Develop Reference

Implementing a content-hashable HashSet in C# (like python's `frozenset`)

Brief summary
I want to build a set of sets of items in C#. The inner sets of items have a GetHashCode and Equals method defined by their contents. In mathematical notation:
x = { }
x.Add( { A, B, C } )
x.Add( { A, D } )
x.Add( { B, C, A } )
now x should be{ { A, B, C }, { A, D } }
In python, this could be accomplished with frozenset:
x = set()
x.add( frozenset(['A','B','C']) )
x.add( frozenset(['A','D']) )
x.add( frozenset(['B','C','A']) )
/BriefSummary
I would like to have a hashable HashSet in C#. This would allow me to do:
HashSet<ContentHashableHashSet<int>> setOfSets;
Although there are more sophisticated ways to accomplish this, This can be trivially achieved in practice (although not in the most efficient manner) by adding overriding ContentHashableHashSet.ToString() (outputing the strings of the elements contained in sorted order) and then using then using ContentHashableHashSet.ToString().GetHashCode() as the hash code.
However, if an object is modified after placement in setOfSets, it could result in multiple copies:
var setA = new ContentHashableHashSet<int>();
setA.Add(1);
setA.Add(2);
var setB = new ContentHashableHashSet<int>();
setB.Add(1);
setOfSets.Add(setA);
setOfSets.Add(setB);
setB.Add(2); // now there are duplicate members!
As far as I can see, I have two options: I can derive ContentHashableHashSet from HashSet, but then I will need to make it so that all modifiers throw an exception. Missing one modifier could cause an insidious bug.
Alternatively, I can use encapsulation and class ContentHashableHashSet can contain a readonly HashSet. But then I would need to reimplement all set methods (except modifiers) so that the ContentHashableHashSet can behave like a HashSet. As far as I know, extensions would not apply.
Lastly, I could encapsulate as above and then all set-like functionality will occur by returning the const (or readonly?) HashSet member.
In hindsight, this is reminiscent of python's frozenset. Does anyone know of a well-designed way to implement this in C#?
If I was able to lose ISet functionality, then I would simply create a sorted ImmutableList, but then I would lose functionality like fast union, fast intersection, and sub-linear ( roughly O(log(n)) ) set membership with Contains.
EDIT: The base class HashSet does not have virtual Add and Remove methods, so overriding them will work within the derived class, but will not work if you perform HashSet<int> set = new ContentHashableHashSet<int>();. Casting to the base class will allow editing.
EDIT 2: Thanks to #xanatos for recommending a simple GetHashCode implementation:
The easiest way to calculate the GetHashCode is to simply xor (^) all the gethashcodes of the elements. The xor operator is commutative, so the ordering is irrelevant. For the comparison you can use the SetEquals
EDIT 3: Someone recently shared information about ImmutableHashSet, but because this class is sealed, it is not possible to derive from it and override GetHashCode.
I was also told that HashSet takes an IEqualityComparer as an argument, and so this can be used to provide an immutable, content-hashable set without deriving from ImmutableHashSet; however, this is not a very object oriented solution: every time I want to use a ContentHashableHashSet, I will need to pass the same (non-trivial) argument. As I'm sure you know, this can really wreak havoc with your coding zen, and where I would be flying along in python with myDictionary[ frozenset(mySet) ] = myValue, I will be stuck doing the same thing again and again and again.
Thanks for any help you can provide. I have a temporary workaround (whose problems are mentioned in EDIT 1 above), but I'd mostly like to learn about the best way to design something like this.

Hide the elements of your set of sets so that they can't be changed. That means copying when you add/retrieve sets, but maybe that's acceptable?
// Better make sure T is immutable too, else set hashes could change
public class SetofSets<T>
{
private class HashSetComparer : IEqualityComparer<HashSet<T>>
{
public int GetHashCode(HashSet<T> x)
{
return x.Aggregate(1, (code,elt) => code ^ elt.GetHashCode());
}
public bool Equals(HashSet<T> x, HashSet<T> y)
{
if (x==null)
return y==null;
return x.SetEquals(y);
}
}
private HashSet<HashSet<T>> setOfSets;
public SetofSets()
{
setOfSets = new HashSet<HashSet<T>>(new HashSetComparer());
}
public void Add(HashSet<T> set)
{
setOfSets.Add(new HashSet<T>(set));
}
public bool Contains(HashSet<T> set)
{
return setOfSets.Contains(set);
}
}

Generic way to send an array collection containing only a part of a more complex structure

Let's say a program like this:
class MyClass
{
public int Numbers;
public char Letters;
}
class Program
{
static void Main()
{
var mc = new MyClass[5];
for (var i = 0; i < 5; i++)
{
mc[i].Numbers = i + 1;
mc[i].Letters = (char) (i + 65);
}
}
}
Now, let's suppose an 'X' method that requires ALL the numbers contained in the object mc, in a separate array, that's sent as a parameter.
My first idea is a for, a new integers array, and copy one by one onto its respective position. But, what if the MyClass gets different, now it has strings and floats, and I wanna pull out the strings, now the for has to be completely redefined in its inside part to create the needed array for another 'X' method.
I know of cases where Linq helps a lot, for example, generics for Sum, Average, Count and another numeric functions, and of course, it's combination with lambda expressions.
I'm wondering if something similar exists to make the above arrays of MyClass (and anothers of course) in a faster-generic way?

If you want to use LINQ, you can do something like the following:
int [] numbers = mc.Select<MyClass, int>(m => mc.Number).ToArray();
To make it more generic than that, it gets a bit more complicated, and you may need reflection, or dynamic objects. A simple example with reflection would be:
private TValue[] ExtractFields<TClass, TValue>(TClass[] classObjs, string fieldName)
{
FieldInfo fInfo = typeof(TClass).GetField(fieldName, BindingFlags.Public | BindingFlags.Instance);
if (fInfo != null && fInfo.FieldType.Equals(typeof(TValue)))
return classObjs.Select<TClass, TValue>(c => (TValue)fInfo.GetValue(c)).ToArray();
else
throw new NotSupportedException("Unidentified field, or different field type");
}
And then just call it like:
int [] fields = ExtractField<MyClass, int>(mc, "Number");

If you are using C# 4.0, then you may use dynamic
class MyClass
{
public dynamic Numbers;
public char Letters;
}
EDIT: based on comments
I am not sure if this is what you want:
int[] arr = mc.Select(a => a.Numbers).ToArray<int>();
or without casting
int[] arr = mc.Select(a => a.Numbers).ToArray();

Why not just use Dictionary<int, char>, or if the data type is unknown then simply Dictionary<object, object>

If your goal is to generate a new array which is detached from the original array, but contains data copied from it, the most generic thing you could do would be to define a method like:
T my_array[]; // The array which holds the real things
U[] CopyAsConvertedArray<U>(Func<T,U> ConversionMethod);
That would allow one to generate a new array which extracts items from the original using any desired method.

What is the need Indexers in C#

Today I've gone through what indexers are, but I am bit confused. Is there really a need for indexers? What are the advantages of using an indexer..... thanks in advance

I guess the simplest answer is to look at how you'd use (say) List<T> otherwise. Would you rather write:
string foo = list[10];
or
string foo = list.Get(10);
Likewise for dictionaries, would you rather use:
map["foo"] = "bar";
or
map.Put("foo", "bar");
?
Just like properties, there's no real need for them compared with just named methods following a convention... but they make code easier to understand, in my view - and that's one of the most important things a feature can do.

Indexers let you get a reference to an object in a collection without having to traverse the whole collections.
Say you have several thousands of objects, and you need the one before last. Instead of iterating over all of the items in the collection, you simply use the index of the object you want.
Indexers do no have to be integers, so you can use a string, for example, (though you can use any object, so long as the collection supports it) as an indexer - this lets you "name" objects in a collection for later retrieval, also quite useful.

I think zedo got closest to the real reason IMHO that they have added this feature. It's for convenience in the same way that we have properties.
The code is easer to type and easier to read, with a simple abstraction to help you understand.
For instance:
string[] array;
string value = array[0];
List<string> list;
string value = list[0]; //Abstracts the list lookup to a call similar to array.
Dictionary<string, int> map;
int value = map["KeyName"]; //Overloaded with string lookup.

Indexers allow you to reference your class in the same way as an array which is useful when creating a collection class, but giving a class array-like behavior can be useful in other situations as well, such as when dealing with a large file or abstracting a set of finite resources.

yes , they are very use of
you can use indexers to get the indexed object.
Taken from MSDN
Indexers are most frequently implemented in types whose primary purpose is to encapsulate an internal collection or array.
Full Story

for some reason, use indexer can let you create meaningful index to store or map your data. then you can get it from other side by the meaningful index.

using System;
/* Here is a simple program. I think this will help you to understand */
namespace Indexers
{
class Demo
{
int[] a = new int[10];
public int Lengths
{
get
{
return a.Length;
}
}
public int this[int index]
{
get
{
return a[index];
}
set
{
a[index] = value;
}
}
}
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Demo d = new Demo(); // Notice here, this is a simple object
//but you can use this like an array
for (int i = 0; i < d.Lengths; i++)
{
d[i] = i;
}
for (int i = 0; i < d.Lengths; i++)
{
Console.WriteLine(d[i]);
}
Console.ReadKey();
}
}
}
/*Output:
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
*/

C#: Returning 'this' for method nesting?

I have a class that I have to call one or two methods a lot of times after each other. The methods currently return void. I was thinking, would it be better to have it return this, so that the methods could be nested? or is that considerd very very very bad? or if bad, would it be better if it returned a new object of the same type? Or what do you think? As an example I have created three versions of an adder class:
// Regular
class Adder
{
public Adder() { Number = 0; }
public int Number { get; private set; }
public void Add(int i) { Number += i; }
public void Remove(int i) { Number -= i; }
}
// Returning this
class Adder
{
public Adder() { Number = 0; }
public int Number { get; private set; }
public Adder Add(int i) { Number += i; return this; }
public Adder Remove(int i) { Number -= i; return this; }
}
// Returning new
class Adder
{
public Adder() : this(0) { }
private Adder(int i) { Number = i; }
public int Number { get; private set; }
public Adder Add(int i) { return new Adder(Number + i); }
public Adder Remove(int i) { return new Adder(Number - i); }
}
The first one can be used this way:
var a = new Adder();
a.Add(4);
a.Remove(1);
a.Add(7);
a.Remove(3);
The other two can be used this way:
var a = new Adder()
.Add(4)
.Remove(1)
.Add(7)
.Remove(3);
Where the only difference is that a in the first case is the new Adder() while in the latter it is the result of the last method.
The first I find that quickly become... annoying to write over and over again. So I would like to use one of the other versions.
The third works kind of like many other methods, like many String methods and IEnumerable extension methods. I guess that has its positive side in that you can do things like var a = new Adder(); var b = a.Add(5); and then have one that was 0 and one that was 5. But at the same time, isn't it a bit expensive to create new objects all the time? And when will the first object die? When the first method returns kind of? Or?
Anyways, I like the one that returns this and think I will use that, but I am very curious to know what others think about this case. And what is considered best practice.

The 'return this' style is sometimes called a fluent interface and is a common practice.

I like "fluent syntax" and would take the second one. After all, you could still use it as the first, for people who feel uncomfortable with fluent syntax.
another idea to make an interface like the adders one easier to use:
public Adder Add(params int[] i) { /* ... */ }
public Adder Remove(params int[] i) { /* ... */ }
Adder adder = new Adder()
.Add(1, 2, 3)
.Remove(3, 4);
I always try to make short and easy-to-read interfaces, but many people like to write the code as complicated as possible.

Chaining is a nice thing to have and is core in some frameworks (for instance Linq extensions and jQuery both use it heavily).
Whether you create a new object or return this depends on how you expect your initial object to behave:
var a = new Adder();
var b = a.Add(4)
.Remove(1)
.Add(7)
.Remove(3);
//now - should a==b ?
Chaining in jQuery will have changed your original object - it has returned this.
That's expected behaviour - do do otherwise would basically clone UI elements.
Chaining in Linq will have left your original collection unchanged. That too is expected behaviour - each chained function is a filter or transformation, and the original collection is often immutable.
Which pattern better suits what you're doing?

I think that for simple interfaces, the "fluent" interface is very useful, particularly because it is very simple to implement. The value of the fluent interface is that it eliminates a lot of the extraneous fluff that gets in the way of understanding. Developing such an interface can take a lot of time, especially when the interface starts to be involved. You should worry about how the usage of the interface "reads"; In my mind, the most compelling use for such an interface is how it communicates the intent of the programmer, not the amount of characters that it saves.
To answer your specific question, I like the "return this" style. My typical use of the fluent interface is to define a set of options. That is, I create an instance of the class and then use the fluent methods on the instance to define the desired behavior of the object. If I have a yes/no option (say for logging), I try not to have a "setLogging(bool state)" method but rather two methods "WithLogging" and "WithoutLogging". This is somewhat more work but the clarity of the final result is very useful.

Consider this: if you come back to this code in 5 years, is this going to make sense to you? If so, then I suppose you can go ahead.
For this specific example, though, it would seem that overloading the + and - operators would make things clearer and accomplish the same thing.

For your specific case, overloading the arithmetic operators would be probably the best solution.
Returning this (Fluent interface) is common practice to create expressions - unit testing and mocking frameworks use this a lot. Fluent Hibernate is another example.
Returning a new instance might be a good choice, too. It allows you to make your class immutable - in general a good thing and very handy in the case of multithreading. But think about the object creation overhead if immutability is of no use for you.

If you call it Adder, I'd go with returning this. However, it's kind of strange for an Adder class to contain an answer.
You might consider making it something like MyNumber and create an Add()-method.
Ideally (IMHO), that would not change the number that is stored inside your instance, but create a new instance with the new value, which you return:
class MyNumber
{
...
MyNumber Add( int i )
{
return new MyNumber( this.Value + i );
}
}

The main difference between the second and third solution is that by returning a new instance instead of this you are able to "catch" the object in a certain state and continue from that.
var a = new Adder()
.Add(4);
var b = a.Remove(1);
var c = a.Add(7)
.Remove(3);
In this case both b and c have the state captured in a as a starting point.
I came across this idiom while reading about a pattern for building test domain objects in Growing Object-Oriented Software, Guided by Tests by Steve Freeman; Nat Pryce.
On your question regarding the lifetime of your instances: I would exspect them to be elligible for garbage collection as soon as the invocation of Remove or Add are returning.

How to initialize a List<T> to a given size (as opposed to capacity)?

.NET offers a generic list container whose performance is almost identical (see Performance of Arrays vs. Lists question). However they are quite different in initialization.
Arrays are very easy to initialize with a default value, and by definition they already have certain size:
string[] Ar = new string[10];
Which allows one to safely assign random items, say:
Ar[5]="hello";
with list things are more tricky. I can see two ways of doing the same initialization, neither of which is what you would call elegant:
List<string> L = new List<string>(10);
for (int i=0;i<10;i++) L.Add(null);
or
string[] Ar = new string[10];
List<string> L = new List<string>(Ar);
What would be a cleaner way?
EDIT: The answers so far refer to capacity, which is something else than pre-populating a list. For example, on a list just created with a capacity of 10, one cannot do L[2]="somevalue"
EDIT 2: People wonder why I want to use lists this way, as it is not the way they are intended to be used. I can see two reasons:
One could quite convincingly argue that lists are the "next generation" arrays, adding flexibility with almost no penalty. Therefore one should use them by default. I'm pointing out they might not be as easy to initialize.
What I'm currently writing is a base class offering default functionality as part of a bigger framework. In the default functionality I offer, the size of the List is known in advanced and therefore I could have used an array. However, I want to offer any base class the chance to dynamically extend it and therefore I opt for a list.

List<string> L = new List<string> ( new string[10] );

I can't say I need this very often - could you give more details as to why you want this? I'd probably put it as a static method in a helper class:
public static class Lists
{
public static List<T> RepeatedDefault<T>(int count)
{
return Repeated(default(T), count);
}
public static List<T> Repeated<T>(T value, int count)
{
List<T> ret = new List<T>(count);
ret.AddRange(Enumerable.Repeat(value, count));
return ret;
}
}
You could use Enumerable.Repeat(default(T), count).ToList() but that would be inefficient due to buffer resizing.
Note that if T is a reference type, it will store count copies of the reference passed for the value parameter - so they will all refer to the same object. That may or may not be what you want, depending on your use case.
EDIT: As noted in comments, you could make Repeated use a loop to populate the list if you wanted to. That would be slightly faster too. Personally I find the code using Repeat more descriptive, and suspect that in the real world the performance difference would be irrelevant, but your mileage may vary.

Use the constructor which takes an int ("capacity") as an argument:
List<string> = new List<string>(10);
EDIT: I should add that I agree with Frederik. You are using the List in a way that goes against the entire reasoning behind using it in the first place.
EDIT2:
EDIT 2: What I'm currently writing is a base class offering default functionality as part of a bigger framework. In the default functionality I offer, the size of the List is known in advanced and therefore I could have used an array. However, I want to offer any base class the chance to dynamically extend it and therefore I opt for a list.
Why would anyone need to know the size of a List with all null values? If there are no real values in the list, I would expect the length to be 0. Anyhow, the fact that this is cludgy demonstrates that it is going against the intended use of the class.

Create an array with the number of items you want first and then convert the array in to a List.
int[] fakeArray = new int[10];
List<int> list = fakeArray.ToList();

If you want to initialize the list with N elements of some fixed value:
public List<T> InitList<T>(int count, T initValue)
{
return Enumerable.Repeat(initValue, count).ToList();
}

Why are you using a List if you want to initialize it with a fixed value ?
I can understand that -for the sake of performance- you want to give it an initial capacity, but isn't one of the advantages of a list over a regular array that it can grow when needed ?
When you do this:
List<int> = new List<int>(100);
You create a list whose capacity is 100 integers. This means that your List won't need to 'grow' until you add the 101th item.
The underlying array of the list will be initialized with a length of 100.

This is an old question, but I have two solutions. One is fast and dirty reflection; the other is a solution that actually answers the question (set the size not the capacity) while still being performant, which none of the answers here do.
Reflection
This is quick and dirty, and should be pretty obvious what the code does. If you want to speed it up, cache the result of GetField, or create a DynamicMethod to do it:
public static void SetSize<T>(this List<T> l, int newSize) =>
l.GetType().GetField("_size", BindingFlags.NonPublic | BindingFlags.Instance).SetValue(l, newSize);
Obviously a lot of people will be hesitant to put such code into production.
ICollection<T>
This solution is based around the fact that the constructor List(IEnumerable<T> collection) optimizes for ICollection<T> and immediately adjusts the size to the correct amount, without iterating it. It then calls the collections CopyTo to do the copy.
The code for the List<T> constructor is as follows:
public List(IEnumerable<T> collection) {
....
ICollection<T> c = collection as ICollection<T>;
if (collection is ICollection<T> c)
{
int count = c.Count;
if (count == 0)
{
_items = s_emptyArray;
}
else {
_items = new T[count];
c.CopyTo(_items, 0);
_size = count;
}
}
So we can completely optimally pre-initialize the List to the correct size, without any extra copying.
How so? By creating an ICollection<T> object that does nothing other than return a Count. Specifically, we will not implement anything in CopyTo which is the only other function called.
private struct SizeCollection<T> : ICollection<T>
{
public SizeCollection(int size) =>
Count = size;
public void Add(T i){}
public void Clear(){}
public bool Contains(T i)=>true;
public void CopyTo(T[]a, int i){}
public bool Remove(T i)=>true;
public int Count {get;}
public bool IsReadOnly=>true;
public IEnumerator<T> GetEnumerator()=>null;
IEnumerator IEnumerable.GetEnumerator()=>null;
}
public List<T> InitializedList<T>(int size) =>
new List<T>(new SizeCollection<T>(size));
We could in theory do the same thing for AddRange/InsertRange for an existing array, which also accounts for ICollection<T>, but the code there creates a new array for the supposed items, then copies them in. In such case, it would be faster to just empty-loop Add:
public void SetSize<T>(this List<T> l, int size)
{
if(size < l.Count)
l.RemoveRange(size, l.Count - size);
else
for(size -= l.Count; size > 0; size--)
l.Add(default(T));
}

Initializing the contents of a list like that isn't really what lists are for. Lists are designed to hold objects. If you want to map particular numbers to particular objects, consider using a key-value pair structure like a hash table or dictionary instead of a list.

You seem to be emphasizing the need for a positional association with your data, so wouldn't an associative array be more fitting?
Dictionary<int, string> foo = new Dictionary<int, string>();
foo[2] = "string";

The accepted answer (the one with the green check mark) has an issue.
The problem:
var result = Lists.Repeated(new MyType(), sizeOfList);
// each item in the list references the same MyType() object
// if you edit item 1 in the list, you are also editing item 2 in the list
I recommend changing the line above to perform a copy of the object. There are many different articles about that:
String.MemberwiseClone() method called through reflection doesn't work, why?
https://code.msdn.microsoft.com/windowsdesktop/CSDeepCloneObject-8a53311e
If you want to initialize every item in your list with the default constructor, rather than NULL, then add the following method:
public static List<T> RepeatedDefaultInstance<T>(int count)
{
List<T> ret = new List<T>(count);
for (var i = 0; i < count; i++)
{
ret.Add((T)Activator.CreateInstance(typeof(T)));
}
return ret;
}

You can use Linq to cleverly initialize your list with a default value. (Similar to David B's answer.)
var defaultStrings = (new int[10]).Select(x => "my value").ToList();
Go one step farther and initialize each string with distinct values "string 1", "string 2", "string 3", etc:
int x = 1;
var numberedStrings = (new int[10]).Select(x => "string " + x++).ToList();

string [] temp = new string[] {"1","2","3"};
List<string> temp2 = temp.ToList();

After thinking again, I had found the non-reflection answer to the OP question, but Charlieface beat me to it. So I believe that the correct and complete answer is https://stackoverflow.com/a/65766955/4572240
My old answer:
If I understand correctly, you want the List<T> version of new T[size], without the overhead of adding values to it.
If you are not afraid the implementation of List<T> will change dramatically in the future (and in this case I believe the probability is close to 0), you can use reflection:
public static List<T> NewOfSize<T>(int size) {
var list = new List<T>(size);
var sizeField = list.GetType().GetField("_size",BindingFlags.Instance|BindingFlags.NonPublic);
sizeField.SetValue(list, size);
return list;
}
Note that this takes into account the default functionality of the underlying array to prefill with the default value of the item type. All int arrays will have values of 0 and all reference type arrays will have values of null. Also note that for a list of reference types, only the space for the pointer to each item is created.
If you, for some reason, decide on not using reflection, I would have liked to offer an option of AddRange with a generator method, but underneath List<T> just calls Insert a zillion times, which doesn't serve.
I would also like to point out that the Array class has a static method called ResizeArray, if you want to go the other way around and start from Array.
To end, I really hate when I ask a question and everybody points out that it's the wrong question. Maybe it is, and thanks for the info, but I would still like an answer, because you have no idea why I am asking it. That being said, if you want to create a framework that has an optimal use of resources, List<T> is a pretty inefficient class for anything than holding and adding stuff to the end of a collection.

A notice about IList:
MSDN IList Remarks:
"IList implementations fall into three categories: read-only, fixed-size, and variable-size. (...). For the generic version of this interface, see
System.Collections.Generic.IList<T>."
IList<T> does NOT inherits from IList (but List<T> does implement both IList<T> and IList), but is always variable-size.
Since .NET 4.5, we have also IReadOnlyList<T> but AFAIK, there is no fixed-size generic List which would be what you are looking for.

This is a sample I used for my unit test. I created a list of class object. Then I used forloop to add 'X' number of objects that I am expecting from the service.
This way you can add/initialize a List for any given size.
public void TestMethod1()
{
var expected = new List<DotaViewer.Interface.DotaHero>();
for (int i = 0; i < 22; i++)//You add empty initialization here
{
var temp = new DotaViewer.Interface.DotaHero();
expected.Add(temp);
}
var nw = new DotaHeroCsvService();
var items = nw.GetHero();
CollectionAssert.AreEqual(expected,items);
}
Hope I was of help to you guys.

A bit late but first solution you proposed seems far cleaner to me : you dont allocate memory twice.
Even List constrcutor needs to loop through array in order to copy it; it doesn't even know by advance there is only null elements inside.
1.
- allocate N
- loop N
Cost: 1 * allocate(N) + N * loop_iteration
2.
- allocate N
- allocate N + loop ()
Cost : 2 * allocate(N) + N * loop_iteration
However List's allocation an loops might be faster since List is a built-in class, but C# is jit-compiled sooo...