I'm looking for a way to prevent repeating items in a list but still preserve the order.
For example
1, 2, 3, 4, 4, 4, 1, 1, 2, 3, 4, 4
should become
1, 2, 3, 4, 1, 2, 3, 4
I've done it quite inelegantly using a for loop, checking the next item as follows
public static List<T> RemoveSequencialRepeats<T>(List<T> input)
{
var result = new List<T>();
for (int index = 0; index < input.Count; index++)
{
if (index == input.Count - 1)
{
result.Add(input[index]);
}
else if (!input[index].Equals(input[index + 1]))
{
result.Add(input[index]);
}
}
return result;
}
Is there a more elegant way to do this, preferably with LINQ?
You can create extension method:
public static IEnumerable<T> RemoveSequentialRepeats<T>(
this IEnumerable<T> source)
{
using (var iterator = source.GetEnumerator())
{
var comparer = EqualityComparer<T>.Default;
if (!iterator.MoveNext())
yield break;
var current = iterator.Current;
yield return current;
while (iterator.MoveNext())
{
if (comparer.Equals(iterator.Current, current))
continue;
current = iterator.Current;
yield return current;
}
}
}
Usage:
var result = items.RemoveSequentialRepeats().ToList();
You can also use pure LINQ:
List<int> list = new List<int>{1, 2, 3, 4, 4, 4, 1, 1, 2, 3, 4, 4};
var result = list.Where((x, i) => i == 0 || x != list[i - 1]);
If you really really hate the world, pure LINQ:
var nmbs = new int[] { 1, 2, 3, 4, 4, 4, 1, 1, 2, 3, 4, 4, 5 };
var res = nmbs
.Take(1)
.Concat(
nmbs.Skip(1)
.Zip(nmbs, (p, q) => new { prev = q, curr = p })
.Where(p => p.prev != p.curr)
.Select(p => p.curr));
But note that you'll need to enumerate (at least partially) the enumerable 3 times (the Take, the "left" part of Zip, the first parameters of Zip). This method is slower than building a yield method or doing it directly.
Explanation:
You take the first number (.Take(1))
You take all the numbers from the second (.Skip(1)) and pair it with all the numbers (.Zip(nmbs). We will call curr the numbers from the first "collection" and prev the numbers from the second "collection" ((p, q) => new { prev = q, curr = p })). You then take only the numbers that are different from the previous number (.Where(p => p.prev != p.curr)) and from these you take the curr value and discard the prev value (.Select(p => p.curr))
You concat these two collections (.Concat()
you could write simple LINQ :
var l = new int[] { 1, 2, 3, 4, 4, 4, 1, 1, 2, 3, 4, 4 };
var k = new Nullable<int>();
var nl = l.Where(x => { var res = x != k; k = x; return res; }).ToArray();
int[8] { 1, 2, 3, 4, 1, 2, 3, 4 }
or pythonic (well, my best try) way:
l.Zip(l.Skip(1), (x, y) => new[] { x, y })
.Where(z => z[0] != z[1]).Select(a => a[0])
.Concat(new[] { l[l.Length - 1] }).ToArray()
int[8] { 1, 2, 3, 4, 1, 2, 3, 4 }
the simplest one (edit: haven't seen that it already suggested by King King)
l.Where((x, i) => i == l.Length - 1 || x != l[i + 1]).ToArray()
int[8] { 1, 2, 3, 4, 1, 2, 3, 4 }
If you want LINQ statement that do not rely on captured value of result inside the call you'll need some construct with aggregate as it is the only method that carries value along with operation. I.e. based on Zaheer Ahmed's code:
array.Aggregate(new List<string>(),
(items, element) =>
{
if (items.Count == 0 || items.Last() != element)
{
items.Add(element);
}
return items;
});
Or you can even try to build list without if:
array.Aggregate(Enumerable.Empty<string>(),
(items, element) => items.Concat(
Enumerable.Repeat(element,
items.Count() == 0 || items.Last() != element ? 1:0 ))
);
Note to get reasonable performance of above samples with Aggregate you'd need to also carry last value (Last will have to iterate whole sequence on each step), but code that carries 3 values {IsEmpty, LastValue, Sequence} in a Tuple is very strange looking. These samples are here for entertaining purposes only.
One more option is to Zip array with itself shifted by 1 and return elements that are not equal...
More practical option is to build iterator that filters values:
IEnumerable<string> NonRepeated(IEnumerable<string> values)
{
string last = null;
bool lastSet = false;
foreach(var element in values)
{
if (!lastSet || last != element)
{
yield return element;
}
last = element;
lastSet = true;
}
}
check if last of new list and current item is not same then add to new list:
List<string> results = new List<string>();
results.Add(array.First());
foreach (var element in array)
{
if(results[results.Length - 1] != element)
results.Add(element);
}
or using LINQ:
List<int> arr=new List<int>(){1, 2, 3, 4, 4, 4, 1, 1, 2, 3, 4, 4 };
List<int> result = new List<int>() { arr.First() };
arr.Select(x =>
{
if (result[result.Length - 1] != x) result.Add(x);
return x;
}).ToList();
Do have proper validation for null object.
Try this:
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var input = "1, 2, 3, 4, 4, 4, 1, 1, 2, 3, 4, 4 ";
var list = input.Split(',').Select(i => i.Trim());
var result = list
.Select((s, i) =>
(s != list.Skip(i + 1).FirstOrDefault()) ? s : null)
.Where(s => s != null)
.ToList();
}
}
Here the code you need :
public static List<int> RemoveSequencialRepeats(List<int> input)
{
var result = new List<int>();
result.Add(input.First());
result.AddRange(input.Where(p_element => result.Last() != p_element);
return result;
}
The LINQ magic is:
result.Add(input.First());
result.AddRange(input.Where(p_element => result.Last() != p_element);
Or you can create extension method like this:
public static class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
List<int> numList=new List<int>(){1,2,2,2,4,5,3,2};
numList = numList.RemoveSequentialRepeats();
}
public static List<T> RemoveSequentialRepeats<T>(this List<T> p_input)
{
var result = new List<T> { p_input.First() };
result.AddRange(p_input.Where(p_element => !result.Last().Equals(p_element)));
return result;
}
}
If you feel like referencing an F# project you can write
let rec dedupe = function
| x::y::rest when x = y -> x::dedupe rest
| x::rest -> x::dedupe rest
| _ -> []
Related
Suppose that I have a list of integer or whatever
List<int> motherlist = { 1, 1, 2, 5, 7, 2, 2, 2, 6, 1 }
Console.WriteLine(children.Count); // 10
I would like to find all duplicates and not remove them from the list but to distribute them across other lists so the final count of all childrens should be the same as motherlist:
List<List<int>> children = { { 1, 2, 5, 7, 6 }, { 1, 2 }, { 1, 2 }, { 2 }}
Console.WriteLine(children.Sum(l => l.Count())); // 10 same as mother
I tried so far a brute force approach by looping through all elements of mother, comparing the elements with all other elements and to check for duplicates, If duplicate found I add it to a list of buckets (List of Lists) and so forth until the last elements.
But the brute force approach takes 7 CPU seconds for only a mother list of 300 items.
I imagine that if I had 1000 items this would take forever.
Is there a faster way to do this in C# .NET ?
I suggest grouping duplicates and then loop taking into account size of the groups:
public static IEnumerable<List<T>> MyDo<T>(IEnumerable<T> source,
IEqualityComparer<T> comparer = null) {
if (null == source)
throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(source));
var groups = new Dictionary<T, List<T>>(comparer ?? EqualityComparer<T>.Default);
int maxLength = 0;
foreach (T item in source) {
if (!groups.TryGetValue(item, out var list))
groups.Add(item, list = new List<T>());
list.Add(item);
maxLength = Math.Max(maxLength, list.Count);
}
for (int i = 0; i < maxLength; ++i) {
List<T> result = new List<T>();
foreach (var value in groups.Values)
if (i < value.Count)
result.Add(value[i]);
yield return result;
}
}
Demo:
int[] source = new int[] { 1, 1, 2, 5, 7, 2, 2, 2, 6, 1 };
var result = MyDo(source).ToList();
string report = string.Join(Environment.NewLine, result
.Select(line => $"[{string.Join(", ", line)}]"));
Console.Write(report);
Outcome:
[1, 2, 5, 7, 6]
[1, 2]
[1, 2]
[2]
Stress Demo:
Random random = new Random(1234); // seed, the results to be reproducible
// We don't want 1000 items be forever; let's try 1_000_000 items
int[] source = Enumerable
.Range(1, 1_000_000)
.Select(x => random.Next(1, 1000))
.ToArray();
Stopwatch sw = new Stopwatch();
sw.Start();
var result = MyDo(source).ToList();
sw.Stop();
Console.WriteLine($"Time: {sw.ElapsedMilliseconds} ms");
Outcome: (may vary from workstation to workstation)
Time: 50 ms
I would GroupBy the elements of the list, and then use the count of elements to know the number of sublists an element has to be added in
List<int> motherlist = new List<int> { 1, 1, 2, 5, 7, 2, 2, 2, 6, 1 };
var childrens = motherlist.GroupBy(x => x).OrderByDescending(x => x.Count());
var result = new List<List<int>>();
foreach (var children in childrens)
{
for (var i = 0; i < children.Count(); i++)
{
if (result.Count() <= i) result.Add(new List<int>());
result[i].Add(children.Key);
}
}
Console.WriteLine("{");
foreach (var res in result)
{
Console.WriteLine($"\t{{ { string.Join(", ", res) } }}");
}
Console.WriteLine("}");
This outputs :
{
{ 2, 1, 5, 7, 6 }
{ 2, 1 }
{ 2, 1 }
{ 2 }
}
Just a quick shot, but it seems to work quite well...
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Linq;
namespace ConsoleApp2
{
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
List<int> motherlist = new List<int> { 1, 1, 2, 5, 7, 2, 2, 2, 6, 1 };
var rnd = new Random(1);
for (int i = 0; i < 1000; i++)
{
motherlist.Add(rnd.Next(1, 200));
}
var resultLists = new List<IEnumerable<int>>();
while (motherlist.Any())
{
var subList = motherlist.Distinct().OrderBy(x => x).ToList();
subList.ForEach(x => motherlist.Remove(x));
resultLists.Add(subList);
}
}
}
}
You can use a Dictionary<int, int> to keep track of the number of occurrences of each element and build the child lists in a single iteration with O(n) time complexity(most of the time) and without any LINQ:
var motherlist = new List<int>() { 1, 1, 2, 5, 7, 2, 2, 2, 6, 1 };
var counts = new Dictionary<int, int>();
var children = new List<List<int>>();
foreach(var element in motherlist)
{
counts.TryGetValue(element, out int count);
counts[element] = ++count;
if (children.Count < count)
{
children.Add(new List<int>() { element });
}
else
{
children[count - 1].Add(element);
}
}
OUTPUT
{ 1, 2, 5, 7, 6 }
{ 1, 2 }
{ 2, 1 }
{ 2 }
I am not able to sort out this particular problem.
Given the sequence:
1 1 2 2 3 3 4 1 1 5 6 7 1 1
I want consecutive occurrence of 1's to be replaced by a single occurrence of 1.
1 2 2 3 3 4 1 5 6 7 1
I tried using DistinctUntilChanged but that did not work.
List<int> intList = new List<int>() { 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 1, 1, 5, 6, 7, 1, 1 };
IObservable<int> intObsrvr = intList.ToObservable();
intObsrvr
.DistinctUntilChanged(x => x == 1)
.SubscribeConsole();
Output I got was:
1,2,1,5,1
I am also curious about how does this keySelector thing works as I cannot explain the output sequence I have got here.
Try this:
var intList = new List<int>() { 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 1, 1, 5, 6, 7, 1, 1 };
var intObsrvr = intList.ToObservable();
var query =
intObsrvr
.Scan(
new { skip = false, value = int.MinValue },
(a, x) => new { skip = (a.value == 1) && (x == 1) , value = x })
.Where(x => !x.skip)
.Select(x => x.value);
I feel that .Scan is very undervalued.
You can also use .Publish/Zip/SelectMany:
var query =
intObsrvr.Publish(
xs => xs
.StartWith(int.MinValue)
.Zip(xs, (z, x) => z == 1 & x == 1 ? new int[] { } : new [] { x })
.SelectMany(x => x));
Take your pick.
var query =
intObsrvr.Publish(
xs => xs
.StartWith(int.MinValue)
.Zip(xs, (z, x) => z == 1 & x == 1
? Observable.Empty<int>()
: Observable.Return(x))
.SelectMany(x => x));
Even more options.
Another Zip variant without SelectMany:
var observable = new List<int> { 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 1, 1, 5, 6, 7, 1, 1 }
.ToObservable();
observable.StartWith(int.MinValue).Zip(observable, (previous, current) => (previous, current))
.Where(t => t.current != 1 || t.current != t.previous)
.Select(t => t.current);
You can always create your own method if inbuilt ones don't match your requirements.
A DistinctUntilChanged that meets your needs is rather straightforward:
public static IEnumerable<T> DistinctUntilChanged<T>(
this IEnumerable<T> source)
{
using (var e = source.GetEnumerator())
{
if (!e.MoveNext())
yield break;
yield return e.Current;
var previous = e.Current;
while (e.MoveNext())
{
if (!e.Current.Equals(previous))
{
yield return e.Current;
previous = e.Current;
}
}
}
}
Here is another implementation:
/// <summary>Replaces repeated contiguous occurrences of a specific value
/// with a single occurrence of this value.</summary>
public static IObservable<TSource> DistinctUntilChanged<TSource>(
this IObservable<TSource> source, TSource value)
{
var comparer = EqualityComparer<TSource>.Default;
return source
.Select((v, i) => (Value: v, Index: i))
.DistinctUntilChanged(e => comparer.Equals(e.Value, value) ? -1 : e.Index)
.Select(entry => entry.Value);
}
This implementation assumes that the sequence has less than 2,147,483,647 elements, otherwise it will fail with an OverflowException. That's because it compares the indices instead of the values, and the type of the index is Int32.
I'd like to sort multiple lists (variable number of them) into single list, but keeping the specific order. For example:
List A: { 1,2,3,4,5 }
List B: { 6,7,8 }
List C: { 9,10,11,12 }
Result List: { 1,6,9,2,7,10,3,8,11,4,12,5 }
The only idea I got was to remove the first element from each list and put it into resulting set (and repeat until all lists are empty), but maybe there is a better way that doesn't require to create copy of each list and doesn't affect the original lists as well?
I suggest using IEnumerator<T> to enumerate lists while they have items:
private static IEnumerable<T> Merge<T>(params IEnumerable<T>[] sources) {
List<IEnumerator<T>> enums = sources
.Select(source => source.GetEnumerator())
.ToList();
try {
while (enums.Any()) {
for (int i = 0; i < enums.Count;)
if (enums[i].MoveNext()) {
yield return enums[i].Current;
i += 1;
}
else {
// exhausted, let's remove enumerator
enums[i].Dispose();
enums.RemoveAt(i);
}
}
}
finally {
foreach (var en in enums)
en.Dispose();
}
}
Test
List<int> A = new List<int>() { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 };
List<int> B = new List<int>() { 6, 7, 8 };
List<int> C = new List<int>() { 9, 10, 11, 12 };
var result = Merge(A, B, C)
.ToList();
Console.Write(string.Join(", ", result));
The outcome is
1, 6, 9, 2, 7, 10, 3, 8, 11, 4, 12, 5
For more flexible use
public static string MergeArrays(params IList<int>[] items)
{
var result = new List<int>();
for (var i = 0; i < items.Max(x => x.Count); i++)
result.AddRange(from rowList in items where rowList.Count > i select rowList[i]);
return string.Join(",", result);
}
.
var a = new List<int>() { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 };
var b = new List<int>() { 6, 7, 8 };
var c = new List<int>() { 9, 10, 11, 12, 0, 2, 1 };
var r = MergeArrays(a, b, c);
There is no sense in over complicating this in my opinion, why not use a simple for loop to accomplish what you need?
List<int> list1 = new List<int> { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 };
List<int> list2 = new List<int> { 6, 7, 8 };
List<int> list3 = new List<int> { 9, 10, 11, 12 };
List<int> resultList = new List<int>();
for (int i = 0; i < list1.Count || i < list2.Count || i < list3.Count; i++)
{
if (i < list1.Count) resultList.Add(list1[i]);
if (i < list2.Count) resultList.Add(list2[i]);
if (i < list3.Count) resultList.Add(list3[i]);
}
Result: 1,6,9,2,7,10,3,8,11,4,12,5
Here's a fairly simple way. It was fun to write up anyway.
No, it isn't the best, but it works and you could expand it to suit your needs of using a List<List<int>> very easily.
//Using arrays for simplicity, you get the idea.
int[] A = { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 };
int[] B = { 6, 7, 8 };
int[] C = { 9, 10, 11, 12 };
List<int> ResultSet = new List<int>();
//Determine this somehow. I'm doing this for simplicity.
int longest = 5;
for (int i = 0; i < longest; i++)
{
if (i < A.Length)
ResultSet.Add(A[i]);
if (i < B.Length)
ResultSet.Add(B[i]);
if (i < C.Length)
ResultSet.Add(C[i]);
}
//ResultSet contains: { 1, 6, 9, 2, 7, 10, 3, 8, 11, 4, 12, 5 }
As you can see, just pop this out into a method and loop through your lists of lists, properly determining the max length of all lists.
I'd go with:
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var a = new List<int>() { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 };
var b = new List<int>() { 6, 7, 8 };
var c = new List<int>() { 9, 10, 11, 12 };
var abc = XYZ<int>(new[] { a, b, c }).ToList();
}
static IEnumerable<T> XYZ<T>(IEnumerable<IList<T>> lists)
{
if (lists == null)
throw new ArgumentNullException();
var finished = false;
for (int index = 0; !finished; index++)
{
finished = true;
foreach (var list in lists)
if (list.Count > index) // list != null (prior checking for count)
{
finished = false;
yield return list[index];
}
}
}
I had to use use IList to have indexer and Count. It doesn't creates anything (no enumerators, no lists, etc.), purely yield return.
For your problem I create static method, which can merge any collections as you want:
public static class CollectionsHandling
{
/// <summary>
/// Merge collections to one by index
/// </summary>
/// <typeparam name="T">Type of collection elements</typeparam>
/// <param name="collections">Merging Collections</param>
/// <returns>New collection {firsts items, second items...}</returns>
public static IEnumerable<T> Merge<T>(params IEnumerable<T>[] collections)
{
// Max length of sent collections
var maxLength = 0;
// Enumerators of all collections
var enumerators = new List<IEnumerator<T>>();
foreach (var item in collections)
{
maxLength = Math.Max(item.Count(), maxLength);
if(collections.Any())
enumerators.Add(item.GetEnumerator());
}
// Set enumerators to first item
enumerators.ForEach(e => e.MoveNext());
var result = new List<T>();
for (int i = 0; i < maxLength; i++)
{
// Add elements to result collection
enumerators.ForEach(e => result.Add(e.Current));
// Remobve enumerators, in which no longer have elements
enumerators = enumerators.Where(e => e.MoveNext()).ToList();
}
return result;
}
}
Example of using:
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var a = new List<int> { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 };
var b = new List<int> { 6, 7, 8 };
var c = new List<int> { 9, 10, 11, 12 };
var result= CollectionsHandling.Merge(a, b, c);
}
When you understand how it works, it will be possible to reduce the method of smaller.
Shortest and probably slowest solution
int[] A = { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 };
int[] B = { 6, 7, 8 };
int[] C = { 9, 10, 11, 12 };
var arrs = new[] { A, B, C };
var merged = Enumerable.Range(0, arrs.Max(a => a.Length))
.Select(x => arrs.Where(a=>a.Length>x).Select(a=>a[x]))
.SelectMany(x=>x)
.ToArray();
upd.
Another way to solve - I just refactored #Sinatr answer.
static IEnumerable<T> XYZ<T>(IEnumerable<IList<T>> lists)
{
if (lists == null)
throw new ArgumentNullException();
var index = 0;
while (lists.Any(l => l.Count > index))
{
foreach (var list in lists)
if (list.Count > index)
yield return list[index];
index++;
}
}
I have some problems. I have 2 list such as:
List<int> firstList = new List<int> { 1, 2, 2, 3, 5};
List<int> secondList = new List<int> { 2, 3, 1 };
⇒ True result is: {1, 3, 0}
I would like to get the first index of numbers in secondList that exists in firstList. I used list.BinarySearch() but the result was {2, 3, 0}.
List<int> firstList = new List<int> { 1, 2, 2, 3, 5};
List<int> secondList = new List<int> { 2, 3, 1 };
var output = secondList.Select(item => firstList.IndexOf(item)); // [1 , 3 , 0]
You can replace the IndexOf with a BinarySearch logic, but BinarySearch returns the first matched element index, so you won't get the lowest number, IndexOf does return the lowest matching index.
The problem is that when the list contains duplicate values as in your case, the BinarySearch method will return the index of any of the matching values (non deterministic).
To get the desired result, you could create and use a custom extension method like this:
public static class ListExtensions
{
public static int BinarySearchFirst<T>(this List<T> source, T item, IComparer<T> comparer = null)
{
if (comparer == null) comparer = Comparer<T>.Default;
int index = source.BinarySearch(item, comparer);
while (index > 0 && comparer.Compare(source[index], source[index - 1]) == 0)
index--;
return index;
}
}
Sample usage:
var result = secondList.Select(x => firstList.BinarySearchFirst(x)).ToList();
// { 1, 3, 0 }
C++ has a standard library function for this called lower_bound().
Here's a C# implementation. This is useful if you are searching large collections:
public static int LowerBound<T>(IList<T> values, T target, int first, int last)
where T : IComparable<T>
{
int left = first;
int right = last;
while (left < right)
{
int mid = left + (right - left) / 2;
var middle = values[mid];
if (middle.CompareTo(target) < 0)
left = mid + 1;
else
right = mid;
}
return left;
}
That doesn't return -1 for elements that it doesn't find, so to fix that we can wrap it like so:
public static int LowerBoundOrMinusOne<T>(IList<T> values, T target, int first, int last)
where T : IComparable<T>
{
int result = LowerBound(values, target, first, last);
if (result >= last || result < first || values[result].CompareTo(target) != 0)
return -1;
return result;
}
Here is how you use it:
List<int> firstList = new List<int> { 1, 2, 2, 3, 5 };
List<int> secondList = new List<int> { 2, 3, 1 };
List<int> result = secondList
.Select(value => LowerBoundOrMinusOne(firstList, value, 0, firstList.Count))
.ToList();
Console.WriteLine(string.Join(", ", result));
Of course, this is mainly of benefit to large lists because it has an O(Log2(N)) rather than an O(N) complexity.
Iterate through second array and get index of element in first array:
foreach (int item in secondList)
{
Console.WriteLine(firstList.IndexOf(item));
}
If you have a large firstList and so you have to use BinarySearch try amending it: find out the item (which is not guaranteed to be the leftmost one) by BinarySearch, then move to the left while having read the same item:
List<int> firstList = new List<int> { 1, 2, 2, 3, 5 };
List<int> secondList = new List<int> { 2, 3, 1, 123 };
var result = secondList
.Select(item => firstList.BinarySearch(item))
.Select(index => index < 0 ? -1 : Enumerable
.Range(0, index + 1) // we have to scan [0..index] at the worst case
.Select(i => index - i) // scan in reverse
.TakeWhile(i => firstList[index] == firstList[i]) // take while items are the same
.Last()); // finally, we want the last item
Test
// 1, 3, 0, -1
Console.Write(String.Join(", ", result));
I have a List of items containing either 1 or 0, I'm looking to output the items only where there are six 1's back to back in the list. So only write to the console if the item in this list is part of a group of six.
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
In the above list, the first six items would be output but the bottom set of three 1s would not as they are not part of a group of six.
Is this a job for LINQ or RegEx?
You can concatenate all values into string, then split it by zeros. From substrings select those which have at least 6 characters:
List<int> values = new List<int> { 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 0 };
var series = String.Concat(values)
.Split(new[] { '0' }, StringSplitOptions.RemoveEmptyEntries)
.Where(s => s.Length >= 6);
For given input data series will contain single item "111111" which you can output to console.
Classic run length encoding, O(n), lazy evaluated, stack agnostic, generic for any equatable type.
public void TestRunLength()
{
var runs = new List<int>{ 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 4, 4, 0, 4};
var finalGroup = RunLength(runs).FirstOrDefault(i => i.Count == 6 && i.First() == 1);
}
private IEnumerable<List<T>> RunLength<T>(IEnumerable<T> source) where T : IEquatable<T>
{
T current = default(T);
var requiresInit = true;
var list = new List<T>();
foreach (var i in source)
{
if (requiresInit)
{
current = i;
requiresInit = false;
}
if (i.Equals(current))
{
list.Add(i);
}
else
{
yield return list;
list = new List<T>{ i };
current = i;
}
}
if (list.Any())
{
yield return list;
}
}
And because it's lazy it works on infinite sequences (yes I know its not infinite, but it is large)!
public void TestRunLength()
{
var random = new Random();
var runs = Enumerable.Range(int.MinValue, int.MaxValue)
.Select(i => random.Next(0, 10));
var finalGroup = RunLength(runs)
.FirstOrDefault(i => i.Count == 6);
}
Probably it can be done with Regex too if you concatenate your numbers into a string. But I would prefer linq:
var bits = new List<int> {1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 0};
int bitCountPerGroup = 6;
var result = bits // (1) (2)
.Select((x,idx) => bits.Skip(idx).TakeWhile(y => y == x))
.Where(g => g.Count() == bitCountPerGroup); // (3)
foreach (var set in result)
Console.WriteLine(string.Join(" ", set));
This code gets a number-set for each number by starting from the number (1) and taking the next numbers as long as they are equal (2). Then filter the groups and gets only those groups which have 6 numbers (3).
If for example your list is of an unknown size,or better,you do not know the items in it you could do this recursive example(note that i placed more zeros so it would fetch 2 sets of data,it works with yours also),and pass to the method the amout to group by:
//this is the datastructure to hold the results
static List<KeyValuePair<string, List<int>>> Set = new List<KeyValuePair<string, List<int>>>();
private static void GetData(List<int> lst, int group)
{
int count = 1;
int pivot = lst.First();
if (lst.Count < group)
{
return;
}
else
{
foreach (int i in lst.Skip(1))
{
if (i == pivot)
{
count++;
}
else if (count == group)
{
Set.Add(new KeyValuePair<string, List<int>>("Set of items " + pivot, lst.Take(count).ToList()));
GetData(lst.Skip(count).ToList(), group);
break;
}
else
{
GetData(lst.Skip(count).ToList(), group);
break;
}
}
}
}
Then in Main():
static void Main(string[] args)
{
List<int> test = new List<int> { 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 0 };
GetData(test, 6);
foreach (var item in Set)
{
Console.WriteLine("\t" + item.Key);
foreach (var subitem in item.Value)
{
Console.WriteLine(subitem);
}
}
}