Develop Reference

Store string data using an array (C#)

A task that I can't seem to solve, even after hours and hours of trying.
Basically, I have a phonebook that takes input from the user: name and number (both string type), which becomes a Contact.
I'm supposed to store the Contact in an Array, and the user shall both be able to add and also delete data (Contact) from the array, via the methods Create and Delete.
I made an own Repository class to handle the data (Contact also has an own little class), but I used List to store the data, so I could simply use Add and Remove, so my code looks like this:
public class Repository
{
List<Contact> storagelist;
public Repository() {
storagelist = new List<Contact>();
}
public void Create(Contact item) //Adds the item to the list
{
storagelist.Add(item);
}
public bool Delete(Contact item) //Removes the item
{
if (!storagelist.Contains(item))
return false;
storagelist.Remove(item);
return true;
}
}
What I am looking for, is how do exactly this, have these 2 features of adding and removing a Contact, but store the data in an Array instead.
Since arrays (to my knowledge) has to have a fixed, pre-defined size I have no idea how it could be used in exactly the same way as the List. The array size shall always be the same as the amount of Contacts that are stored, but how can this be done when an array's size is fixed??
So, how to create an array, that always has the same size as the amount of Contacts that are stored, and how to Add and Remove to/from this array?
Help is very much appreciated!
EDIT: Thanks for all responses! Every answer was helpful in the process (Omar and person66 in particular!).
I solved the Removal by "moving" the entire array after the delete-element, to 1 index lower, and finally resizing the array to be smaller. Like so:
int deleteIndex = Array.IndexOf(storagelist, item);
for (int index = deleteIndex + 1; index < storagelist.Length; index++)
{
storagelist[index - 1] = storagelist[index];
}
Array.Resize(ref storagelist, storagelist.Length - 1);

You are right in that array sizes are fixed. You can, however, use Array.Resize() to create a new array of the specified size with all the current array data. So for adding you would resize to 1 larger and add the new contact at the end. For removing you will have to use a loop to shift all the elements in the array past the one being removed back one spot, then resize it to be 1 smaller.
EDIT: A simpler option for removing would be to use Array.Copy():
Array.Copy(a, deleteIndex + 1, a, deleteIndex, a.Length - (deleteIndex + 1));
Array.Resize(ref a, a.Length - 1);
A list is a much better solution to this problem, I don't know why you would ever want to use an array for this.

A List just ends up using an array for it's storage anyway. The way a list works is it is initializes an array with a certain amount of storage then if it's capacity is exceeded it recreates an array with a larger size and copies the elements back. You could try this approach, except you'd just be recreating what a list does.
The other option is just declare an arbitrarily large array of 100,000 elements or so. A number which you know will not be exceeded.
For size you can write your own function which keeps track of the number of contacts in the array.

You can use a generic list. Under the hood the List class uses an array for storage but does so in a fashion that allows it to grow effeciently.
Take a look at this link for more details, it can be helpfull.

var contacts = new[]
{
new { Name = "Foo", Phone = "9999999999" },
new { Name = "Bar", Phone = "0000000000" }
};
You can create an array of anonymous object and then use linq to delete objects from array.
You can create a new object and insert into anonymous object variable.

Choosing between arrays, collections or lists

I'm implementing a network tool and I'm not sure what to use to store the set of ip addresses and ports to scan that the user is suppose to enter as parameters, namely: a Collection, a List or just Arrays. The user will enter the set of addresses and ports to scan through textboxes. Suggestions from experts and why.
internal class Network
{
internal enum Protocol { TCP, UDP };
private string[] strIpAddresses;
internal string GetIpAddress(int index = 0) { return strIpAddresses[index]; }
internal void SetIpAddress(int index = 0, string ip = "127.0.0.1") { this.strIpAddresses[index] = ip; }
private int[] intPorts;
internal int GetPort(int index = 0) { return intPorts[index]; }
internal void SetPort(int index = 0, int port = 80) { this.intPorts[index] = port; }
internal Network(string[] ipAddr, int[] ports, int IP_ADDR_SIZE_C, int PORT_SIZE_C)
{
this.strIpAddresses = new string[IP_ADDR_SIZE_C];
this.intPorts = new int[PORT_SIZE_C];
this.strIpAddresses = ipAddr;
this.intPorts = ports;
}
Thanks in advance.

First, List is a Collection.
Use Arrays, if you have a predetermined number of elements. They are faster than Lists.
Use List if you have dynamic number of elements and requires you to add, remove elements etc..
For example:
This is good:
int[] someArr = new int[5]{1,2,3,4,5}
but this is not:
List<int> someArr = new List<int>(){1,2,3,4,5}
Lists allow you to dynamically add or remove items easily. Its as simple as .Add(6) in the list.
But in a array, you have to do: someArr[someArr.length] = 6;.
Also, List gives you many extension methods backed by Linq, but arrays don't have it.
Given your requirement, I would say you to go with List and not Arrays as the former has more flexibility and is easy to use

I am as new as you are probably. But something that came up was trie data structure.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trie
If you have subnets, may it could be helpful. But you may need to find whatever implementation [How to create a trie in c# [http://geekyisawesome.blogspot.com/2010/07/c-trie.html]. I am not sure what is actually used inside networking tools.

You should probably use a List. It is easy to add/remove items from.
Collections are more advanced. They can do additional things when overriding AddItem and RemoveItem.
Arrays are static in length and must be recreated when needed to lengthen.

I could not get your perfect need from your code but I understood enough. So, following are the main points of comparison between array and list.
1) Use an array when the number of elements that need to be inserted into the array is known at compile time and it remains fixed throughout the execution of the program.
You can use a collection when you do not know how many elements you will need to store. So basically a collection can grow in size dynamically. The data structure used to implement the collection depends on the collection type.
2) You can store elements of similar type only in an array. Unless of course you declare an array of type 'Object'. Which means, we can store an integer, string and custom object in a single Array.
In a collection you can store any type of elements provided they are all objects. You can store basic data types in an array. You can only store objects in a collection.
I would suggest according to your need that you should go for list instead of array.

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
*/

how does object of List<string> add the supplied string

Somebody please shed some light on how Add method is implemented for
(how Add method is implemented for List in c#)
listobject.Add();
where List<User> listobject= new List<User>() is the declaration for the object.
I know that using List we can perform many operations on a fly and that too with type safety, but what I wonder is how id add method implemented so that it takes care of all that at run time.
Hope it doesnot copy the object and make adjustment on each add but I will keep my fingers crossed and wait for your reply :)

Using Reflector you can see exactly how its implemented.
public void Add(T item)
{
if (this._size == this._items.Length)
{
this.EnsureCapacity(this._size + 1);
}
this._items[this._size++] = item;
this._version++;
}
Following 'EnsureCapacity' ...
private void EnsureCapacity(int min)
{
if (this._items.Length < min)
{
int num = (this._items.Length == 0) ? 4 : (this._items.Length * 2);
if (num < min)
{
num = min;
}
this.Capacity = num;
}
}
And finally the setter for 'Capacity'
public int Capacity
{
get
{
return this._items.Length;
}
set
{
if (value != this._items.Length)
{
if (value < this._size)
{
ThrowHelper.ThrowArgumentOutOfRangeException(ExceptionArgument.value, ExceptionResource.ArgumentOutOfRange_SmallCapacity);
}
if (value > 0)
{
T[] destinationArray = new T[value];
if (this._size > 0)
{
Array.Copy(this._items, 0, destinationArray, 0, this._size);
}
this._items = destinationArray;
}
else
{
this._items = List<T>._emptyArray;
}
}
}
}

Internally the List<T> holds the items in an array. The actual implementation (List<string>) is created at compile-time runtime (thanks #Jason for the correction), so internally there will be a string array that holds the items.
For reference types the list will hold a reference to the same object instance that you added. This is true for strings as well. However, note that the string class is immutable, so any time you modify a string, it actually results in a new instance.
string a = "a";
List<string> list = new List<string>();
list.Add(a); // now the item in the list and a refer to the same string instance
a = "b"; // a is now a completely new instance, the list
// is still referring the old one

No it will work on the string reference, otherwise there wouldn't be much point in using it if it always cloned you're objects.
You can actually check this sort of thing within Visual Studio by using the memory screens, it's possible to compare the address of the added item, and the original and you'll see that they point to the same memory location.

As Frederik notes, List uses an array internally. It creates the array with an initial size and as more items are added, if the array is filled to capacity, it is copied into a larger array. That is why if you know ahead of time that a List will contain many strings, it can help to specify its initial capacity in the constructor.
When you remove items from the list, or insert in the middle, it must shift all the elements in the internal array so a List is not particularly optimized for adding/removing many items. You may be better off using a LinkedList which is much more efficient at add/remove operations but gives up the ability to efficiently access elements in the list by position.
Different collections have different implementations that are best suited for certain scenarios. For a good example of how various collections are implemented, I suggest checking out PowerCollections library that was released by Wintellect. Many of the collections are no longer relevant in .NET 3.5/4.0 but they provide some great insight on how to go about implementing collections.

For a List, the Add method will be of generic type T, in this case a string. The content of the list will be a reference to the original variable, so if you modify the string in the list it will modify the original and vice versa.

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...