Here is an scenario of my question: I have an array, say:
{ 4, 1, 1, 3, 3, 2, 5, 3, 2, 2 }
The result should be something like this (array element => its count):
4 => 1
1 => 2
3 => 2
2 => 1
5 => 1
3 => 1
2 => 2
I know this can be achieved by for loop.
But google'd a lot to make this possible using lesser lines of code using LINQ without success.
I believe the most optimal way to do this is to create a "LINQ-like" extension methods using an iterator block. This allows you to perform the calculation doing a single pass over your data. Note that performance isn't important at all if you just want to perform the calculation on a small array of numbers. Of course this is really your for loop in disguise.
static class Extensions {
public static IEnumerable<Tuple<T, Int32>> ToRunLengths<T>(this IEnumerable<T> source) {
using (var enumerator = source.GetEnumerator()) {
// Empty input leads to empty output.
if (!enumerator.MoveNext())
yield break;
// Retrieve first item of the sequence.
var currentValue = enumerator.Current;
var runLength = 1;
// Iterate the remaining items in the sequence.
while (enumerator.MoveNext()) {
var value = enumerator.Current;
if (!Equals(value, currentValue)) {
// A new run is starting. Return the previous run.
yield return Tuple.Create(currentValue, runLength);
currentValue = value;
runLength = 0;
}
runLength += 1;
}
// Return the last run.
yield return Tuple.Create(currentValue, runLength);
}
}
}
Note that the extension method is generic and you can use it on any type. Values are compared for equality using Object.Equals. However, if you want to you could pass an IEqualityComparer<T> to allow for customization of how values are compared.
You can use the method like this:
var numbers = new[] { 4, 1, 1, 3, 3, 2, 5, 3, 2, 2 };
var runLengths = numbers.ToRunLengths();
For you input data the result will be these tuples:
4 1
1 2
3 2
2 1
5 1
3 1
2 2
(Adding another answer to avoid the two upvotes for my deleted one counting towards this...)
I've had a little think about this (now I've understood the question) and it's really not clear how you'd do this nicely in LINQ. There are definitely ways that it could be done, potentially using Zip or Aggregate, but they'd be relatively unclear. Using foreach is pretty simple:
// Simplest way of building an empty list of an anonymous type...
var results = new[] { new { Value = 0, Count = 0 } }.Take(0).ToList();
// TODO: Handle empty arrays
int currentValue = array[0];
int currentCount = 1;
foreach (var value in array.Skip(1))
{
if (currentValue != value)
{
results.Add(new { Value = currentValue, Count = currentCount });
currentCount = 0;
currentValue = value;
}
currentCount++;
}
// Handle tail, which we won't have emitted yet
results.Add(new { Value = currentValue, Count = currentCount });
Here's a LINQ expression that works (edit: tightened up code just a little more):
var data = new int[] { 4, 1, 1, 3, 3, 2, 5, 3, 2, 2 };
var result = data.Select ((item, index) =>
new
{
Key = item,
Count = (index == 0 || data.ElementAt(index - 1) != item)
? data.Skip(index).TakeWhile (d => d == item).Count ()
: -1
}
)
.Where (d => d.Count != -1);
And here's a proof that shows it working.
This not short enough?
public static IEnumerable<KeyValuePair<T, int>> Repeats<T>(
this IEnumerable<T> source)
{
int count = 0;
T lastItem = source.First();
foreach (var item in source)
{
if (Equals(item, lastItem))
{
count++;
}
else
{
yield return new KeyValuePair<T, int>(lastItem, count);
lastItem = item;
count = 1;
}
}
yield return new KeyValuePair<T, int>(lastItem, count);
}
I'll be interested to see a linq way.
I already wrote the method you need over there. Here's how to call it.
foreach(var g in numbers.GroupContiguous(i => i))
{
Console.WriteLine("{0} => {1}", g.Key, g.Count);
}
Behold (you can run this directly in LINQPad -- rle is where the magic happens):
var xs = new[] { 4, 1, 1, 3, 3, 2, 5, 3, 2, 2 };
var rle = Enumerable.Range(0, xs.Length)
.Where(i => i == 0 || xs[i - 1] != xs[i])
.Select(i => new { Key = xs[i], Count = xs.Skip(i).TakeWhile(x => x == xs[i]).Count() });
Console.WriteLine(rle);
Of course, this is O(n^2), but you didn't request linear efficiency in the spec.
var array = new int[] {1,1,2,3,5,6,6 };
foreach (var g in array.GroupBy(i => i))
{
Console.WriteLine("{0} => {1}", g.Key, g.Count());
}
var array = new int[]{};//whatever ur array is
array.select((s)=>{return array.where((s2)=>{s == s2}).count();});
the only prob with is tht if you have 1 - two times you will get the result for 1-two times
var array = new int[] {1,1,2,3,5,6,6 };
var arrayd = array.Distinct();
var arrayl= arrayd.Select(s => { return array.Where(s2 => s2 == s).Count(); }).ToArray();
Output
arrayl=[0]2 [1]1 [2]1 [3]1 [4]2
Try GroupBy through List<int>
List<int> list = new List<int>() { 4, 1, 1, 3, 3, 2, 5, 3, 2, 2 };
var res = list.GroupBy(val => val);
foreach (var v in res)
{
MessageBox.Show(v.Key.ToString() + "=>" + v.Count().ToString());
}
Related
This one has totally stumped me.
Let's say we have a list of integers
var list = new List {
1,
2,
3,
5,
6,
7,
9,
10
};
How can I group this where this would be 1-3,5-7,9-10 the group is split where the next integer is missing?
See if this works. No for loop, just linq
List<int> list = new List<int> { 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10};
List<int> splitIndex = list.Skip(1).Select((x,i) => new { x = x, i = i}).Where(x => list[x.i] + 1 != x.x).Select(x => x.i).ToList();
//add last index
splitIndex.Add(list.Count - 1);
var results = splitIndex.Select((x,i) => (i == 0) ? list.Take(x + 1).ToList() : list.Skip(splitIndex[i - 1] + 1).Take(splitIndex[i] - splitIndex[i - 1]).ToList()).ToList();
You won't achieve it with simple LINQ, but you can write your own extension method that can deal with such grouping.
You have to place it in static class, and call it like normal LINQ.
public static class LinqExtensions
{
public static IEnumerable<IEnumerable<int>> GroupSequential (
this IEnumerable<int> source)
{
var previous = source.First();
var list = new List<int>() { previous };
foreach (var item in source.Skip(1))
{
if (item - previous != 1)
{
yield return list;
list = new List<int>();
}
list.Add(item);
previous = item;
}
yield return list;
}
}
and call it like list.GroupSequential()
I think this should work for your needs.
I agree with #Arion that it probably isn't possible with a readable LINQ method chain. #jdweng proved me wrong though :-)
I'd like to offer my alternative solution. It's an extension method, and it utilizes a custom Interval type.
Range:
public struct Interval
{
public Interval(int from, int to)
{
From = from;
To = to;
}
public int From { get; }
public int To { get; }
public IEnumerable<int> Members() => Enumerable.Range(From, To - From + 1);
}
To get the numbers within the Range, you would use Numbers() function. Numbers are lazily generated, thus saving space unless you need them all.
The extension:
public static class EnumerableExtensions
{
public static IEnumerable<Interval> GetIntervals(this IEnumerable<int> numbers)
{
var array = numbers.OrderBy(x => x).ToArray();
var fromIndex = 0;
var toIndex = fromIndex;
for (var i = 1; i < array.Length; i++)
{
var current = array[i];
if (current == array[toIndex] + 1)
{
toIndex++;
}
else if (fromIndex != toIndex)
{
yield return new Interval(array[fromIndex], array[toIndex]);
fromIndex = i;
toIndex = fromIndex;
}
}
if (toIndex != fromIndex)
{
yield return new Interval(array[fromIndex], array[toIndex]);
}
}
}
The usage:
public void Demo()
{
var list = new List<int> {1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10};
// 1-3, 5-7, 9-10, lazily generated
var intervals = list.GetIntervals();
foreach (var interval in intervals)
{
// [1, 2, 3], then [5, 6, 7], then [9, 10], lazily generated
var members = interval.Members();
foreach (var numberInRange in members)
{
// do something with numberInRange
}
}
}
Can be simplified a bit :
var list = new List<int> { 1,2,3, 5,6,7, 9,10 };
List<List<int>> result = list.Aggregate(new List<List<int>>(), (L, n) => {
if (L.Count < 1 || L.Last().Last() < n - 1) L.Add(new List<int>());
L.Last().Add(n);
return L;
});
Its unclear what format you want it back as, but this extension will report the missing numbers in a list and return a list of the missing numbers:
public static IEnumerable<int> SequenceFindMissings(this IList<int> sequence)
{
var missing = new List<int>();
if ((sequence != null) && (sequence.Any()))
{
sequence.Aggregate((seed, aggr) =>
{
var diff = (aggr - seed) - 1;
if (diff > 0)
missing.AddRange(Enumerable.Range((aggr - diff), diff));
return aggr;
});
}
return missing;
}
Usage
var list = new List<int> {1,2,3,5,6,7,9,10};
var missings = list.SequenceFindMissings(); // { 4, 8 }
Its a topic covered on my blog:
C# Linq: Find Missing Values in a Sequence of Numbers and Other Sequence Related lists as IEnumerable Extensions
I found this LINQ solution more easy to understand and debug than the accepted one IMHO:
var list = new List<int>() { 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 };
int groupIndex = 0;
int previousNumber = list.First();
var groups = list.Select((n, i) =>
{
previousNumber = (i == 0) ? list[i] : list[i - 1];
return new
{
Number = n,
GroupIndex = (i == 0) || (previousNumber + 1 == list[i]) ? groupIndex : ++groupIndex
};
}).GroupBy(x => x.GroupIndex).Select(g => g.Select(x => x.Number).ToList()).ToList();
If you want to go crazy, you can try the below 1 linq,
var desiredOutput = string.Join(',', string.Join(',', Enumerable.Range(list.First(), list.Last())).Split(Enumerable.Range(list.First(), list.Last())
.Except(list).Select(y => y.ToString()).ToArray(), StringSplitOptions.None)
.Select(x => string.Concat(x.Trim(',').Split(',').First(), "-", x.Trim(',').Split(',').Last())));
Or for more clear format, you can try the below
var sequenceOrder = Enumerable.Range(list.First(), list.Last()).ToList();
var splitters = sequenceOrder.Except(list).Select(y => y.ToString()).ToArray();
var joinedSequence = string.Join(',', sequenceOrder);
var result = joinedSequence.Split(splitters, StringSplitOptions.None).Select(x => string.Concat(x.Trim(',').Split(',').First(), "-", x.Trim(',').Split(',').Last()));
var desiredOutput = string.Join(',', result);
How do I select the unique elements from the list {0, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 4, 4, 5} so that I get {0, 1, 3, 5}, effectively removing all instances of the repeated elements {2, 4}?
var numbers = new[] { 0, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 4, 4, 5 };
var uniqueNumbers =
from n in numbers
group n by n into nGroup
where nGroup.Count() == 1
select nGroup.Key;
// { 0, 1, 3, 5 }
var nums = new int{ 0...4,4,5};
var distinct = nums.Distinct();
make sure you're using Linq and .NET framework 3.5.
With lambda..
var all = new[] {0,1,1,2,3,4,4,4,5,6,7,8,8}.ToList();
var unique = all.GroupBy(i => i).Where(i => i.Count() == 1).Select(i=>i.Key);
C# 2.0 solution:
static IEnumerable<T> GetUniques<T>(IEnumerable<T> things)
{
Dictionary<T, int> counts = new Dictionary<T, int>();
foreach (T item in things)
{
int count;
if (counts.TryGetValue(item, out count))
counts[item] = ++count;
else
counts.Add(item, 1);
}
foreach (KeyValuePair<T, int> kvp in counts)
{
if (kvp.Value == 1)
yield return kvp.Key;
}
}
Here is another way that works if you have complex type objects in your List and want to get the unique values of a property:
var uniqueValues= myItems.Select(k => k.MyProperty)
.GroupBy(g => g)
.Where(c => c.Count() == 1)
.Select(k => k.Key)
.ToList();
Or to get distinct values:
var distinctValues = myItems.Select(p => p.MyProperty)
.Distinct()
.ToList();
If your property is also a complex type you can create a custom comparer for the Distinct(), such as Distinct(OrderComparer), where OrderComparer could look like:
public class OrderComparer : IEqualityComparer<Order>
{
public bool Equals(Order o1, Order o2)
{
return o1.OrderID == o2.OrderID;
}
public int GetHashCode(Order obj)
{
return obj.OrderID.GetHashCode();
}
}
If Linq isn't available to you because you have to support legacy code that can't be upgraded, then declare a Dictionary, where the first int is the number and the second int is the number of occurences. Loop through your List, loading up your Dictionary. When you're done, loop through your Dictionary selecting only those elements where the number of occurences is 1.
I believe Matt meant to say:
static IEnumerable<T> GetUniques<T>(IEnumerable<T> things)
{
Dictionary<T, bool> uniques = new Dictionary<T, bool>();
foreach (T item in things)
{
if (!(uniques.ContainsKey(item)))
{
uniques.Add(item, true);
}
}
return uniques.Keys;
}
There are many ways to skin a cat, but HashSet seems made for the task here.
var numbers = new[] { 0, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 4, 4, 5 };
HashSet<int> r = new HashSet<int>(numbers);
foreach( int i in r ) {
Console.Write( "{0} ", i );
}
The output:
0 1 2 3 4 5
Here's a solution with no LINQ:
var numbers = new[] { 0, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 4, 4, 5 };
// This assumes the numbers are sorted
var noRepeats = new List<int>();
int temp = numbers[0]; // Or .First() if using IEnumerable
var count = 1;
for(int i = 1; i < numbers.Length; i++) // Or foreach (var n in numbers.Skip(1)) if using IEnumerable
{
if (numbers[i] == temp) count++;
else
{
if(count == 1) noRepeats.Add(temp);
temp = numbers[i];
count = 1;
}
}
if(count == 1) noRepeats.Add(temp);
Console.WriteLine($"[{string.Join(separator: ",", values: numbers)}] -> [{string.Join(separator: ",", values: noRepeats)}]");
This prints:
[0,1,2,2,2,3,4,4,5] -> [0,1,3,5]
In .Net 2.0 I`m pretty sure about this solution:
public IEnumerable<T> Distinct<T>(IEnumerable<T> source)
{
List<T> uniques = new List<T>();
foreach (T item in source)
{
if (!uniques.Contains(item)) uniques.Add(item);
}
return uniques;
}
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);
}
}
I want to cluster some numbers by condition and their order in the list.
int delta = 3;
var numbers = new List<int>() { 2, 4, 9, 6, 3, 2, 7, 7, 4, 1, 9, 1, 2 };
var g = numbers.GroupBy(n => n <= delta);
This gives two groups based on the condition. What I want is:
g1: 2
g2: 4, 9, 6
g3: 3, 2
g4: 7, 7, 4
g5: 1
g6: 9
g7: 1, 2
edit
The condition is to group them based on a condition (here it is number <= delta), but every group should only contain numbers that are next to each other in the first list.
If I understand the logic, you want to create a new group whenever item n passes the condition but item n - 1 fails, or vice-versa.
Well, normally you wouldn't use Linq for such a thing. You'd have to iterate over the loop one item at a time and build the result set by yourself. For example:
List<int> list = null;
var result = new List<IEnumerable<int>>();
bool? prev = null;
foreach (var n in numbers)
{
bool cur = n <= 3;
if (prev != cur)
{
list = new List<int>();
result.Add(list);
prev = cur;
}
list.Add(n);
}
But here is a workable solution in Linq. It depends upon site-effects, which you should normally avoid:
var prev = numbers.First() <= delta;
var counter = 0;
var result = numbers.GroupBy(n => (prev != (prev = n <= delta)) ? ++counter : counter)
.ToList();
So what we are conceptually doing here is going through the list and grouping while a condition is met. We can write a corresponding operation just for that without too much difficulty:
public static IEnumerable<IEnumerable<T>> GroupWhile<T>(
this IEnumerable<T> source, Func<T, T, bool> predicate)
{
using (var iterator = source.GetEnumerator())
{
if (!iterator.MoveNext())
yield break;
List<T> list = new List<T>() { iterator.Current };
T previous = iterator.Current;
while (iterator.MoveNext())
{
if (!predicate(previous, iterator.Current))
{
yield return list;
list = new List<T>();
}
list.Add(iterator.Current);
previous = iterator.Current;
}
yield return list;
}
}
We can now write:
var groups = numbers.GroupWhile((prev,next) =>
(prev <= delta) == (next <= delta));
Here the condition for when to start a new group is when the previous item's comparison is the same as the current item's.
If you're a fan of fold you can write it this way:
var groups = numbers.Skip(1).Aggregate(new List<List<int>>(new[] { new List<int> { numbers[0] } }), (acc, b) =>
{
if ((acc.Last().LastOrDefault() <= delta) == (b <= delta))
{
acc.Last().Add(b);
}
else
{
acc.Add(new List<int>() { b });
}
return acc;
})
Here groups is of type of List<List<int>>
var nums = new[]{ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7};
var pairs = /* some linq magic here*/ ;
=>
pairs = { {1, 2}, {3, 4}, {5, 6}, {7, 0} }
The elements of pairs should be either two-element lists, or instances of some anonymous class with two fields, something like new {First = 1, Second = 2}.
None of the default linq methods can do this lazily and with a single scan. Zipping the sequence with itself does 2 scans and grouping is not entirely lazy. Your best bet is to implement it directly:
public static IEnumerable<T[]> Partition<T>(this IEnumerable<T> sequence, int partitionSize) {
Contract.Requires(sequence != null)
Contract.Requires(partitionSize > 0)
var buffer = new T[partitionSize];
var n = 0;
foreach (var item in sequence) {
buffer[n] = item;
n += 1;
if (n == partitionSize) {
yield return buffer;
buffer = new T[partitionSize];
n = 0;
}
}
//partial leftovers
if (n > 0) yield return buffer;
}
Try this:
int i = 0;
var pairs =
nums
.Select(n=>{Index = i++, Number=n})
.GroupBy(n=>n.Index/2)
.Select(g=>{First:g.First().Number, Second:g.Last().Number});
int[] numbers = new int[] { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 };
var result = numbers.Zip(numbers.Skip(1).Concat(new int[] { 0 }), (x, y) => new
{
First = x,
Second = y
}).Where((item, index) => index % 2 == 0);
(warning: looks ugly)
var pairs = x.Where((i, val) => i % 2 == 1)
.Zip(
x.Where((i, val) => i % 2 == 0),
(first, second) =>
new
{
First = first,
Second = second
})
.Concat(x.Count() % 2 == 1 ? new[]{
new
{
First = x.Last(),
Second = default(int)
}} : null);
This might be a bit more general than you require - you can set a custom itemsInGroup:
int itemsInGroup = 2;
var pairs = nums.
Select((n, i) => new { GroupNumber = i / itemsInGroup, Number = n }).
GroupBy(n => n.GroupNumber).
Select(g => g.Select(n => n.Number).ToList()).
ToList();
EDIT:
If you want to append zeros (or some other number) in case the last group is of a different size:
int itemsInGroup = 2;
int valueToAppend = 0;
int numberOfItemsToAppend = itemsInGroup - nums.Count() % itemsInGroup;
var pairs = nums.
Concat(Enumerable.Repeat(valueToAppend, numExtraItems)).
Select((n, i) => new { GroupNumber = i / itemsInGroup, Number = n }).
GroupBy(n => n.GroupNumber).
Select(g => g.Select(n => n.Number).ToList()).
ToList();
public static IEnumerable<List<T>> InSetsOf<T>(this IEnumerable<T> source, int max)
{
return InSetsOf(source, max, false, default(T));
}
public static IEnumerable<List<T>> InSetsOf<T>(this IEnumerable<T> source, int max, bool fill, T fillValue)
{
var toReturn = new List<T>(max);
foreach (var item in source)
{
toReturn.Add(item);
if (toReturn.Count == max)
{
yield return toReturn;
toReturn = new List<T>(max);
}
}
if (toReturn.Any())
{
if (fill)
{
toReturn.AddRange(Enumerable.Repeat(fillValue, max-toReturn.Count));
}
yield return toReturn;
}
}
usage:
var pairs = nums.InSetsOf(2, true, 0).ToArray();
IList<int> numbers = new List<int> {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7};
var grouped = numbers.GroupBy(num =>
{
if (numbers.IndexOf(num) % 2 == 0)
{
return numbers.IndexOf(num) + 1;
}
return numbers.IndexOf(num);
});
If you need the last pair filled with zero you could just add it before doing the grouping if the listcount is odd.
if (numbers.Count() % 2 == 1)
{
numbers.Add(0);
}
Another approach could be:
var groupedIt = numbers
.Zip(numbers.Skip(1).Concat(new[]{0}), Tuple.Create)
.Where((x,i) => i % 2 == 0);
Or you use MoreLinq that has a lot of useful extensions:
IList<int> numbers = new List<int> {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7};
var batched = numbers.Batch(2);
var w =
from ei in nums.Select((e, i) => new { e, i })
group ei.e by ei.i / 2 into g
select new { f = g.First(), s = g.Skip(1).FirstOrDefault() };
var nums = new float[] { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 };
var enumerable =
Enumerable
.Range(0, nums.Length)
.Where(i => i % 2 == 0)
.Select(i =>
new { F = nums[i], S = i == nums.Length - 1 ? 0 : nums[i + 1] });
Another option is to use the SelectMany LINQ method. This is more for those who wish to iterate through a list of items and for each item return 2 or more of it's properties. No need to loop through the list again for each property, just once.
var list = new [] {//Some list of objects with multiple properties};
//Select as many properties from each Item as required.
IEnumerable<string> flatList = list.SelectMany(i=> new[]{i.NameA,i.NameB,i.NameC});
Another simple solution using index and index + 1.
var nums = Enumerable.Range(1, 10);
var pairs = nums.Select((item, index) =>
new { First = item, Second = nums.ElementAtOrDefault(index + 1) })
.SkipLastN(1);
pairs.ToList().ForEach(p => Console.WriteLine($"({p.First}, {p.Second}) "));
Last item is invalid and must be removed with SkipLastN().
this gives all possible pairs(vb.net):
Dim nums() = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7}
Dim pairs = From a In nums, b In nums Where a <> b Select a, b
Edit:
Dim allpairs = From a In nums, b In nums Where b - a = 1 Select a, b
Dim uniquePairs = From p In allpairs Where p.a Mod 2 <> 0 Select p
note: the last pair is missing, working on it
Edit:
union uniquePairs with the pair {nums.Last,0}