Here is some dummy code that illustrates what I want to do:
List<int> list1 = new List<int>();
//Code to fill the list
foreach(int number in list1)
{
if(number%5==0)
{
list1.Remove(number);
}
}
Assuming the test actually removes an int, it will throw an error. Is there a way of doing this in a foreach, or do I have to convert it to a for loop?
You can't remove items from a collection that you are iterating thru with a for each.
I would do this...
list1 = list1.Where(l => l % 5 != 0).ToList();
The RemoveAll() method comes closest to what you want, I think:
list1.RemoveAll(i => i%5 == 0);
Actually if you want to remove the list as you state in the O.P you could do:
List<int> list1 = new List<int>();
//Code to fill the list
for(var n = 0; n < list.Count; i++)
{
if (list[n] % 5 == 0)
{
list1.Remove(list[n--]);
}
}
Edited to Add
The reason why you can't change a list while in a for each loos is as follows:
[Serializable()]
public struct Enumerator : IEnumerator<T>, System.Collections.IEnumerator
{
private List<T> list;
private int index;
private int version;
private T current;
internal Enumerator(List<T> list) {
this.list = list;
index = 0;
version = list._version;
current = default(T);
}
public void Dispose() {
}
public bool MoveNext() {
List<T> localList = list;
if (version == localList._version && ((uint)index < (uint)localList._size))
{
current = localList._items[index];
index++;
return true;
}
return MoveNextRare();
}
private bool MoveNextRare()
{
if (version != list._version) {
ThrowHelper.ThrowInvalidOperationException(ExceptionResource.InvalidOperation_EnumFailedVersion);
}
index = list._size + 1;
current = default(T);
return false;
}
public T Current {
get {
return current;
}
}
Object System.Collections.IEnumerator.Current {
get {
if( index == 0 || index == list._size + 1) {
ThrowHelper.ThrowInvalidOperationException(ExceptionResource.InvalidOperation_EnumOpCantHappen);
}
return Current;
}
}
void System.Collections.IEnumerator.Reset() {
if (version != list._version) {
ThrowHelper.ThrowInvalidOperationException(ExceptionResource.InvalidOperation_EnumFailedVersion);
}
index = 0;
current = default(T);
}
}
As far as I know, a collection cannot be modified while in a foreach loop. You need to change it to a for loop. Another way you can accomplish that is using LINQ.
You can't do it in-situ using foreach, because it invalidates the enumerator.
Either take a copy of the list and iterate over that, or use a different type of loop such as a for() loop.
You cannot modify the collection your are enumerating through using foreach. What I often do is use a for loop and go backwards through the collection, thus you can safely remove items since the length won't be affected until you move to the previous item.
Related
I have a System.Collection.Generic.Queue<int> with following sample code
Queue<int> iq = new Queue<int>();
iq.Enqueue(1); // 1
iq.Enqueue(2); // 1 2
iq.Enqueue(3); // 1 2 3
//move 1 to the end of the line here
int i = iq.Dequeue(); // 2 3
I want to move the value (access by value) 1 back to the end of the line so that the result is 2 and 1 would be the last dequeueable value.
Any idea? Is there something like iq.MoveToLast(1) ?
If you want to Remove / Add item by its value, you can use List<T> instead of Queue<T>:
List<int> id = ...
int itemToMove = 2;
int index = id.IndexOf(itemToMove);
// If we have item found we should put it at the end
if (index >= 0) {
id.Add(id[index]);
id.RemoveAt(index);
}
If you have to use Queue<T> you can create a temporal List<T>:
Queue<int> iq = ...
int itemToMove = 2;
// Create temporal list
var list = iq.ToList();
// process items in it
int index = list.IndexOf(itemToMove);
if (index >= 0) {
list.Add(list[index]);
list.RemoveAt(index);
}
// enqueue items back into queue in the desired order
iq.Clear();
foreach (var item in list)
iq.Enqueue(item);
Finally, you can implement an extension method:
public static partial class QueueExtensions {
public static void MoveToLast<T>(this Queue<int> queue, T itemToMove) {
if (null == queue)
throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(queue));
var list = queue.ToList();
int index = list.IndexOf(itemToMove);
if (index < 0)
return; // Nothing to do
list.Add(list[index]);
list.RemoveAt(index);
queue.Clear();
foreach (var item in list)
queue.Enqueue(item);
}
}
Then you can put
iq.MoveToLast(1);
Just try:
queue.Enqueue(queue.Dequeue());
You can't Remove elements from Queue by using methods other than Dequeue.
Here's an approach which just manipulates the queue:
public static void MoveElementToBack<T>(Queue<T> queue, T elementToMove)
{
T item = default;
bool found = false;
for (int i = 0, n = queue.Count; i < n; ++i)
{
var current = queue.Dequeue();
if (!found && current.Equals(elementToMove))
{
item = current;
found = true;
}
else
{
queue.Enqueue(current);
}
}
if (found)
queue.Enqueue(item);
}
This is always an O(N) operation, but it only makes one pass through the queue.
I'm trying to work out a way to iterate through all the children (including children of children) of an object without creating garbage allocation.
The function I had before was a Recursive function that returned a list.
Now I have two functions one that returns a count and the other that gets the child at a certain index.
I feel like there might be a better way to iterate through all the children of an object
Here is a sample code comparing the recursive list and the recursive count + getAt(index)
public class MyClassWithChildren
{
private MyClassWithChildren[] m_Children;
//With allocation
public IReadOnlyList<MyClassWithChildren> GetAllChildren(bool includeThis = false)
{
var allChildren = new List<MyClassWithChildren>();
if (includeThis) {
allChildren.Add(this);
}
if (m_Children != null) {
for (int i = 0; i < m_Children.Length; i++) {
allChildren.AddRange(m_Children[i].GetAllChildren(true));
}
}
return allChildren;
}
//Without allocation combination of count and getAt(index)
public int GetAllChildrenCount(bool includeThis = false)
{
var count = 0;
if (includeThis) { count++; }
for (int i = 0; i < m_Children.Length; i++) {
count += 1 + m_Children[i].GetAllChildrenCount();
}
return count;
}
public MyClassWithChildren GetAllChildrenAt(int index, bool includeThis = false)
{
if (includeThis) {
if (index == 0) { return this;}
index--;
}
for (int i = 0; i < m_Children.Length; i++) {
if (index == 0) { return m_Children[i]; }
index--;
var newIndex = index - m_Children[i].GetAllChildrenCount(false);
if (newIndex < 0) { return m_Children[i].GetAllChildrenAt(index); }
index = newIndex;
}
return null;
}
}
Does anyone know of a better way to do this?
A simple use case for this would be to search if a certain object is a child of another.
Another would be to find all the children that have a certain property value.
Thank you for your time
Maybe this will is what you're looking for:
public IEnumerable<MyClassWithChildren> GetAllChildren()
{
var items = new Queue<MyClassWithChildren>();
items.Enqueue(this);
while (items.TryDequeue(out var result))
{
yield return result;
for (var i = 0; i < result.m_children.Length; ++i) // use for instead of foreach to avoid enumerator creation
{
items.Enqueue(result.m_children[i]);
}
}
}
This will evaluate the children of a returned value after the external loop has processed it and requests the next one. That means all children are lazy iterated. If your external loop will stop after the first element only this element has been enqueued to the result queue. There is no overhead for enumerators in m_children because this code uses a for-loop instead of a foreach-loop.
If you need the count of all Elements - just use linq: GetAllChildren().Count().
I am keeping a rolling accumulator for a graphing application, that one of the features is providing a running average of the sample.
The size of the accumulator is variable, but essentially the end goal is achieved like this.
The accumulator class (ugly but functional)
public class accumulator<t>
{
private int trim;
List<t> _points = new List<t>();
List<string> _labels = new List<string>();
List<t> _runAvg = new List<t>();
List<t> _high = new List<t>();
List<t> _low = new List<t>();
public List<t> points { get { return _points; } }
public List<string> labels { get { return _labels; } }
public List<t> runAvg { get { return _runAvg; } }
public List<t> high { get { return _high; } }
public List<t> low { get { return _low; } }
public delegate void onChangeHandler(accumulator<t> sender, EventArgs e);
public event onChangeHandler onChange;
public accumulator(int trim)
{
this.trim = trim;
}
public void add(t point, string label)
{
if (_points.Count == trim)
{
_points.RemoveAt(0);
_labels.RemoveAt(0);
_runAvg.RemoveAt(0);
_high.RemoveAt(0);
_low.RemoveAt(0);
}
_points.Add(point);
_labels.Add(label);
if (typeof(t) == typeof(System.Int32))
{
int avg = 0;
if (_high.Count == 0)
{
_high.Add(point);
}
else
{
t v = (Convert.ToInt32(point) > Convert.ToInt32(_high[0])) ? point : _high[0];
_high.Clear();
for (int i = 0; i < _points.Count; i++) _high.Add(v);
}
if (_low.Count == 0)
{
_low.Add(point);
}
else
{
t v = (Convert.ToInt32(point) < Convert.ToInt32(_low[0])) ? point : _low[0];
_low.Clear();
for (int i = 0; i < _points.Count; i++) _low.Add(v);
}
foreach (t item in _points) avg += Convert.ToInt32(item);
avg = (avg / _points.Count);
_runAvg.Add((t)(object)avg);
//_runAvg.Add((t)(object)_points.Average(a => Convert.ToInt32(a)));
}
if (typeof(t) == typeof(System.Double))
{
double avg = 0;
if (_high.Count == 0)
{
_high.Add(point);
}
else
{
t v = (Convert.ToDouble(point) > Convert.ToDouble(_high[0])) ? point : _high[0];
_high.Clear();
for (int i = 0; i < _points.Count; i++) _high.Add(v);
}
if (_low.Count == 0)
{
_low.Add(point);
}
else
{
t v = (Convert.ToDouble(point) < Convert.ToDouble(_low[0])) ? point : _low[0];
_low.Clear();
for (int i = 0; i < _points.Count; i++) _low.Add(v);
}
foreach (t item in _points) avg += Convert.ToDouble(item);
avg = (avg / _points.Count);
_runAvg.Add((t)(object)avg);
//_runAvg.Add((t)(object)_points.Average(a => Convert.ToDouble(a)));
}
onChangeHappen();
}
private void onChangeHappen()
{
if (onChange != null) onChange(this, EventArgs.Empty);
}
}
As you can see essentially I want to keep a running average, a High/Low mark (with the same count of data points so it binds directly to the chart control in an extended series class)
The average is I think what is killing me, to have to add every element of the list to a sum / divide by the count is of course how an average is achieved, but is the loop the most efficient way to do this?
I took a stab at a lambda expression (commented out) but figured on some level it had to be doing the same. (Sort of like using the generic list VS array, I figure it has to be re declaring an array somewhere and moving elements around, but it is likely being done as or more efficient than I would have, so let it do it for convenience's sake)
The ultimate goal and final question being really, given a list of generic values...
The most efficient way to average the whole list.
*Note: I DO realize the pedantic nature of typing the int/floats, this is because of type checking in the consumer of this class over which I have no control, it actually looks to see if it is double/int otherwise I would have treated it ALL as floats ;)
Thanks in advance...
Keeping a running average is actually really easy. You don't need to sum the whole list every time, because you already have it!
Once you have a current average (from your loop), you just do the following:
((oldAverage * oldCount) + newValue) / newCount
This will give you the average of the old set with the new value(s) included.
To get the initial average value, consider using the Average function from LINQ:
double average = listOfInts.Average();
I have List<List<Vertex>> , Vertex has a property id. I need to add List<Vertex>> into this list, but not duplicate lists.
public void AddComponent(List<Vertex> list)
{
List<List<Vertex>> components = new List<List<Vertex>>;
//I need something like
if (!components.Contain(list)) components.Add(list);
}
You can use SequenceEqual - (this means the order must also be the same):
if (!components.Any(l => l.SequenceEqual(list)))
components.Add(list);
You could do something like:
public void AddComponent(List<Vertex> list)
{
var isInList = components.Any(componentList =>
{
// Check for equality
if (componentList.Count != list.Count)
return false;
for (var i = 0; i < componentList.Count; i++) {
if (componentList[i] != list[i])
return false;
}
return true;
});
if (!isInList)
components.Add(list);
}
Given n enumerables of the same type that return distinct elements in ascending order, for example:
IEnumerable<char> s1 = "adhjlstxyz";
IEnumerable<char> s2 = "bdeijmnpsz";
IEnumerable<char> s3 = "dejlnopsvw";
I want to efficiently find all values that are elements of all enumerables:
IEnumerable<char> sx = Intersect(new[] { s1, s2, s3 });
Debug.Assert(sx.SequenceEqual("djs"));
"Efficiently" here means that
the input enumerables should each be enumerated only once,
the elements of the input enumerables should be retrieved only when needed, and
the algorithm should not recursively enumerate its own output.
I need some hints how to approach a solution.
Here is my (naive) attempt so far:
static IEnumerable<T> Intersect<T>(IEnumerable<T>[] enums)
{
return enums[0].Intersect(
enums.Length == 2 ? enums[1] : Intersect(enums.Skip(1).ToArray()));
}
Enumerable.Intersect collects the first enumerable into a HashSet, then enumerates the second enumerable and yields all matching elements.
Intersect then recursively intersects the result with the next enumerable.
This obviously isn't very efficient (it doesn't meet the constraints). And it doesn't exploit the fact that the elements are sorted at all.
Here is my attempt to intersect two enumerables. Maybe it can be generalized for n enumerables?
static IEnumerable<T> Intersect<T>(IEnumerable<T> first, IEnumerable<T> second)
{
using (var left = first.GetEnumerator())
using (var right = second.GetEnumerator())
{
var leftHasNext = left.MoveNext();
var rightHasNext = right.MoveNext();
var comparer = Comparer<T>.Default;
while (leftHasNext && rightHasNext)
{
switch (Math.Sign(comparer.Compare(left.Current, right.Current)))
{
case -1:
leftHasNext = left.MoveNext();
break;
case 0:
yield return left.Current;
leftHasNext = left.MoveNext();
rightHasNext = right.MoveNext();
break;
case 1:
rightHasNext = right.MoveNext();
break;
}
}
}
}
OK; more complex answer:
public static IEnumerable<T> Intersect<T>(params IEnumerable<T>[] enums) {
return Intersect<T>(null, enums);
}
public static IEnumerable<T> Intersect<T>(IComparer<T> comparer, params IEnumerable<T>[] enums) {
if(enums == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("enums");
if(enums.Length == 0) return Enumerable.Empty<T>();
if(enums.Length == 1) return enums[0];
if(comparer == null) comparer = Comparer<T>.Default;
return IntersectImpl(comparer, enums);
}
public static IEnumerable<T> IntersectImpl<T>(IComparer<T> comparer, IEnumerable<T>[] enums) {
IEnumerator<T>[] iters = new IEnumerator<T>[enums.Length];
try {
// create iterators and move as far as the first item
for (int i = 0; i < enums.Length; i++) {
if(!(iters[i] = enums[i].GetEnumerator()).MoveNext()) {
yield break; // no data for one of the iterators
}
}
bool first = true;
T lastValue = default(T);
do { // get the next item from the first sequence
T value = iters[0].Current;
if (!first && comparer.Compare(value, lastValue) == 0) continue; // dup in first source
bool allTrue = true;
for (int i = 1; i < iters.Length; i++) {
var iter = iters[i];
// if any sequence isn't there yet, progress it; if any sequence
// ends, we're all done
while (comparer.Compare(iter.Current, value) < 0) {
if (!iter.MoveNext()) goto alldone; // nasty, but
}
// if any sequence is now **past** value, then short-circuit
if (comparer.Compare(iter.Current, value) > 0) {
allTrue = false;
break;
}
}
// so all sequences have this value
if (allTrue) yield return value;
first = false;
lastValue = value;
} while (iters[0].MoveNext());
alldone:
;
} finally { // clean up all iterators
for (int i = 0; i < iters.Length; i++) {
if (iters[i] != null) {
try { iters[i].Dispose(); }
catch { }
}
}
}
}
You can use LINQ:
public static IEnumerable<T> Intersect<T>(IEnumerable<IEnumerable<T>> enums) {
using (var iter = enums.GetEnumerator()) {
IEnumerable<T> result;
if (iter.MoveNext()) {
result = iter.Current;
while (iter.MoveNext()) {
result = result.Intersect(iter.Current);
}
} else {
result = Enumerable.Empty<T>();
}
return result;
}
}
This would be simple, although it does build the hash-set multiple times; advancing all n at once (to take advantage of sorted) would be hard, but you could also build a single hash-set and remove missing things?