single COLLECTION that has ARRAYS of entities and in each array, there is 1 representetive from EVERY bucket.
So that if I have 5 buckets (B1..B5), and buckets B1, B2 have 1 item each, and bucket B3, B4 and B5 have 4, 8 and 10 items each, I'll have a collection of 320 arrays, and each array will have 5 items.
The only stupud issue here, is that both size of buckets and number of buckets is unknown at development time.
Performance is not super important here, as most of the time, my buckets will have only 1 entity, and only rarely will there be times when some of my buckets will contain 20-30 items...and I'll usually have 5-30 buckets
I'd love to utilize linq here in someway, but my brain is getting fried as I try to imagine how this would work
You could create an extension method like the following:
public static class EnumerableExtensions
{
public static IEnumerable<TValue []> Permutations<TKey, TValue>(this IEnumerable<TKey> keys, Func<TKey, IEnumerable<TValue>> selector)
{
var keyArray = keys.ToArray();
if (keyArray.Length < 1)
yield break;
TValue [] values = new TValue[keyArray.Length];
foreach (var array in Permutations(keyArray, 0, selector, values))
yield return array;
}
static IEnumerable<TValue []> Permutations<TKey, TValue>(TKey [] keys, int index, Func<TKey, IEnumerable<TValue>> selector, TValue [] values)
{
Debug.Assert(keys.Length == values.Length);
var key = keys[index];
foreach (var value in selector(key))
{
values[index] = value;
if (index < keys.Length - 1)
{
foreach (var array in Permutations(keys, index+1, selector, values))
yield return array;
}
else
{
yield return values.ToArray(); // Clone the array;
}
}
}
}
As an example, it could be used like:
public static void TestPermutations()
{
int [][] seqence = new int [][]
{
new int [] {1, 2, 3},
new int [] {101},
new int [] {201},
new int [] {301, 302, 303},
};
foreach (var array in seqence.Permutations(a => a))
{
Debug.WriteLine(array.Aggregate(new StringBuilder(), (sb, i) => { if (sb.Length > 0) sb.Append(","); sb.Append(i); return sb; }));
}
}
and produce the following output:
1,101,201,301
1,101,201,302
1,101,201,303
2,101,201,301
2,101,201,302
2,101,201,303
3,101,201,301
3,101,201,302
3,101,201,303
Is that what you want?
Here's how to do it without recursion in a single Linq statement (wrapped around an extension method for convenience):
public static IEnumerable<IEnumerable<T>> GetPermutations<T>(
IEnumerable<IEnumerable<T>> listOfLists)
{
return listOfLists.Skip(1)
.Aggregate(listOfLists.First()
.Select(c => new List<T>() { c }),
(previous, next) => previous
.SelectMany(p => next.Select(d => new List<T>(p) { d })));
}
The idea is simple:
Skip the first row, so we can use it as the initial value of an aggregate.
Place this initial value in a list that we'll grow on each iteration.
On each iteration, create a new list for each element in previous and add to it each of the elements in next (this is done by new List<T>(p) { d }).
EXAMPLE
Suppose you have an array of arrays as follows:
var arr = new[] {
new[] { 1,2 },
new[] { 10,11,12 },
new[] { 100,101 }
};
Then arr.GetPermutations() will return a list of lists containing:
1,10,100
1,10,101
1,11,100
1,11,101
1,12,100
1,12,101
2,10,100
2,10,101
2,11,100
2,11,101
2,12,100
2,12,101
Non-Linq, non-recursive solution that's faster. We pre-allocate the entire output matrix and then just fill it in a column at a time.
T[][] Permutations<T>(T[][] vals)
{
int numCols = vals.Length;
int numRows = vals.Aggregate(1, (a, b) => a * b.Length);
var results = Enumerable.Range(0, numRows)
.Select(c => new T[numCols])
.ToArray();
int repeatFactor = 1;
for (int c = 0; c < numCols; c++)
{
for (int r = 0; r < numRows; r++)
results[r][c] = vals[c][r / repeatFactor % vals[c].Length];
repeatFactor *= vals[c].Length;
}
return results;
}
Another LINQ-based option, based on suggestion from Diego, but more precise in terms of argument and return types.
It also does not require multiple enumerations of outer collection and hence does not produce Resharper's hint "Possible multiple enumerations".
public static IEnumerable<IReadOnlyCollection<T>> GetPermutations<T>(
IEnumerable<IReadOnlyCollection<T>> collections) =>
collections
.Aggregate(
new[] { Array.Empty<T>() },
(acc, next) =>
acc
.SelectMany(accItem =>
next.Select(nextItem => accItem.Concat(new[] { nextItem }).ToArray()))
.ToArray());
This is probably a very late answer, but I encounter a similar problem i.e. generate all permutations of a list of list of string. However, in my problem, I don't need all permutations simultaneously. I only need/generate next permutation if current permutation doesn't satisfy my condition. Therefore, the following is my way of doing a kind of "for each" and with conditional continuation during permutations generation. This answer is inpsired by Tom19's answer.
void ForEachPermutationDo<T>(IEnumerable<IEnumerable<T>> listOfList, Func<IEnumerable<T>, bool> whatToDo) {
var numCols = listOfList.Count();
var numRows = listOfList.Aggregate(1, (a, b) => a * b.Count());
var continueGenerating = true;
var permutation = new List<T>();
for (var r = 0; r < numRows; r++) {
var repeatFactor = 1;
for (var c = 0; c < numCols; c++) {
var aList = listOfList.ElementAt(c);
permutation.Add(aList.ElementAt((r / repeatFactor) % aList.Count()));
repeatFactor *= aList.Count();
}
continueGenerating = whatToDo(permutation.ToList()); // send duplicate
if (!continueGenerating) break;
permutation.Clear();
}
}
Using the above method, generating all permutation can be done like
IEnumerable<IEnumerable<T>> GenerateAllPermutations<T>(IEnumerable<IEnumerable<T>> listOfList) {
var results = new List<List<T>>();
ForEachPermutationDo(listOfList, (permutation) => {
results.Add(permutation);
return true;
});
return results;
}
I have an unknown number of buckets(collections), and each bucket having an unknown number of entities
I need to produce a cartesian product of all the entities, so that I endup with a single COLLECTION that has ARRAYS of entities and in each array, there is 1 representetive from EVERY bucket.
So that if I have 5 buckets (B1..B5), and buckets B1, B2 have 1 item each, and bucket B3, B4 and B5 have 4, 8 and 10 items each, I'll have a collection of 320 arrays, and each array will have 5 items.
The only stupud issue here, is that both size of buckets and number of buckets is unknown at development time.
Performance is not super important here, as most of the time, my buckets will have only 1 entity, and only rarely will there be times when some of my buckets will contain 20-30 items...and I'll usually have 5-30 buckets
I'd love to utilize linq here in someway, but my brain is getting fried as I try to imagine how this would work
You could create an extension method like the following:
public static class EnumerableExtensions
{
public static IEnumerable<TValue []> Permutations<TKey, TValue>(this IEnumerable<TKey> keys, Func<TKey, IEnumerable<TValue>> selector)
{
var keyArray = keys.ToArray();
if (keyArray.Length < 1)
yield break;
TValue [] values = new TValue[keyArray.Length];
foreach (var array in Permutations(keyArray, 0, selector, values))
yield return array;
}
static IEnumerable<TValue []> Permutations<TKey, TValue>(TKey [] keys, int index, Func<TKey, IEnumerable<TValue>> selector, TValue [] values)
{
Debug.Assert(keys.Length == values.Length);
var key = keys[index];
foreach (var value in selector(key))
{
values[index] = value;
if (index < keys.Length - 1)
{
foreach (var array in Permutations(keys, index+1, selector, values))
yield return array;
}
else
{
yield return values.ToArray(); // Clone the array;
}
}
}
}
As an example, it could be used like:
public static void TestPermutations()
{
int [][] seqence = new int [][]
{
new int [] {1, 2, 3},
new int [] {101},
new int [] {201},
new int [] {301, 302, 303},
};
foreach (var array in seqence.Permutations(a => a))
{
Debug.WriteLine(array.Aggregate(new StringBuilder(), (sb, i) => { if (sb.Length > 0) sb.Append(","); sb.Append(i); return sb; }));
}
}
and produce the following output:
1,101,201,301
1,101,201,302
1,101,201,303
2,101,201,301
2,101,201,302
2,101,201,303
3,101,201,301
3,101,201,302
3,101,201,303
Is that what you want?
Here's how to do it without recursion in a single Linq statement (wrapped around an extension method for convenience):
public static IEnumerable<IEnumerable<T>> GetPermutations<T>(
IEnumerable<IEnumerable<T>> listOfLists)
{
return listOfLists.Skip(1)
.Aggregate(listOfLists.First()
.Select(c => new List<T>() { c }),
(previous, next) => previous
.SelectMany(p => next.Select(d => new List<T>(p) { d })));
}
The idea is simple:
Skip the first row, so we can use it as the initial value of an aggregate.
Place this initial value in a list that we'll grow on each iteration.
On each iteration, create a new list for each element in previous and add to it each of the elements in next (this is done by new List<T>(p) { d }).
EXAMPLE
Suppose you have an array of arrays as follows:
var arr = new[] {
new[] { 1,2 },
new[] { 10,11,12 },
new[] { 100,101 }
};
Then arr.GetPermutations() will return a list of lists containing:
1,10,100
1,10,101
1,11,100
1,11,101
1,12,100
1,12,101
2,10,100
2,10,101
2,11,100
2,11,101
2,12,100
2,12,101
Non-Linq, non-recursive solution that's faster. We pre-allocate the entire output matrix and then just fill it in a column at a time.
T[][] Permutations<T>(T[][] vals)
{
int numCols = vals.Length;
int numRows = vals.Aggregate(1, (a, b) => a * b.Length);
var results = Enumerable.Range(0, numRows)
.Select(c => new T[numCols])
.ToArray();
int repeatFactor = 1;
for (int c = 0; c < numCols; c++)
{
for (int r = 0; r < numRows; r++)
results[r][c] = vals[c][r / repeatFactor % vals[c].Length];
repeatFactor *= vals[c].Length;
}
return results;
}
Another LINQ-based option, based on suggestion from Diego, but more precise in terms of argument and return types.
It also does not require multiple enumerations of outer collection and hence does not produce Resharper's hint "Possible multiple enumerations".
public static IEnumerable<IReadOnlyCollection<T>> GetPermutations<T>(
IEnumerable<IReadOnlyCollection<T>> collections) =>
collections
.Aggregate(
new[] { Array.Empty<T>() },
(acc, next) =>
acc
.SelectMany(accItem =>
next.Select(nextItem => accItem.Concat(new[] { nextItem }).ToArray()))
.ToArray());
This is probably a very late answer, but I encounter a similar problem i.e. generate all permutations of a list of list of string. However, in my problem, I don't need all permutations simultaneously. I only need/generate next permutation if current permutation doesn't satisfy my condition. Therefore, the following is my way of doing a kind of "for each" and with conditional continuation during permutations generation. This answer is inpsired by Tom19's answer.
void ForEachPermutationDo<T>(IEnumerable<IEnumerable<T>> listOfList, Func<IEnumerable<T>, bool> whatToDo) {
var numCols = listOfList.Count();
var numRows = listOfList.Aggregate(1, (a, b) => a * b.Count());
var continueGenerating = true;
var permutation = new List<T>();
for (var r = 0; r < numRows; r++) {
var repeatFactor = 1;
for (var c = 0; c < numCols; c++) {
var aList = listOfList.ElementAt(c);
permutation.Add(aList.ElementAt((r / repeatFactor) % aList.Count()));
repeatFactor *= aList.Count();
}
continueGenerating = whatToDo(permutation.ToList()); // send duplicate
if (!continueGenerating) break;
permutation.Clear();
}
}
Using the above method, generating all permutation can be done like
IEnumerable<IEnumerable<T>> GenerateAllPermutations<T>(IEnumerable<IEnumerable<T>> listOfList) {
var results = new List<List<T>>();
ForEachPermutationDo(listOfList, (permutation) => {
results.Add(permutation);
return true;
});
return results;
}
How can I join 2 lists of different lengths. it should join with the sequence.
Eg.
{1,2,3,4} with {5,6,7}
I need to get result like below.
{{1,5}, {2,6}, {3,7}, {4,null}}
I tried this.
var qry = a.Select((i, index) => new {i, j = b[index]});
But its throwing error since the lists are having different lengths.
Please help me to get the solution.
This should work:
var a = new int?[] { 1, 2, 3, 4 };
var b = new int?[] { 5, 6, 7 };
var result = Enumerable.Range(0, Math.Max(a.Count(), b.Count()))
.Select(n => new[] {a.ElementAtOrDefault(n), b.ElementAtOrDefault(n)});
Do note the ? in the array declarations. That is necessary in order to have null values in the resulting list. Omitting the ? causes the result to have 0 instead of null.
If you can't or don't want to declare the arrays as int?, then you'll have to do the cast in the Select like so:
var result = Enumerable.Range(0, Math.Max(a.Count(), b.Count()))
.Select(n => new[] { a.Select(i => (int?)i).ElementAtOrDefault(n), b.Select(i => (int?)i).ElementAtOrDefault(n) });
This second bit of code will work correctly with regular int arrays or Lists.
The ugly but working version is the following:
a.Cast<int?>().Concat(Enumerable.Repeat<int?>(null, Math.Max(b.Count() - a.Count(), 0)))
.Zip(b.Cast<int?>()
.Concat(Enumerable.Repeat<int?>(null, Math.Max(a.Count() - b.Count(), 0))),
(x, y) => new { x, y });
Its drawback it double evaluation of a collection (the first one is by calling .Count()).
So it is better just to write an extension
static IEnumerable<TResult> ZipNull<T1, T2, TResult>(this IEnumerable<T1> a, IEnumerable<T2> b, Func<T1?, T2?, TResult> func)
where T1 : struct
where T2 : struct
{
using (var it1 = a.GetEnumerator())
using (var it2 = b.GetEnumerator())
{
while (true)
{
if (it1.MoveNext())
{
if (it2.MoveNext())
{
yield return func(it1.Current, it2.Current);
}
else
{
yield return func(it1.Current, null);
}
}
else
{
if (it2.MoveNext())
{
yield return func(null, it2.Current);
}
else
{
break;
}
}
}
}
}
and use it as
a.ZipNull(b, (x, y) => new { x, y });
What you have is effectively a Zip, but where it zips to the end of the longer, rather than the shorter, of the two sequences. You can write such a Zip method, with something that looks a bit similar to the actual Zip implementation:
public static IEnumerable<TResult> ZipAll<TSource, TSecond, TResult>(this IEnumerable<TSource> source,
IEnumerable<TSecond> other,
Func<TSource, TSecond, TResult> projection)
{
using (var firstIterator = source.GetEnumerator())
using (var secondIterator = other.GetEnumerator())
{
while (true)
{
bool hasFirst = firstIterator.MoveNext();
bool hasSecond = secondIterator.MoveNext();
TSource first = hasFirst ? firstIterator.Current : default(TSource);
TSecond second = hasSecond ? secondIterator.Current : default(TSecond);
if (hasFirst || hasSecond)
yield return projection(first, second);
else
yield break;
}
}
}
With that you can write:
a.ZipAll(b, (i, j) => new { i, j });
You could make the code a bit shorter by requiring the inputs to be lists, but the code wouldn't be any faster as lists, just less typing, and it's not like it's that much extra work to support any sequence, so I'd say it's worth the added few lines of code.
Simply loop through the lists and construct new, let's say Dictionary<int?, int?> out of each list element:
var theFirstList = new List<int?> { 1, 2, 3, 4 };
var theSecondList = new List<int?> { 5, 6, 7 };
var el = new Dictionary<int?, int?>();
var length = Math.Max(theFirstList.Count, theSecondList.Count);
for (int i = 0; i < length; i++)
{
el.Add(theFirstList.ElementAtOrDefault(i), theSecondList.ElementAtOrDefault(i));
}
var x = new[] { 1, 2, 3, 4 }.ToList();
var y = new[] { 5, 6, 7 }.ToList();
var arrayLists = new[] {x, y}.OrderBy(t => t.Count).ToList();
var result = arrayLists
.Last()
.Select((item, i) => new[] { x[i], i < arrayLists.First().Count ? y[i] : (int?)null })
.ToList();
this should work for any IEnumerable
Is there an elegant way (with LINQ, for example) to partition a list into a list of sublists by delimiter? Partioning { 1, 2, delim, delim, 3, delim, 4, 5 } by delim might produce { { 1, 2 }, { 3 }, { 4, 5 } }....
I don't think there is an easy and elegant way of doing so with default LINQ methods. But you can create your own extension method:
public static class MyExtensions
{
public static IEnumerable<IEnumerable<TElement>> SplitBy<TElement>(
this IEnumerable<TElement> source,
TElement split,
bool skipEmptyGroups = true)
where TElement : IEquatable<TElement>
{
var group = new List<TElement>();
foreach (var item in source)
{
if (split.Equals(item))
{
if (group.Count > 0 || !skipEmptyGroups)
{
yield return group;
group = new List<TElement>();
}
}
else
{
group.Add(item);
}
}
if (group.Count > 0 || !skipEmptyGroups)
yield return group;
}
}
Usage is really simple:
var source = new List<int> { 1, 2, 3, 3, 4, 3, 5, 3, 6, 7, 8 };
var result = source.SplitBy(3);
If you want to return empty groups you can pass additional bool parameter:
var resultWithEmptyGroups = source.SplitBy(3, false);
Directly in Linq, I think it will be hard, but you can create a custom operator. Maybe something like this :
List<String> test = new List<String>() { "1", "8", ";", "2", "7", "42", ";", "3" };
var restul = test.StrangePartition(";");
with :
public static class Helper
{
public static IEnumerable<IEnumerable<T>> StrangePartition<T>(this IEnumerable<T> source, T partitionKey)
{
List<List<T>> partitions = new List<List<T>>();
List<T> partition = new List<T>();
foreach (T item in source)
{
if (item.Equals(partitionKey))
{
partitions.Add(partition);
partition = new List<T>();
}
else
{
partition.Add(item);
}
}
partitions.Add(partition);
return partitions;
}
}
No, there isn't anything similar, but it's quite easy to implement them:
public static class LinqEx
{
public static IEnumerable<List<TSource>> Split<TSource>(this IEnumerable<TSource> enu, TSource delimiter, IEqualityComparer<TSource> comparer = null)
{
// list == null handles the case where enu is empty
List<TSource> list = null;
if (comparer == null)
{
// Note how the equality comparer is "selected".
// This is how LINQ methods do it
// (see Enumerable.SequenceEqual<TSource>)
comparer = EqualityComparer<TSource>.Default;
}
foreach (TSource el in enu)
{
if (comparer.Equals(el, delimiter))
{
if (list == null)
{
list = new List<TSource>();
}
yield return list;
// Note that we have to recreate the list every time!
// We can't simply do a list.Clear()
list = new List<TSource>();
continue;
}
if (list == null)
{
list = new List<TSource>();
}
list.Add(el);
}
if (list != null)
{
yield return list;
}
}
public static IEnumerable<List<TSource>> SplitRemoveEmpty<TSource>(this IEnumerable<TSource> enu, TSource delimiter, IEqualityComparer<TSource> comparer = null)
{
var list = new List<TSource>();
if (comparer == null)
{
// Note how the equality comparer is "selected".
// This is how LINQ methods do it
// (see Enumerable.SequenceEqual<TSource>)
comparer = EqualityComparer<TSource>.Default;
}
foreach (TSource el in enu)
{
if (comparer.Equals(el, delimiter))
{
if (list.Count != 0)
{
yield return list;
// Note that we have to recreate the list every time!
// We can't simply do a list.Clear()
list = new List<TSource>();
}
continue;
}
list.Add(el);
}
if (list.Count != 0)
{
yield return list;
}
}
}
There are two variants: the first one (Split) will return even the empty groups, the second one will strip empty groups.
For example:
{ delim, 1, 2, delim, delim, 3, delim, 4, 5, delim }
With Split you will receive
{ { }, {1, 2}, { }, {3}, {4, 5}, { } }
While with SplitRemoveEmpty
{ {1, 2}, {3}, {4, 5} }
Use them like:
var res = new[] { 1, 2, 0, 0, 3, 4, 0, 5 }.SplitRemoveEmpty(0);
foreach (List<int> group in res)
{
// Do something
}
Remember that these split methods are based on the correctness of the Equals method! But there is an optional last parameter where you can give an IEqualityComparer<TSource> that the methods will use instead of the default one.
Although others mentioned it would be easier with an imperative approach, it is of course do-able in LINQ. The Aggregate operator has a lot of uses, but usually a poor readability.
var testCase = new List<String> { "1", "8", ";", "2", "7", "42", ";", "3" };
var result = testCase.Aggregate(new List<List<String>>() { new List<String>() }, (l, s) => {
if (s == ";") {
l.Add(new List<String>());
} else {
l[l.Count - 1].Add(s);
}
return l;
}).ToList();
It will produce the desired output, but its not only hard to comprehend, but it also produces side-effects within the query (not as bad as producing side-effects outside the query, but still ill-advised).
You can put it into your own extension method if you wishes so:
public static IEnumerable<IEnumerable<T>> PartitionBy(this IEnumerable<T> source, T delimiter) {
return source.Aggregate(new List<List<T>>() { new List<T>() }, (l, elem) =>
if(elem.Equals(delimiter)) {
l.Add(new List<T>());
} else {
l[l.Count - 1].Add(elem);
}
return l;
});
}
Again, consider this answer only for the completeness of a LINQ answer.
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);
}
}