This question already has answers here:
What is an IndexOutOfRangeException / ArgumentOutOfRangeException and how do I fix it?
(5 answers)
Closed last year.
Here's my code:
using System;
public class Program
{
private static string[] ar = new string[] {};
public static void Main()
{
ar[0] = "hello";
Console.WriteLine("Total array length: " + ar.Length);
}
}
It show the error below when I run the above code:
Run-time exception (line 10): Index was outside the bounds of the array.
I thought that's how to define a dynamic array in C# but I must be missed something here.
You create an empty array, that is an array with fixed length 0 and no entries.
Consider List<string> ar = new List<string>() instead.
Related thread: Dynamic array in C#
EDIT: It later turned out the asker could use a Dictionary<int, string>. For a Dictionary<,>, the set accessor of the indexer (by which I mean the syntax ar[0] = "hello") will either create a new key/value pair (0 → "hello"), or overwrite the value of an already existing key (0).
Declaring private static string[] ar = new string[] {} actually means that you have an array of string with size of 0, i.e., empty array. C# doesn't allow to resize an array so you should initialize the array size if the length is fixed and this the reason you are getting the error Index was outside the bounds of the array. you are trying to set a value to an index which is larger then the array length.
In case the length is not fixed and you want to be dynamic, I recommend using List. Lists use arrays to store the data so you get the speed benefit of arrays with the convenience of a LinkedList by being able to add and remove items without worrying about having to manually change its size.
List<string> myList = new List<string>();
myList.Add("hello");
myList.Add("Ola");
private static string[] ar = new string[] {};
The above will create an empty array of string (i.e. allowed length = 0) and hence the IndexOutOfBound exception.
When you are not certain of the size of your collection, use List.
For e.g.: -
List<string> ar= new List<string>();
ar.Add("hello");
ar.Add("Ola");
I create the following array like this:
array<UInt16>^ temp = gcnew array<UInt16>(1000);
How do I determine if this entire array has been filled with zero or not.
I think I may be able to use TrueForAll(T) but I'm not sure.
var allElementsAreZero = temp.All(o => o == 0);
Simple as that.
It'll return when it finds one that doesn't satisfy the condition, so may not necessarily iterate through your whole collection:
"The enumeration of source is stopped as soon as the result can be determined."
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb548541(v=vs.110).aspx
This should work properly (here I used LINQ):
IEnumerable<int> values = new List<int>(); // Or use any array type instead of List.
... Add your values here ...
var allAreZero = !values.Any(v => v != 0);
P.S. the array class inherits IEnumerable.
And here is a solution with foreach:
var isAllZero = true;
foreach (var value in values)
{
if (value != 0)
{
isAllZero = false;
break;
}
}
UPDATE
The really difference between TrueForAll, and my LINQ code is: LINQ code uses the fluent (or maybe also query) syntax, where TrueForAll is just a normal function where you send the array as a parameter.
initialize a counter from 0 then use for loop to interate through the array and increment the counter whenever it finds 0, and at the end compare the counter with size of array if its equal, it has all zeros
Reading the C++/CLI specification, it has been filled with
0s because you created it with a "new-expression" and the default value of the element type is 0.
24.2 CLI array creation
CLI array instances are created by new-expressions containing gcnew (§15.4.6) or …
Elements of CLI arrays created by new-expressions are always initialized to their default value.
I am attempting to create a parse function that takes in a string and returns an array. So far I am having a problem with my array declaration:
var sArray = sfunctions.ParseThis(ctrlValue);
ctrlValue = sArray[0]; // Get the first string from the array
rValue = sNew[1];
I have also tried:
string [] sArray = sfunctions.ParseThis(ctrlValue);
In my old c programming days I could declare an array and it would live outside a function without passing anything but a reference, just not sure how to do that in c# or coded ui test.
Thanks for assistance.
control.ClickCustomControl(parent, "InnerText", "Register-16");
where ctrlValue = "Register-16"
And - other answers:
public Array ParseThis(string sToParse)
{
char cSplit = '-';
string[] sNew = sToParse.Split(new char[] { cSplit });
return sNew;
}
If your ParseThis method must return an Array, you should then call sArray.GetValue(0) instead. Or else, simply make that method return a string[] and you can use the [0] indexer.
public Array ParseThis(string sToParse)
{
return sToParse.Split(new char[] { '-' });
}
Corresponds to:
ctrlValue = sArray.GetValue(0);
And
public string[] ParseThis(string sToParse)
{
return sToParse.Split(new char[] { '-' });
}
Corresponds to:
ctrlValue = sArray[0];
But you could use the GetValue method as well in this case.
On another topic, you should check the returned object has at least one element before trying to access the first one.
You should avoid using the Array class directly in your code (unless you're calling its static methods). You should be returning the actual array type instead (string[] in your case)
From MSDN:
The Array class is the base class for language implementations that support arrays. However, only the system and compilers can derive explicitly from the Array class. Users should employ the array constructs provided by the language.
So a more appropriate declaration would be
public string[] ParseThis(string sToParse)
{
char cSplit = '-';
string[] sNew = sToParse.Split(new char[] { cSplit });
return sNew;
}
But you really don't need a function since you could just do
string[] parts = ctrlValue.Parse('-');
I want to know how return values for strings works for strings in C#. In one of my functions, I generate html code and the string is really huge, I then return it from the function, and then insert it into the page. But I want to know should I pass a huge string as a return value, or just insert it into the page from the same function?
When C# returns a string, does it create a new string from the old one, and return that?
Thanks.
Strings (or any other reference type) are not copied when returning from a function, only value types are.
System.String is a reference type (class) and so passing as parameter and returning only involve the copying of a reference (32 or 64 bits).
The size of the string is not relevant.
Returning a string is a cheap operation - as mentioned it's purely a matter of returning 32 or 64 bits (4 or 8 bytes).
However, as Sten Petrov points out string + operations involve the creation of a new string, and can be a little expensive. If you wanted to save performance & memory I'd suggest doing something like this:
static int i = 0;
static void Main(string[] args)
{
while (Console.ReadLine() == "")
{
var pageSB = new StringBuilder();
foreach (var section in new[] { AddHeader(), AddContent(), AddFooter() })
for (int i = 0; i < section.Length; i++)
pageSB.Append(section[i]);
Console.Write(pageSB.ToString());
}
}
static StringBuilder AddHeader()
{
return new StringBuilder().Append("Hi ").AppendLine("World");
}
static StringBuilder AddContent()
{
return new StringBuilder()
.AppendFormat("This page has been viewed: {0} times\n", ++i);
}
static StringBuilder AddFooter()
{
return new StringBuilder().Append("Bye ").AppendLine("World");
}
Here we use the StringBuilders to hold a reference to all the strings we want to concat, and wait until the very end before joining them together. This'll save many unnecessary additions (which are memory and CPU heavy in comparison).
Of course, I doubt you'll actually see any need for this in practise - and if you do I'd spend some time learning about pooling etc. to help reduce the garbage created by all the string builders - and maybe consider creating a custom 'string holder' that suits your purposes better.
.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...