so I want to create a credit card encoder (if this even a word) that takes a string and put the first 10 digits of the string as '*'
this is the code I came up with:
public static string[] ToCencoredString(this string str)
{
char[] array = Enumerable.Repeat('*', str.Length-1).ToArray();
array = array.Select((cha, index) =>
{
if (index < 10)
array[index] = str[index];
});
}
(ignoringe the fact the function returns string[] there is another part of the code which is not relevant)
I don't know why, but I keep getting ArgumentNullException which is odd because there is not a single value in array witch is null.
what am I doing wrong?
What about changing it to something a bit more simple:
var result = string.Concat(Enumerable.Repeat("*", 10)) + str.Substring(10);
I'd use this more efficient version using String.Substring and the string constructor:
public static string ToCencoredString(this string str, int length = 10)
{
if (String.IsNullOrEmpty(str)) return str;
string censored = new string('*', length);
if (str.Length <= length) return censored;
return censored + str.Substring(length);
}
I suggest you use the original array for iterating so that you can make use of its index to create the mask. A String.Join() may help you to produce the masked output. The code would be something like this:
string maskedInput = String.Join("", str.Select((c, index) => index < 10? '*' : c));
Here is a working example for your reference
Your code doesn't compile. So I dont know how you managed to reach ArgumentNullException.
And that's not how you use LINQ. The correct way (although not a good way, since the answers above are apparently way better) to implement what's in your mind
array = array.Select((cha, index) =>
{
if (index < 10)
return array[index];
else
return str[index];
}).ToArray();
$"{string.Concat(Enumerable.Repeat("*", 10))}{FIELD.Substring(10)}";
I have a text file full of strings, one on each line. Some of these strings will contain an unknown number of "#" characters. Each "#" can represent the numbers 1, 2, 3, or 4. I want to generate all possible combinations (permutations?) of strings for each of those "#"s. If there were a set number of "#"s per string, I'd just use nested for loops (quick and dirty). I need help finding a more elegant way to do it with an unknown number of "#"s.
Example 1: Input string is a#bc
Output strings would be:
a1bc
a2bc
a3bc
a4bc
Example 2: Input string is a#bc#d
Output strings would be:
a1bc1d
a1bc2d
a1bc3d
a1bc4d
a2bc1d
a2bc2d
a2bc3d
...
a4bc3d
a4bc4d
Can anyone help with this one? I'm using C#.
This is actually a fairly good place for a recursive function. I don't write C#, but I would create a function List<String> expand(String str) which accepts a string and returns an array containing the expanded strings.
expand can then search the string to find the first # and create a list containing the first part of the string + expansion. Then, it can call expand on the last part of the string and add each element in it's expansion to each element in the last part's expansion.
Example implementation using Java ArrayLists:
ArrayList<String> expand(String str) {
/* Find the first "#" */
int i = str.indexOf("#");
ArrayList<String> expansion = new ArrayList<String>(4);
/* If the string doesn't have any "#" */
if(i < 0) {
expansion.add(str);
return expansion;
}
/* New list to hold the result */
ArrayList<String> result = new ArrayList<String>();
/* Expand the "#" */
for(int j = 1; j <= 4; j++)
expansion.add(str.substring(0,i-1) + j);
/* Combine every expansion with every suffix expansion */
for(String a : expand(str.substring(i+1)))
for(String b : expansion)
result.add(b + a);
return result;
}
I offer you here a minimalist approach for the problem at hand.
Yes, like other have said recursion is the way to go here.
Recursion is a perfect fit here, since we can solve this problem by providing the solution for a short part of the input and start over again with the other part until we are done and merge the results.
Every recursion must have a stop condition - meaning no more recursion needed.
Here my stop condition is that there are no more "#" in the string.
I'm using string as my set of values (1234) since it is an IEnumerable<char>.
All other solutions here are great, Just wanted to show you a short approach.
internal static IEnumerable<string> GetStrings(string input)
{
var values = "1234";
var permutations = new List<string>();
var index = input.IndexOf('#');
if (index == -1) return new []{ input };
for (int i = 0; i < values.Length; i++)
{
var newInput = input.Substring(0, index) + values[i] + input.Substring(index + 1);
permutations.AddRange(GetStrings(newInput));
}
return permutations;
}
An even shorter and cleaner approach with LINQ:
internal static IEnumerable<string> GetStrings(string input)
{
var values = "1234";
var index = input.IndexOf('#');
if (index == -1) return new []{ input };
return
values
.Select(ReplaceFirstWildCardWithValue)
.SelectMany(GetStrings);
string ReplaceFirstWildCardWithValue(char value) => input.Substring(0, index) + value + input.Substring(index + 1);
}
This is shouting out loud for a recursive solution.
First, lets make a method that generates all combinations of a certain length from a given set of values. Because we are only interested in generating strings, lets take advantage of the fact that string is immutable (see P.D.2); this makes recursive functions so much easier to implement and reason about:
static IEnumerable<string> GetAllCombinations<T>(
ISet<T> set, int length)
{
IEnumerable<string> getCombinations(string current)
{
if (current.Length == length)
{
yield return current;
}
else
{
foreach (var s in set)
{
foreach (var c in getCombinations(current + s))
{
yield return c;
}
}
}
}
return getCombinations(string.Empty);
}
Study carefully how this methods works. Work it out by hand for small examples to understand it.
Now, once we know how to generate all possible combinations, building the strings is easy:
Figure out the number of wildcards in the specified string: this will be our combination length.
For every combination, insert in order each character into the string where we encounter a wildcard.
Ok, lets do just that:
public static IEnumerable<string> GenerateCombinations<T>(
this string s,
IEnumerable<T> set,
char wildcard)
{
var length = s.Count(c => c == wildcard);
var combinations = GetAllCombinations(set, length);
var builder = new StringBuilder();
foreach (var combination in combinations)
{
var index = 0;
foreach (var c in s)
{
if (c == wildcard)
{
builder.Append(combination[index]);
index += 1;
}
else
{
builder.Append(c);
}
}
yield return builder.ToString();
builder.Clear();
}
}
And we're done. Usage would be:
var set = new HashSet<int>(new[] { 1, 2, 3, 4 });
Console.WriteLine(
string.Join("; ", "a#bc#d".GenerateCombinations(set, '#')));
And sure enough, the output is:
a1bc1d; a1bc2d; a1bc3d; a1bc4d; a2bc1d; a2bc2d; a2bc3d;
a2bc4d; a3bc1d; a3bc2d; a3bc3d; a3bc4d; a4bc1d; a4bc2d;
a4bc3d; a4bc4d
Is this the most performant or efficient implementation? Probably not but its readable and maintainable. Unless you have a specific performance goal you are not meeting, write code that works and is easy to understand.
P.D. I’ve omitted all error handling and argument validation.
P.D.2: if the length of the combinations is big, concatenting strings inside GetAllCombinations might not be a good idea. In that case I’d have GetAllCombinations return an IEnumerable<IEnumerable<T>>, implement a trivial ImmutableStack<T>, and use that as the combination buffer instead of string.
I use function to solve Huffman coding algorithm but the function take string variable as data but i want it to take array when i write array.ToString() the function out print some unneeded result because i put array no variable.
this is function code
public static void GenerateCode(Node parentNode, string code)
{
if (parentNode != null)
{
GenerateCode(parentNode.leftChild, code + "0");
if (parentNode.leftChild == null && parentNode.rightChild == null)
Console.WriteLine(parentNode.data + "{" + code + "}");
GenerateCode(parentNode.rightChild, code + "1");
}
}
This is my calling for the function in the main:
GenerateCode(parentNode1,array.ToString());
This is photo with the result:
I need don't show System.Int[]
The problem is that array.ToString() isn't overridden by the language. Instead, you probably want to use another function, like string.Concat:
GenerateCode(parentNode1, string.Concat(array));
The result you were getting is because the default implementation of ToString() (object.ToString(), that is) prints out type information.
Although if you do have control over the GenerateCode method, I would strongly suggest modifying its parameter type to accept an IEnumerable<T> or array. Converting to a string, unless necessary, will lose some major benefits of strong-typing. I would make that conversion in the method, not before it. That will allow you to change the implementation later on without worrying about what parameters you pass.
Furthermore, I'd be tempted to write your values to a StringBuilder rather than the console, since that will be way more useful in a majority of real-world applications.
public static void GenerateCode(StringBuilder builder, Node parentNode, IEnumerable<int> values)
{
if (parentNode != null)
{
GenerateCode(builder, parentNode.leftChild, Concat(values, 0));
if (parentNode.leftChild == null && parentNode.rightChild == null)
builder.AppendLine(string.Format("{0}{{{1}}}", parentNode.data, string.Concat(values));
GenerateCode(builder, parentNode.rightChild, Concat(values, 1));
}
}
private static IEnumerable<T> Concat(IEnumerable<T> coll, T obj)
{
foreach (var v in coll)
yield return v;
yield return obj;
}
Then you can call it, of course, like this.
StringBuilder builder = new StringBuilder();
GenerateCode(builder, parentNode1, array);
Console.Write(builder.ToString());
You want to use string.Join().
GenerateCode(parentNode1, string.Join("", array));
What you need to do is pass in a string representation of your int array.
You can use:
GenerateCode(parentNode1, String.Join("", array));
Which will concatenate all your ints into a string like 10001010101010111011101
Lets say I have several short string:
string[] shortStrings = new string[] {"xxx","yyy","zzz"};
(this definition can change length on array and on string too, so not a fixed one)
When a given string, I like to check if it combines with the shortStrings ONLY, how?
let say function is like bool TestStringFromShortStrings(string s)
then
TestStringFromShortStrings("xxxyyyzzz") = true;
TestStringFromShortStrings("xxxyyyxxx") = true;
TestStringFromShortStrings("xxxyyy") = true;
TestStringFromShortStrings("xxxxxx") = true;
TestStringFromShortStrings("xxxxx") = false;
TestStringFromShortStrings("xxxXyyyzzz") = false;
TestStringFromShortStrings("xxx2yyyxxx") = false;
Please suggest a memory not tense and relatively fast method.
[EIDT] What this function for?
I will personally use this function to test if a string is a combination of a PINYIN ok, some Chinese stuff. Following Chinese are same thing if you cannot read it.
检测一个字符串是否为汉语拼音（例如检测是否拼音域名）
所有的汉语拼音字符串有：
(To detect whether a string is Hanyu Pinyin (e.g. detect the phonetic domain) of the Pinyin string:)
Regex PinYin = new Regex(#"^(a|ai|an|ang|ao|ba|bai|ban|bang|bao|bei|ben|beng|bi|bian|biao|bie|bin|bing|bo|bu|ca|cai|can|cang|cao|ce|cen|ceng|cha|chai|chan|chang|chao|che|chen|cheng|chi|chong|chou|chu|chua|chuai|chuan|chuang|chui|chun|chuo|ci|cong|cou|cu|cuan|cui|cun|cuo|da|dai|dan|dang|dao|de|den|dei|deng|di|dia|dian|diao|die|ding|diu|dong|dou|du|duan|dui|dun|duo|e|ei|en|eng|er|fa|fan|fang|fei|fen|feng|fo|fou|fu|ga|gai|gan|gang|gao|ge|gei|gen|geng|gong|gou|gu|gua|guai|guan|guang|gui|gun|guo|ha|hai|han|hang|hao|he|hei|hen|heng|hong|hou|hu|hua|huai|huan|huang|hui|hun|huo|ji|jia|jian|jiang|jiao|jie|jin|jing|jiong|jiu|ju|juan|jue|jun|ka|kai|kan|kang|kao|ke|ken|keng|kong|kou|ku|kua|kuai|kuan|kuang|kui|kun|kuo|la|lai|lan|lang|lao|le|lei|leng|li|lia|lian|liang|liao|lie|lin|ling|liu|long|lou|lu|lv|luan|lue|lve|lun|luo|ma|mai|man|mang|mao|me|mei|men|meng|mi|mian|miao|mie|min|ming|miu|mo|mou|mu|na|nai|nan|nang|nao|ne|nei|nen|neng|ni|nian|niang|niao|nie|nin|ning|niu|nong|nou|nu|nv|nuan|nuo|nun|ou|pa|pai|pan|pang|pao|pei|pen|peng|pi|pian|piao|pie|pin|ping|po|pou|pu|qi|qia|qian|qiang|qiao|qie|qin|qing|qiong|qiu|qu|quan|que|qun|ran|rang|rao|re|ren|reng|ri|rong|rou|ru|ruan|rui|run|ruo|sa|sai|san|sang|sao|se|sen|seng|sha|shai|shan|shang|shao|she|shei|shen|sheng|shi|shou|shu|shua|shuai|shuan|shuang|shui|shun|shuo|si|song|sou|su|suan|sui|sun|suo|ta|tai|tan|tang|tao|te|teng|ti|tian|tiao|tie|ting|tong|tou|tu|tuan|tui|tun|tuo|wa|wai|wan|wang|wei|wen|weng|wo|wu|xi|xia|xian|xiang|xiao|xie|xin|xing|xiong|xiu|xu|xuan|xue|xun|ya|yan|yang|yao|ye|yi|yin|ying|yo|yong|you|yu|yuan|yue|yun|za|zai|zan|zang|zao|ze|zei|zen|zeng|zha|zhai|zhan|zhang|zhao|zhe|zhei|zhen|zheng|zhi|zhong|zhou|zhu|zhua|zhuai|zhuan|zhuang|zhui|zhun|zhuo|zi|zong|zou|zu|zuan|zui|zun|zuo)+$");
用下面的正则表达式方法，试过了，最简单而且效果非常好，就是有点慢:(
递归的方式对长字符串比较麻烦，容易内存溢出
(Tried it with the regular expression: it's the most simple and gives very good results, but it's a bit slow. The recursive way on the long string is too much trouble, it's too easy to overflow the stack.)
Edit: Simplified this a lot thanks to L.B and millimoose.
Regular Expressions to the rescue! Using System.Text.RegularExpressions.Regex, we get:
public static bool TestStringFromShortStrings(string checkText, string[] pieces) {
// Build the expression. Ultimate result will be
// of the form "^(xxx|yyy|zzz)+$".
var expr = "^(" +
String.Join("|", pieces.Select(Regex.Escape)) +
")+$";
// Check whether the supplied string matches the expression.
return Regex.IsMatch(checkText, expr);
}
This should be able to properly handle cases that have multiple repeated patterns of different lenghts. E.g. if you the list of possible pieces includes strings "xxx" and "xxxx".
Copy the target string to string builder. For each string in shortstring array, remove all occurences from target. If u end up in zero length string, true else false.
Edit:
This approach is not correct. Please refer to comments. Keeping this answer still here as it may look reasonably correct initially.
You could compare the start of the input string with each of the short strings. As soon as you have a match, you take the rest of the string and repeat. As soon as you have no more string left, you're done. For example:
string[] shortStrings = new string[] { "xxx", "yyy", "zzz" };
bool Test(string input)
{
if (input.Length == 0)
return true;
foreach (string shortStr in shortStrings)
{
if (input.StartsWith(shortStr))
{
if (Test(input.Substring(shortStr.Length)))
return true;
}
}
return false;
}
You might optimize this by removing the recursion, or by sorting the short strings and do a binary instead of a linear search.
Here is a non-recursive version, that uses a Stack object instead. No chance of getting a StackOverflowException:
string[] shortStrings = new string[] { "xxx", "yyy", "zzz" };
bool Test(string input)
{
Stack<string> stack = new Stack<string>();
stack.Push(input);
while (stack.Count > 0)
{
string str = stack.Pop();
if (str.Length == 0)
return true;
foreach (string shortStr in shortStrings)
{
if (str.StartsWith(shortStr))
stack.Push(str.Substring(shortStr.Length));
}
}
return false;
}
In C#, I have an array of ints, containing digits only. I want to convert this array to string.
Array example:
int[] arr = {0,1,2,3,0,1};
How can I convert this to a string formatted as: "012301"?
at.net 3.5 use:
String.Join("", new List<int>(array).ConvertAll(i => i.ToString()).ToArray());
at.net 4.0 or above use: (see #Jan Remunda's answer)
string result = string.Join("", array);
You can simply use String.Join function, and as separator use string.Empty because it uses StringBuilder internally.
string result = string.Join(string.Empty, new []{0,1,2,3,0,1});
E.g.: If you use semicolon as separator, the result would be 0;1;2;3;0;1.
It actually works with null separator, and second parameter can be enumerable of any objects, like:
string result = string.Join(null, new object[]{0,1,2,3,0,"A",DateTime.Now});
I realize my opinion is probably not the popular one, but I guess I have a hard time jumping on the Linq-y band wagon. It's nifty. It's condensed. I get that and I'm not opposed to using it where it's appropriate. Maybe it's just me, but I feel like people have stopped thinking about creating utility functions to accomplish what they want and instead prefer to litter their code with (sometimes) excessively long lines of Linq code for the sake of creating a dense 1-liner.
I'm not saying that any of the Linq answers that people have provided here are bad, but I guess I feel like there is the potential that these single lines of code can start to grow longer and more obscure as you need to handle various situations. What if your array is null? What if you want a delimited string instead of just purely concatenated? What if some of the integers in your array are double-digit and you want to pad each value with leading zeros so that the string for each element is the same length as the rest?
Taking one of the provided answers as an example:
result = arr.Aggregate(string.Empty, (s, i) => s + i.ToString());
If I need to worry about the array being null, now it becomes this:
result = (arr == null) ? null : arr.Aggregate(string.Empty, (s, i) => s + i.ToString());
If I want a comma-delimited string, now it becomes this:
result = (arr == null) ? null : arr.Skip(1).Aggregate(arr[0].ToString(), (s, i) => s + "," + i.ToString());
This is still not too bad, but I think it's not obvious at a glance what this line of code is doing.
Of course, there's nothing stopping you from throwing this line of code into your own utility function so that you don't have that long mess mixed in with your application logic, especially if you're doing it in multiple places:
public static string ToStringLinqy<T>(this T[] array, string delimiter)
{
// edit: let's replace this with a "better" version using a StringBuilder
//return (array == null) ? null : (array.Length == 0) ? string.Empty : array.Skip(1).Aggregate(array[0].ToString(), (s, i) => s + "," + i.ToString());
return (array == null) ? null : (array.Length == 0) ? string.Empty : array.Skip(1).Aggregate(new StringBuilder(array[0].ToString()), (s, i) => s.Append(delimiter).Append(i), s => s.ToString());
}
But if you're going to put it into a utility function anyway, do you really need it to be condensed down into a 1-liner? In that case why not throw in a few extra lines for clarity and take advantage of a StringBuilder so that you're not doing repeated concatenation operations:
public static string ToStringNonLinqy<T>(this T[] array, string delimiter)
{
if (array != null)
{
// edit: replaced my previous implementation to use StringBuilder
if (array.Length > 0)
{
StringBuilder builder = new StringBuilder();
builder.Append(array[0]);
for (int i = 1; i < array.Length; i++)
{
builder.Append(delimiter);
builder.Append(array[i]);
}
return builder.ToString()
}
else
{
return string.Empty;
}
}
else
{
return null;
}
}
And if you're really so concerned about performance, you could even turn it into a hybrid function that decides whether to do string.Join or to use a StringBuilder depending on how many elements are in the array (this is a micro-optimization, not worth doing in my opinion and possibly more harmful than beneficial, but I'm using it as an example for this problem):
public static string ToString<T>(this T[] array, string delimiter)
{
if (array != null)
{
// determine if the length of the array is greater than the performance threshold for using a stringbuilder
// 10 is just an arbitrary threshold value I've chosen
if (array.Length < 10)
{
// assumption is that for arrays of less than 10 elements
// this code would be more efficient than a StringBuilder.
// Note: this is a crazy/pointless micro-optimization. Don't do this.
string[] values = new string[array.Length];
for (int i = 0; i < values.Length; i++)
values[i] = array[i].ToString();
return string.Join(delimiter, values);
}
else
{
// for arrays of length 10 or longer, use a StringBuilder
StringBuilder sb = new StringBuilder();
sb.Append(array[0]);
for (int i = 1; i < array.Length; i++)
{
sb.Append(delimiter);
sb.Append(array[i]);
}
return sb.ToString();
}
}
else
{
return null;
}
}
For this example, the performance impact is probably not worth caring about, but the point is that if you are in a situation where you actually do need to be concerned with the performance of your operations, whatever they are, then it will most likely be easier and more readable to handle that within a utility function than using a complex Linq expression.
That utility function still looks kind of clunky. Now let's ditch the hybrid stuff and do this:
// convert an enumeration of one type into an enumeration of another type
public static IEnumerable<TOut> Convert<TIn, TOut>(this IEnumerable<TIn> input, Func<TIn, TOut> conversion)
{
foreach (TIn value in input)
{
yield return conversion(value);
}
}
// concatenate the strings in an enumeration separated by the specified delimiter
public static string Delimit<T>(this IEnumerable<T> input, string delimiter)
{
IEnumerator<T> enumerator = input.GetEnumerator();
if (enumerator.MoveNext())
{
StringBuilder builder = new StringBuilder();
// start off with the first element
builder.Append(enumerator.Current);
// append the remaining elements separated by the delimiter
while (enumerator.MoveNext())
{
builder.Append(delimiter);
builder.Append(enumerator.Current);
}
return builder.ToString();
}
else
{
return string.Empty;
}
}
// concatenate all elements
public static string ToString<T>(this IEnumerable<T> input)
{
return ToString(input, string.Empty);
}
// concatenate all elements separated by a delimiter
public static string ToString<T>(this IEnumerable<T> input, string delimiter)
{
return input.Delimit(delimiter);
}
// concatenate all elements, each one left-padded to a minimum length
public static string ToString<T>(this IEnumerable<T> input, int minLength, char paddingChar)
{
return input.Convert(i => i.ToString().PadLeft(minLength, paddingChar)).Delimit(string.Empty);
}
Now we have separate and fairly compact utility functions, each of which are arguable useful on their own.
Ultimately, my point is not that you shouldn't use Linq, but rather just to say don't forget about the benefits of creating your own utility functions, even if they are small and perhaps only contain a single line that returns the result from a line of Linq code. If nothing else, you'll be able to keep your application code even more condensed than you could achieve with a line of Linq code, and if you are using it in multiple places, then using a utility function makes it easier to adjust your output in case you need to change it later.
For this problem, I'd rather just write something like this in my application code:
int[] arr = { 0, 1, 2, 3, 0, 1 };
// 012301
result = arr.ToString<int>();
// comma-separated values
// 0,1,2,3,0,1
result = arr.ToString(",");
// left-padded to 2 digits
// 000102030001
result = arr.ToString(2, '0');
To avoid the creation of an extra array you could do the following.
var builder = new StringBuilder();
Array.ForEach(arr, x => builder.Append(x));
var res = builder.ToString();
string result = arr.Aggregate("", (s, i) => s + i.ToString());
(Disclaimer: If you have a lot of digits (hundreds, at least) and you care about performance, I suggest eschewing this method and using a StringBuilder, as in JaredPar's answer.)
You can do:
int[] arr = {0,1,2,3,0,1};
string results = string.Join("",arr.Select(i => i.ToString()).ToArray());
That gives you your results.
I like using StringBuilder with Aggregate(). The "trick" is that Append() returns the StringBuilder instance itself:
var sb = arr.Aggregate( new StringBuilder(), ( s, i ) => s.Append( i ) );
var result = sb.ToString();
string.Join("", (from i in arr select i.ToString()).ToArray())
In the .NET 4.0 the string.Join can use an IEnumerable<string> directly:
string.Join("", from i in arr select i.ToString())
I've left this here for posterity but don't recommend its use as it's not terribly readable. This is especially true now that I've come back to see if after a period of some time and have wondered what I was thinking when I wrote it (I was probably thinking 'crap, must get this written before someone else posts an answer'.)
string s = string.Concat(arr.Cast<object>().ToArray());
The most efficient way is not to convert each int into a string, but rather create one string out of an array of chars. Then the garbage collector only has one new temp object to worry about.
int[] arr = {0,1,2,3,0,1};
string result = new string(Array.ConvertAll<int,char>(arr, x => Convert.ToChar(x + '0')));
This is a roundabout way to go about it its not much code and easy for beginners to understand
int[] arr = {0,1,2,3,0,1};
string joined = "";
foreach(int i in arr){
joined += i.ToString();
}
int number = int.Parse(joined);
If this is long array you could use
var sb = arr.Aggregate(new StringBuilder(), ( s, i ) => s.Append( i ), s.ToString());
// This is the original array
int[] nums = {1, 2, 3};
// This is an empty string we will end up with
string numbers = "";
// iterate on every char in the array
foreach (var item in nums)
{
// add the char to the empty string
numbers += Convert.ToString(item);
}
// Write the string in the console
Console.WriteLine(numbers);