I must be reinventing the wheel here - but I've searched and I can't find anything quite the same...
Here's my code for creating a sequence of zero or more objects that have a default constructor:
public static IEnumerable<T> CreateSequence<T>(int n) where T: new()
{
for (int i = 0; i < n; ++i)
{
yield return new T();
}
}
My question is quite simple: Is there a Linq equivalent of this I should be using?
Try this:
Enumerable.Range(1,count).Select(_ => new T());
Enumerable.Range will give you the current number from the specified range as parameter, but you can simply ignore that (named as _ in the example).
Yes there is: var items = Enumerable.Repeat(new YourClass(), 10);
Related
I'm trying to use the Array.ForEach() extension method to loop through for a list of filtered elements from an array and then modify those values, unfortunately that doesn't seem to work I'm guessing because it doesn't actually modify the reference value of each element.
Is there any way to do this besides storing the results of the Array.ForEach() into a seperate array and then cloning that array to the original array? Also I know I could obviously do all of this without cloning if I use a for loop but if I could do it this way it would be cleaner and would be less code.
Here's the snippet:
Array.ForEach(Array.FindAll(starts, e => e < 0), e => e = 0);
ForEach simply isn't intended to do this - just like you wouldn't be able to do this with a foreach loop.
Personally I'd just use a for loop - it's easy to read and clear:
for (int i = 0; i < array.Length; i++)
{
// Alternatively, use Math.Max to pull up any negative values to 0
if (array[i] < 0)
{
array[i] = 0;
}
}
It really is simple - anyone will be able to understand it.
Now you could write your own extension method instead. You could write one to replace all values which satisfy a predicate with a fixed value, or you could write one to replace all values entirely... but I don't think it's really worth it. As an example of the latter:
public static void ReplaceElements<T>(this T[] array,
Func<T, T> replacementFunction)
{
// TODO: Argument validation
for (int i = 0; i < array.Length; i++)
{
array[i] = replacementFunction(array[i]);
}
}
Then call it with:
starts.ReplaceElements(x => Math.Max(x, 0));
I'd personally still use the for loop though.
(You could potentially change the above very slightly to make it take IList<T> and use Count instead. That would still work with arrays, but also List<T> etc too.)
You can do that with ref and delegates. However, I don't think it adds much value.
public delegate void RefAction<T>(ref T value);
public static void ForEachRef<T>(this T[] array, RefAction<T> action)
{
for (int i = 0; i < array.Length; ++i) action(ref array[i]);
}
You can use it as follows:
var myArray = new int[];
myArray.ForEachRef((ref int i) => i = whateverYouLike());
From the standpoint of possibility, there could be an interface IRefEnumerable<T> which iterates some container with assignable elements.
array = array.Select(x => (x < 0) ? 0: x).ToArray();
This question already has answers here:
How to initialize a List<T> to a given size (as opposed to capacity)?
(16 answers)
Initialize a List<int> with LINQ query
(6 answers)
Closed 8 years ago.
let's say I have a simple List<bool>. I want to initialize it and add e.g 100 elements to it. To do so, I can do:
var myList = new List<bool>();
for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++)
{
myList.Add(false);
}
but it's not the most elegant approach. Is there any built-in method to simplify it ? I don't want any loops, just for curiosity
Using Enumerable.Repeat
var myList = Enumerable.Repeat(false, 100).ToList();
which
Generates a sequence that contains one repeated value.
false is easy, since it's the default value of boolean:
new List<bool>(new bool[100]);
You could use LINQ and more specifically the Select and ToList extension methods:
var myList = Enumerable.Range(1, 100).Select(x => false).ToList();
List<T> has no specific method to do this. The loop is your best option.
However, you can make it more efficient at runtime, by initializing the list with an initial capacity:
var myList = new List<bool>(100);
When using this constructor, the list will internally allocate an array of 100 elements. If you use the default constructor, it will start of with first 0 and then 4 elements. After 4 items have been added, the list will allocate an array of 8 elements and copy the 4 that were already added over. Then it will grow to 16, 32, 64 and finally 128. All these allocations and copy operations can be avoided by using the constructor with the initial capacity.
Alternatively, if you need to do this in different places in your program, you could make an extension method:
public static void Initialize<T>(this List<T> list, T value, int count)
{
if (list == null)
{
throw new ArgumentNullException("list");
}
if (list.Count != 0)
{
throw new InvalidOperationException("list already initialized");
}
if (list.Capacity < count)
{
list.Capacity = count;
}
for (int i = 0, i < count, i++)
{
list.Add(value);
}
}
You would use it like this:
var myList = new List<bool>();
myList.Initialize(false, 100);
The other option that you have is to use an array.
var myList = new bool[100];
The interesting thing about this specific example is that you do not have to initialize the array. Since false is the default value for bool, all elements in the array will automatically have the value false. If your list does not need to resize dynamically, this is certainly an option to consider.
You can use List.AddRange:
List<bool> list = new List<bool>();
list.AddRange(Enumerable.Repeat(default(bool), 100));
Given a class:
class clsPerson { public int x, y; }
Is there some way to create an array of these classes with each element initialized to a (default) constructed instance, without doing it manually in a for loop like:
clsPerson[] objArr = new clsPerson[1000];
for (int i = 0; i < 1000; ++i)
objArr[i] = new clsPerson();
Can I shorten the declaration and instantiation of an array of N objects?
The constructor must be run for every item in the array in this scenario. Whether or not you use a loop, collection initializers or a helper method every element in the array must be visited.
If you're just looking for a handy syntax though you could use the following
public static T[] CreateArray<T>(int count) where T : new() {
var array = new T[count];
for (var i = 0; i < count; i++) {
array[i] = new T();
}
return array;
}
clsPerson[] objArary = CreateArray<clsPerson>(1000);
You must invoke the constructor for each item. There is no way to allocate an array and invoke your class constructors on the items without constructing each item.
You could shorten it (a tiny bit) from a loop using:
clsPerson[] objArr = Enumerable.Range(0, 1000).Select(i => new clsPerson()).ToArray();
Personally, I'd still allocate the array and loop through it (and/or move it into a helper routine), though, as it's very clear and still fairly simple:
clsPerson[] objArr = new clsPerson[1000];
for (int i=0;i<1000;++i)
clsPerson[i] = new clsPerson();
If it would make sense to do so, you could change class clsPerson to struct Person. structs always have a default value.
atm I do it like this:
lock (LockObj)
{
foreach (var o in Oo)
{
var val = o.DateActive;
if (val.AddSeconds(30) < DateTime.Now) Oo.Remove(o);
}
}
and I get this error:
Collection was modified; enumeration operation may not execute
how this should be done?
You have to use a regular for loop.
for (int i = 0; i < Oo.Length; ++i)
{
var val = Oo[i];
if (val.AddSeconds(30) < DateTime.Now)
{
Oo.RemoveAt(i);
i--; // since we just removed an element
}
}
The reason you cannot edit a collection with a foreach loop is because foreach uses a readonly IEnumerator of the collection you are iterating.
you can't modify a collection you are enumerating..
to change it get a copy of it and change it.
for(var k in OO.ToList())
.....
or
use count and iterate the collection with index,
for (int i=0;i<OO.Count();i++)
.....
You simply cannot modify the collection if you are iterating with foreach. You have two options, Loop with For instead of foreach or create another Collection and modify that.
This problem is completely unrelated to locking.
If you add/remove elements from a List all iterators pointing to that list become invalid.
One alternative to using an iterator is manually working with indices. Then you can iterate backwards and remove elements with RemoveAt.
for(int i=Oo.Count-1;i>=0;i--)
{
var o=Oo[i];
if (o.DateActive.AddSeconds(30)<DateTime.Now)
Oo.RemoveAt(i);
}
Unfortunately this native implementation is O(n^2). If you write it in a more complex way where you first assign the elements to their new position and then truncate the list it becomes O(n).
Buf if Oo is a List<T> there is a much better solution. You can use Oo.RemoveAll(o=>o.DateActive.AddSeconds(30)<DateTime.Now). Unfortunately you there is no such extension method on IList<T> by default.
I'd write the code like this:
lock (LockObj)
{
DateTime deleteTime=DateTime.Now.AddSeconds(-30);
Oo.RemoveAll(o=>o.DateActive<deleteTime);
}
As a sidenote I'd personally use UTC times instead of local times for such code.
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
List<OOItem> oo = new List<OOItem>();
oo.Add( new OOItem() { DateActive = DateTime.Now.AddSeconds(-31) });
lock(LockObj)
{
foreach( var item in oo.Where( ooItem => ooItem.DateActive.AddSeconds(30) < DateTime.Now ).ToArray())
{
oo.Remove(item);
}
}
Debug.Assert( oo.Count == 0);
}
}
public class OOItem
{
public DateTime DateActive { get; set; }
}
I'm going to suggest an approach that avoids messing around with decrementing loop indexes and other stuff that makes code difficult to understand.
I think the best bet is to write a nice query and then do a foreach over the result of turning the query into an array:
var inactives = from o in Oo
where o.DateActive < DateTime.Now
select o;
foreach (var o in inactives.ToArray())
{
Oo.Remove(o);
}
This avoids the issue of the collection changing and makes the code quite a bit more readable.
If you're a little more "functionally" oriented then here's another choice:
(from o in Oo
where o.DateActive < DateTime.Now
select o)
.ToList()
.ForEach(o => Oo.Remove(o));
Enjoy!
The problem is not related to the lock.
Use a for() loop instead of foreach().
I can't 100% replace your code because your code provides no hint of what collection type "Oo" is. Neither does the name "Oo". Perhaps one of the evils of var keyword overuse? Or maybe I just can't see enough of your code ;)
int size = Oo.Length();
for(int i = 0; i < size; i++){
if (Oo[i].AddSeconds(30) < DateTime.Now){
Oo[i].RemoveAt(i);
size--; // Compensate for new size after removal.
}
}
you can use Parallel.ForEach(oO, val=> { oO.Remove(val); })
Parallel doesn't have the IEnumerator problem !
Context: C# 3.0, .Net 3.5
Suppose I have a method that generates random numbers (forever):
private static IEnumerable<int> RandomNumberGenerator() {
while (true) yield return GenerateRandomNumber(0, 100);
}
I need to group those numbers in groups of 10, so I would like something like:
foreach (IEnumerable<int> group in RandomNumberGenerator().Slice(10)) {
Assert.That(group.Count() == 10);
}
I have defined Slice method, but I feel there should be one already defined. Here is my Slice method, just for reference:
private static IEnumerable<T[]> Slice<T>(IEnumerable<T> enumerable, int size) {
var result = new List<T>(size);
foreach (var item in enumerable) {
result.Add(item);
if (result.Count == size) {
yield return result.ToArray();
result.Clear();
}
}
}
Question: is there an easier way to accomplish what I'm trying to do? Perhaps Linq?
Note: above example is a simplification, in my program I have an Iterator that scans given matrix in a non-linear fashion.
EDIT: Why Skip+Take is no good.
Effectively what I want is:
var group1 = RandomNumberGenerator().Skip(0).Take(10);
var group2 = RandomNumberGenerator().Skip(10).Take(10);
var group3 = RandomNumberGenerator().Skip(20).Take(10);
var group4 = RandomNumberGenerator().Skip(30).Take(10);
without the overhead of regenerating number (10+20+30+40) times. I need a solution that will generate exactly 40 numbers and break those in 4 groups by 10.
Are Skip and Take of any use to you?
Use a combination of the two in a loop to get what you want.
So,
list.Skip(10).Take(10);
Skips the first 10 records and then takes the next 10.
I have done something similar. But I would like it to be simpler:
//Remove "this" if you don't want it to be a extension method
public static IEnumerable<IList<T>> Chunks<T>(this IEnumerable<T> xs, int size)
{
var curr = new List<T>(size);
foreach (var x in xs)
{
curr.Add(x);
if (curr.Count == size)
{
yield return curr;
curr = new List<T>(size);
}
}
}
I think yours are flawed. You return the same array for all your chunks/slices so only the last chunk/slice you take would have the correct data.
Addition: Array version:
public static IEnumerable<T[]> Chunks<T>(this IEnumerable<T> xs, int size)
{
var curr = new T[size];
int i = 0;
foreach (var x in xs)
{
curr[i % size] = x;
if (++i % size == 0)
{
yield return curr;
curr = new T[size];
}
}
}
Addition: Linq version (not C# 2.0). As pointed out, it will not work on infinite sequences and will be a great deal slower than the alternatives:
public static IEnumerable<T[]> Chunks<T>(this IEnumerable<T> xs, int size)
{
return xs.Select((x, i) => new { x, i })
.GroupBy(xi => xi.i / size, xi => xi.x)
.Select(g => g.ToArray());
}
Using Skip and Take would be a very bad idea. Calling Skip on an indexed collection may be fine, but calling it on any arbitrary IEnumerable<T> is liable to result in enumeration over the number of elements skipped, which means that if you're calling it repeatedly you're enumerating over the sequence an order of magnitude more times than you need to be.
Complain of "premature optimization" all you want; but that is just ridiculous.
I think your Slice method is about as good as it gets. I was going to suggest a different approach that would provide deferred execution and obviate the intermediate array allocation, but that is a dangerous game to play (i.e., if you try something like ToList on such a resulting IEnumerable<T> implementation, without enumerating over the inner collections, you'll end up in an endless loop).
(I've removed what was originally here, as the OP's improvements since posting the question have since rendered my suggestions here redundant.)
Let's see if you even need the complexity of Slice. If your random number generates is stateless, I would assume each call to it would generate unique random numbers, so perhaps this would be sufficient:
var group1 = RandomNumberGenerator().Take(10);
var group2 = RandomNumberGenerator().Take(10);
var group3 = RandomNumberGenerator().Take(10);
var group4 = RandomNumberGenerator().Take(10);
Each call to Take returns a new group of 10 numbers.
Now, if your random number generator re-seeds itself with a specific value each time it's iterated, this won't work. You'll simply get the same 10 values for each group. So instead, you would use:
var generator = RandomNumberGenerator();
var group1 = generator.Take(10);
var group2 = generator.Take(10);
var group3 = generator.Take(10);
var group4 = generator.Take(10);
This maintains an instance of the generator so that you can continue retrieving values without re-seeding the generator.
You could use the Skip and Take methods with any Enumerable object.
For your edit :
How about a function that takes a slice number and a slice size as a parameter?
private static IEnumerable<T> Slice<T>(IEnumerable<T> enumerable, int sliceSize, int sliceNumber) {
return enumerable.Skip(sliceSize * sliceNumber).Take(sliceSize);
}
It seems like we'd prefer for an IEnumerable<T> to have a fixed position counter so that we can do
var group1 = items.Take(10);
var group2 = items.Take(10);
var group3 = items.Take(10);
var group4 = items.Take(10);
and get successive slices rather than getting the first 10 items each time. We can do that with a new implementation of IEnumerable<T> which keeps one instance of its Enumerator and returns it on every call of GetEnumerator:
public class StickyEnumerable<T> : IEnumerable<T>, IDisposable
{
private IEnumerator<T> innerEnumerator;
public StickyEnumerable( IEnumerable<T> items )
{
innerEnumerator = items.GetEnumerator();
}
public IEnumerator<T> GetEnumerator()
{
return innerEnumerator;
}
System.Collections.IEnumerator System.Collections.IEnumerable.GetEnumerator()
{
return innerEnumerator;
}
public void Dispose()
{
if (innerEnumerator != null)
{
innerEnumerator.Dispose();
}
}
}
Given that class, we could implement Slice with
public static IEnumerable<IEnumerable<T>> Slices<T>(this IEnumerable<T> items, int size)
{
using (StickyEnumerable<T> sticky = new StickyEnumerable<T>(items))
{
IEnumerable<T> slice;
do
{
slice = sticky.Take(size).ToList();
yield return slice;
} while (slice.Count() == size);
}
yield break;
}
That works in this case, but StickyEnumerable<T> is generally a dangerous class to have around if the consuming code isn't expecting it. For example,
using (var sticky = new StickyEnumerable<int>(Enumerable.Range(1, 10)))
{
var first = sticky.Take(2);
var second = sticky.Take(2);
foreach (int i in second)
{
Console.WriteLine(i);
}
foreach (int i in first)
{
Console.WriteLine(i);
}
}
prints
1
2
3
4
rather than
3
4
1
2
Take a look at Take(), TakeWhile() and Skip()
I think the use of Slice() would be a bit misleading. I think of that as a means to give me a chuck of an array into a new array and not causing side effects. In this scenario you would actually move the enumerable forward 10.
A possible better approach is to just use the Linq extension Take(). I don't think you would need to use Skip() with a generator.
Edit: Dang, I have been trying to test this behavior with the following code
Note: this is wasn't really correct, I leave it here so others don't fall into the same mistake.
var numbers = RandomNumberGenerator();
var slice = numbers.Take(10);
public static IEnumerable<int> RandomNumberGenerator()
{
yield return random.Next();
}
but the Count() for slice is alway 1. I also tried running it through a foreach loop since I know that the Linq extensions are generally lazily evaluated and it only looped once. I eventually did the code below instead of the Take() and it works:
public static IEnumerable<int> Slice(this IEnumerable<int> enumerable, int size)
{
var list = new List<int>();
foreach (var count in Enumerable.Range(0, size)) list.Add(enumerable.First());
return list;
}
If you notice I am adding the First() to the list each time, but since the enumerable that is being passed in is the generator from RandomNumberGenerator() the result is different every time.
So again with a generator using Skip() is not needed since the result will be different. Looping over an IEnumerable is not always side effect free.
Edit: I'll leave the last edit just so no one falls into the same mistake, but it worked fine for me just doing this:
var numbers = RandomNumberGenerator();
var slice1 = numbers.Take(10);
var slice2 = numbers.Take(10);
The two slices were different.
I had made some mistakes in my original answer but some of the points still stand. Skip() and Take() are not going to work the same with a generator as it would a list. Looping over an IEnumerable is not always side effect free. Anyway here is my take on getting a list of slices.
public static IEnumerable<int> RandomNumberGenerator()
{
while(true) yield return random.Next();
}
public static IEnumerable<IEnumerable<int>> Slice(this IEnumerable<int> enumerable, int size, int count)
{
var slices = new List<List<int>>();
foreach (var iteration in Enumerable.Range(0, count)){
var list = new List<int>();
list.AddRange(enumerable.Take(size));
slices.Add(list);
}
return slices;
}
I got this solution for the same problem:
int[] ints = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10};
IEnumerable<IEnumerable<int>> chunks = Chunk(ints, 2, t => t.Dump());
//won't enumerate, so won't do anything unless you force it:
chunks.ToList();
IEnumerable<T> Chunk<T, R>(IEnumerable<R> src, int n, Func<IEnumerable<R>, T> action){
IEnumerable<R> head;
IEnumerable<R> tail = src;
while (tail.Any())
{
head = tail.Take(n);
tail = tail.Skip(n);
yield return action(head);
}
}
if you just want the chunks returned, not do anything with them, use chunks = Chunk(ints, 2, t => t). What I would really like is to have to have t=>t as default action, but I haven't found out how to do that yet.