Develop Reference

Set Values in Generic IEnumerable

I have a generic method that I want to pass a variable to, and if that variable is IEnumerable, set all its elements to its default value. This is what I have so far:
public static T set_to_default<T>(T the_obj)
{
var the_enumerable = the_obj as IEnumerable;
if (the_enumerable != null)
{
foreach (var element in the_enumerable)
{
// I don't know what to put here
// I want to set each element to its default value: default(T)
}
return the_obj;
}
else
{
return default(T);
}
}
What do I put inside the foreach loop?

You should just work with overloads, it's much simpler (if I understand your question correctly).
public static T SetToDefault<T>(T the_obj)
{
return default(T);
}
public static IEnumerable<T> SetToDefault<T>(IEnumerable<T> the_enumerable)
{
return the_enumerable.Select(value => default(T));
}
FYI I tested my code with this function:
public static void Test()
{
int myInt = 7;
IEnumerable<int> myEnumberable = new List<int>() { 1, 4, 8, 9 };
myInt = SetToDefault(myInt);
myEnumberable = SetToDefault(myEnumberable);
Console.WriteLine($"MyInt: {myInt}");
Console.WriteLine($"MyEnumberable: {String.Join(", ", myEnumberable)}");
}
To add to this, keep in mind that the name SetToDefault isn't a great choice. When you pass in an int, you will get back an int. You still have to set the value yourself (myInt = SetToDefault(myInt);) which is kind of contradictory to what the name of the function implies.
By the way, note that the first function (T SetToDefault<T>(T the_obj)) has a parameter which is never used. To work around this (to be fair, small) issue, you could use an extension method:
public static class Extensions {
public static T GetDefault<T>(this T value) {
return default(T);
}
}
Note that even here, you will have to set the value to the return of the function. Returning void and simply doing value = default(T); will not work for primitive types like int. That's also why I named it GetDefault instead of SetToDefault this time.
var myWhatever = 3.4;
myWhatever = myWhatever.GetDefault();

Inside the for loop put the following statement:
var default_val = Activator.CreateInstance(element.GetType());
This is how you set to default value
and here is a complete working example of your program
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var my_list = new List<int>() { 1, 2, 3 };
var list2 = set_to_default<List<int>>(my_list);
foreach (var elem in list2)
{
Console.WriteLine(elem);
}
Console.ReadKey();
}
public static T set_to_default<T>(T the_obj)
{
IEnumerable the_enumerable = the_obj as IEnumerable;
if (the_enumerable != null)
{
Type type = the_enumerable.GetType().GetGenericArguments()[0];
Type listType = typeof(List<>).MakeGenericType(new[] { type });
IList list = (IList)Activator.CreateInstance(listType);
var looper = the_enumerable.GetEnumerator();
while (looper.MoveNext())
{
var current_obj = looper.Current;
current_obj = Activator.CreateInstance(current_obj.GetType());
list.Add(current_obj);
}
return (T)list;
}
else
{
return default(T);
}
}
}
I suggest to use lists instead of enumerables because the last ones are immutable. That is once you create them you cannot edit them.
Final thing....if you want to support other types of IEnumerable the are not IList you may use the C# 'is' keyword to figure it out. In this case you need to know the underlying type of your enumerable at run-time. You may do that using the C# 'is' keyword
if (the_enumerable is IList)
{
editableType = typeof(List<>).MakeGenericType(new[] { type });
}
else if(the_enumerable is ICollection)
{
......
}

Reflection - how to get value at specified index of parameter

I'm trying to get the value of a specified index of a property using reflection.
This answer works for standard properties that are of type List<> for example, but in my case, the collection I am trying to work with is of a different format:
public class NumberCollection : List<int>
{
public NumberCollection()
{
nums = new List<int>();
nums.Add(10);
}
public new int this[int i]
{
get { return (int) nums[i]; }
}
private List<int> nums;
}
public class TestClass
{
public NumberCollection Values { get; private set; }
public TestClass()
{
Values = new NumberCollection();
Values.Add(23);
}
}
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
TestClass tc = new TestClass();
PropertyInfo pi1 = tc.GetType().GetProperty("Values");
Object collection = pi1.GetValue(tc, null);
// note that there's no checking here that the object really
// is a collection and thus really has the attribute
String indexerName = ((DefaultMemberAttribute)collection.GetType()
.GetCustomAttributes(typeof(DefaultMemberAttribute),
true)[0]).MemberName;
// Code will ERROR on the next line...
PropertyInfo pi2 = collection.GetType().GetProperty(indexerName);
Object value = pi2.GetValue(collection, new Object[] { 0 });
Console.Out.WriteLine("tc.Values[0]: " + value);
Console.In.ReadLine();
}
}
This code gives an AmbiguousMatchException ("Ambiguous match found."). I know my collection class is somewhat contrived, but can anyone help with this?

One option is to use
var prop = Type.GetProperties()
.Where(prop => prop.DeclaringType == collection.GetType())
.First();
Change Collection.GetType() to another type if you want. But basically: loop over the properties instead of using Type.GetProperty.

If you are looking for all of the default members, you can ask for Type.GetDefaultMembers(), then examine the members to find the one that you are looking for.
Alternatively, if you know the data type of the indexer, you can call GetPropertyInfo with the type array specifier.

C# Passing an array of Func<T, List<myClass>> to a method

My first (and really horrible post) is below.
I try to do a complete example what I want to get. I hope this will be left explained a bit better.
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
namespace ConsoleApplication1
{
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
List<Boy> boys = new List<Boy>();
boys.Add(new Boy("Jhon", 7));
boys.Add(new Boy("Oscar", 6));
boys.Add(new Boy("Oscar", 7));
boys.Add(new Boy("Peter", 5));
ClassRoom myClass = new ClassRoom(boys);
Console.WriteLine(myClass.ByName("Oscar").Count); // Prints 2
Console.WriteLine(myClass.ByYearsOld(7).Count); // Prints 2
// This has errors...................
// But this is as I would like to call my BySomeConditions method....
Console.WriteLine( // It should print 1
myClass.BySomeConditions([myClass.ByName("Oscar"),
myClass.ByYearsOld(7)]
)
);
Console.ReadKey();
}
class ClassRoom
{
private List<Boy> students;
public ClassRoom(List<Boy> students)
{
this.students = students;
}
public List<Boy> ByName(string name)
{
return students.FindAll(x => x.Name == name);
}
public List<Boy> ByYearsOld(int yearsOld)
{
return students.FindAll(x => x.YearsOld == yearsOld);
}
// This has ERRORS.......................
public List<Boy> BySomeConditions(params Func<X, List<Boy>>[] conditions)
{
IEnumerable<Boy> result = students;
foreach (var condition in conditions) {
// I want it ONLY be called with existent functions (ByName and/or ByYearsOld)
result = result.Intersect(condition(this));
}
}
}
class Boy
{
public string Name { get; set; }
public int YearsOld { get; set; }
public Boy(string name, int yearsOld)
{
Name = name;
YearsOld = yearsOld;
}
}
}
}
============== first post =====================
Hello,
I have a class with methods:
public class X
{
private readonly List<string> myList;
public X(List<string> paramList) // string is really an object
{
myList = paramList;
}
// Now I want this...
public List<string> CheckConditions(params Func<T, List<string>>[] conditions)
{
var result = myList;
foreach (Func<T, List<string>> condition in conditions)
{
result = result.Intersect(condition(T));
}
}
public List<string> check1(string S)
{
return myList.FindAll(x => x.FieldS == S);
}
public List<string> check1(int I)
{
return myList.FindAll(x => x.FieldI == I);
}
}
Sorry if there is some error, I have written from scrach to avoid complex real case.
What I want is call my methods like this:
X.check1("Jhon");
or
X.check2(12);
or (this is the goal of my question):
X.CheckConditions(X.check1("Jhon"), X.chek2(12));
Thanks and sorry by my poor example...

It is unclear where your T comes from.
Does this meet your requirements?
public class X<T>
{
private List<T> myList;
public List<T> CheckConditions(params Func<T, bool>[] conditions)
{
IEnumerable<T> query = myList;
foreach (Func<T, bool> condition in conditions)
{
query = query.Where(condition);
}
return query.ToList();
}
}
Then later:
List<T> result = X.CheckConditions(
z => z.FieldS == "Jhon",
z => z.FieldI == 12
);

You need to change the method signature of CheckConditions, it's accepting a variable number of List<string>, not functions.
public List<string> CheckConditions(params List<string>[] lists)
The return type of check1 is List<string>, so that needs to be the type of the parameter that CheckConditions accepts.

There's no reason to make it generic, you know that you want to operate on the current instance of X (so pass in this, instead of the T type parameter). You need to cleanup a few things to to get it to compile (return result and make the type of result and the Intersect call compatible). You can define it like this:
public List<string> CheckConditions(params Func<X, List<string>>[] conditions)
{
IEnumerable<string> result = myList;
foreach (var condition in conditions)
{
result = result.Intersect(condition(this));
}
return result.ToList();
}
Ant then call it like this:
xInstance.CheckConditions(x => x.check1("JHon"), x => x.check1(12));
All that said, I'm not sure why you wouldn't just pass around the results of these functions, instead of passing the actual functions around:
public List<string> CheckConditions(params List<string>[] conditions)
{
IEnumerable<string> result = myList;
foreach (var condition in conditions)
{
result = result.Intersect(condition);
}
return result.ToList();
}
Then call it as in your example, rather than passing in lambda expressions.

you could rewrite you function to look like this:
// Now I want this...
public List<string> CheckConditions(params Func<T, List<string>>[] conditions)
{
var result = myList;
foreach (Func<T, List<string>> condition in conditions)
{
result = result.Intersect(condition(T));
}
}
your call would then be X.CheckConditions(()=>X.check1("Jhon"), ()=>X.chek2(12));
and you need to provide an instance for x (since the methods are instance methods and not static methods)
In your example you pass T as an argument to the functor but T is a type argument som it can't be passed as an argument to the method. Did you mean to pass a value?
This begs for a clarification of why you would want to do this. Maybe if you provided details on what you are trying to accomplish (as opposed to how) then you could get a better solution to your problem.

What you pass to your
X.CheckConditions
is not a reference to the functions, but the returned value of their invocation.
Now, if you pass function reference - it does not come with parameters, unless you construct and pass a data-structure that will contain the function reference and the arguments it should work on.
In this case - generics is not the solution. You should consider another pattern to follow, like command pattern or strategy pattern, where you pass to your CheckConstruction instances of checker-objects, each is instantiated with the parameters it should work on, and either implements or is provided by the validation function.

How do I get around this lambda expression outer variable issue?

I'm playing with PropertyDescriptor and ICustomTypeDescriptor (still) trying to bind a WPF DataGrid to an object, for which the data is stored in a Dictionary.
Since if you pass WPF DataGrid a list of Dictionary objects it will auto generate columns based on the public properties of a dictionary (Comparer, Count, Keys and Values) my Person subclasses Dictionary and implements ICustomTypeDescriptor.
ICustomTypeDescriptor defines a GetProperties method which returns a PropertyDescriptorCollection.
PropertyDescriptor is abstract so you have to subclass it, I figured I'd have a constructor that took Func and an Action parameters that delegate the getting and setting of the values in the dictionary.
I then create a PersonPropertyDescriptor for each Key in the dictionary like this:
foreach (string s in this.Keys)
{
var descriptor = new PersonPropertyDescriptor(
s,
new Func<object>(() => { return this[s]; }),
new Action<object>(o => { this[s] = o; }));
propList.Add(descriptor);
}
The problem is that each property get's its own Func and Action but they all share the outer variable s so although the DataGrid autogenerates columns for "ID","FirstName","LastName", "Age", "Gender" they all get and set against "Gender" which is the final resting value of s in the foreach loop.
How can I ensure that each delegate uses the desired dictionary Key, i.e. the value of s at the time the Func/Action is instantiated?
Much obliged.
Here's the rest of my idea, I'm just experimenting here these are not 'real' classes...
// DataGrid binds to a People instance
public class People : List<Person>
{
public People()
{
this.Add(new Person());
}
}
public class Person : Dictionary<string, object>, ICustomTypeDescriptor
{
private static PropertyDescriptorCollection descriptors;
public Person()
{
this["ID"] = "201203";
this["FirstName"] = "Bud";
this["LastName"] = "Tree";
this["Age"] = 99;
this["Gender"] = "M";
}
//... other ICustomTypeDescriptor members...
public PropertyDescriptorCollection GetProperties()
{
if (descriptors == null)
{
var propList = new List<PropertyDescriptor>();
foreach (string s in this.Keys)
{
var descriptor = new PersonPropertyDescriptor(
s,
new Func<object>(() => { return this[s]; }),
new Action<object>(o => { this[s] = o; }));
propList.Add(descriptor);
}
descriptors = new PropertyDescriptorCollection(propList.ToArray());
}
return descriptors;
}
//... other other ICustomTypeDescriptor members...
}
public class PersonPropertyDescriptor : PropertyDescriptor
{
private Func<object> getFunc;
private Action<object> setAction;
public PersonPropertyDescriptor(string name, Func<object> getFunc, Action<object> setAction)
: base(name, null)
{
this.getFunc = getFunc;
this.setAction = setAction;
}
// other ... PropertyDescriptor members...
public override object GetValue(object component)
{
return getFunc();
}
public override void SetValue(object component, object value)
{
setAction(value);
}
}

Simply:
foreach (string s in this.Keys)
{
string copy = s;
var descriptor = new PersonPropertyDescriptor(
copy,
new Func<object>(() => { return this[copy]; }),
new Action<object>(o => { this[copy] = o; }));
propList.Add(descriptor);
}
With captured variables, it is where it is declared that is important. So by declaring the captured variable inside the loop, you get a different instance of the capture-class per iteration (the loop variable, s, is technically declared outside the loop).

Marc's solution is of course correct, but I thought I'd expand upon WHY below. As most of us know, if you declare a variable in a for or foreach statement, it only lives as long as what's inside, which makes it seem like the variable is the same as a variable declared in the statement-block of such a statement, but that's not right.
To understand it better, take the following for-loop. Then I'll re-state the "equivalent" loop in a while-form.
for(int i = 0; i < list.Length; i++)
{
string val;
list[i] = list[i]++;
val = list[i].ToString();
Console.WriteLine(val);
}
This works out to in while-form like below: (it isn't exactly the same, because continue will act differently, but for scoping rules, it's the same)
{
int i = 0;
while(i < list.Length)
{
{
string val;
list[i] = list[i]++;
val = list[i].ToString();
Console.WriteLine(val);
}
i++;
}
}
When "exploded" out this way, the scope of the variables becomes clearer, and you can see why it always captures the same "s" value in your program, and why Marc's solution shows where to place your variable so that a unique one is captured every time.

create a local copy of s inside your for loop and use that.
for(string s in this.Keys) {
string key = s;
//...
}

For some additional thoughts on this issue see
http://ericlippert.com/2009/11/12/closing-over-the-loop-variable-considered-harmful-part-one/

Is it possible to cache a value evaluated in a lambda expression?

In the ContainsIngredients method in the following code, is it possible to cache the p.Ingredients value instead of explicitly referencing it several times? This is a fairly trivial example that I just cooked up for illustrative purposes, but the code I'm working on references values deep inside p eg. p.InnerObject.ExpensiveMethod().Value
edit:
I'm using the PredicateBuilder from http://www.albahari.com/nutshell/predicatebuilder.html
public class IngredientBag
{
private readonly Dictionary<string, string> _ingredients = new Dictionary<string, string>();
public void Add(string type, string name)
{
_ingredients.Add(type, name);
}
public string Get(string type)
{
return _ingredients[type];
}
public bool Contains(string type)
{
return _ingredients.ContainsKey(type);
}
}
public class Potion
{
public IngredientBag Ingredients { get; private set;}
public string Name {get; private set;}
public Potion(string name) : this(name, null)
{
}
public Potion(string name, IngredientBag ingredients)
{
Name = name;
Ingredients = ingredients;
}
public static Expression<Func<Potion, bool>>
ContainsIngredients(string ingredientType, params string[] ingredients)
{
var predicate = PredicateBuilder.False<Potion>();
// Here, I'm accessing p.Ingredients several times in one
// expression. Is there any way to cache this value and
// reference the cached value in the expression?
foreach (var ingredient in ingredients)
{
var temp = ingredient;
predicate = predicate.Or (
p => p.Ingredients != null &&
p.Ingredients.Contains(ingredientType) &&
p.Ingredients.Get(ingredientType).Contains(temp));
}
return predicate;
}
}
[STAThread]
static void Main()
{
var potions = new List<Potion>
{
new Potion("Invisibility", new IngredientBag()),
new Potion("Bonus"),
new Potion("Speed", new IngredientBag()),
new Potion("Strength", new IngredientBag()),
new Potion("Dummy Potion")
};
potions[0].Ingredients.Add("solid", "Eye of Newt");
potions[0].Ingredients.Add("liquid", "Gall of Peacock");
potions[0].Ingredients.Add("gas", "Breath of Spider");
potions[2].Ingredients.Add("solid", "Hair of Toad");
potions[2].Ingredients.Add("gas", "Peacock's anguish");
potions[3].Ingredients.Add("liquid", "Peacock Sweat");
potions[3].Ingredients.Add("gas", "Newt's aura");
var predicate = Potion.ContainsIngredients("solid", "Newt", "Toad")
.Or(Potion.ContainsIngredients("gas", "Spider", "Scorpion"));
foreach (var result in
from p in potions
where(predicate).Compile()(p)
select p)
{
Console.WriteLine(result.Name);
}
}

Have you considered Memoization?
The basic idea is this; if you have an expensive function call, there is a function which will calculate the expensive value on first call, but return a cached version thereafter. The function looks like this;
static Func<T> Remember<T>(Func<T> GetExpensiveValue)
{
bool isCached= false;
T cachedResult = default(T);
return () =>
{
if (!isCached)
{
cachedResult = GetExpensiveValue();
isCached = true;
}
return cachedResult;
};
}
This means you can write this;
// here's something that takes ages to calculate
Func<string> MyExpensiveMethod = () =>
{
System.Threading.Thread.Sleep(5000);
return "that took ages!";
};
// and heres a function call that only calculates it the once.
Func<string> CachedMethod = Remember(() => MyExpensiveMethod());
// only the first line takes five seconds;
// the second and third calls are instant.
Console.WriteLine(CachedMethod());
Console.WriteLine(CachedMethod());
Console.WriteLine(CachedMethod());
As a general strategy, it might help.

Can't you simply write your boolean expression in a separate static function which you call from your lambda - passing p.Ingredients as a parameter...
private static bool IsIngredientPresent(IngredientBag i, string ingredientType, string ingredient)
{
return i != null && i.Contains(ingredientType) && i.Get(ingredientType).Contains(ingredient);
}
public static Expression<Func<Potion, bool>>
ContainsIngredients(string ingredientType, params string[] ingredients)
{
var predicate = PredicateBuilder.False<Potion>();
// Here, I'm accessing p.Ingredients several times in one
// expression. Is there any way to cache this value and
// reference the cached value in the expression?
foreach (var ingredient in ingredients)
{
var temp = ingredient;
predicate = predicate.Or(
p => IsIngredientPresent(p.Ingredients, ingredientType, temp));
}
return predicate;
}

Well, in this case, if you can't use Memoization, you're rather restricted since you can really only use the stack as your cache: You've got no way to declare a new variable at the scope you'll need. All I can think of (and I'm not claiming it will be pretty) that will do what you want but retain the composability you need would be something like...
private static bool TestWith<T>(T cached, Func<T, bool> predicate)
{
return predicate(cached);
}
public static Expression<Func<Potion, bool>>
ContainsIngredients(string ingredientType, params string[] ingredients)
{
var predicate = PredicateBuilder.False<Potion>();
// Here, I'm accessing p.Ingredients several times in one
// expression. Is there any way to cache this value and
// reference the cached value in the expression?
foreach (var ingredient in ingredients)
{
var temp = ingredient;
predicate = predicate.Or (
p => TestWith(p.Ingredients,
i => i != null &&
i.Contains(ingredientType) &&
i.Get(ingredientType).Contains(temp));
}
return predicate;
}
You could combine together the results from multiple TestWith calls into a more complex boolean expression where required - caching the appropriate expensive value with each call - or you can nest them within the lambdas passed as the second parameter to deal with your complex deep hierarchies.
It would be quite hard to read code though and since you might be introducing a bunch more stack transitions with all the TestWith calls, whether it improves performance would depend on just how expensive your ExpensiveCall() was.
As a note, there won't be any inlining in the original example as suggested by another answer since the expression compiler doesn't do that level of optimisation as far as I know.

I would say no in this case. I assume that the compiler can figure out that it uses the p.Ingredients variable 3 times and will keep the variable closeby on the stack or the registers or whatever it uses.

Turbulent Intellect has the exactly right answer.
I just want to advise that you can strip some of the nulls and exceptions out of the types you are using to make it friendlier to use them.
public class IngredientBag
{
private Dictionary<string, string> _ingredients =
new Dictionary<string, string>();
public void Add(string type, string name)
{
_ingredients[type] = name;
}
public string Get(string type)
{
return _ingredients.ContainsKey(type) ? _ingredients[type] : null;
}
public bool Has(string type, string name)
{
return name == null ? false : this.Get(type) == name;
}
}
public Potion(string name) : this(name, new IngredientBag()) { }
Then, if you have the query parameters in this structure...
Dictionary<string, List<string>> ingredients;
You can write the query like this.
from p in Potions
where ingredients.Any(i => i.Value.Any(v => p.IngredientBag.Has(i.Key, v))
select p;
PS, why readonly?