Develop Reference

C# List is adding incorrect members

I am trying to add a few different members to a list, but when the list is added to it contains copies of only the last member added:
private PotentialSolution tryFirstTrack(PotentialSolution ps, List<PotentialSolution> possibleTracks)
{
for (Track trytrack = Track.Empty + 1; trytrack < Track.MaxVal; trytrack++)
{
if (validMove(ps.nextSide, trytrack))
{
ps.SetCell(trytrack);
possibleTracks.Add(ps);
}
}
return tryNextTrack(ps, possibleTracks);
}
The PotentialSolution class looks like this:
public class PotentialSolution
{
public Track[,] board;
public Side nextSide;
public int h;
public int w;
static int cellsPerSide;
static bool testing;
static int minTracks;
.....
public void SetCell(Track t)
{
board[h, w] = t;
}
}
So we are trying to make several copies of the board which only differ by which 'track' is placed in the current cell.
If I have a breakpoint at possibleTracks.Add(ps) then I can see by inspecting ps that the required cell contents is changing each time, as required.
But when the code reaches the next line (or the return statement), the cell content is the same in each member of the list (it's the last one that was added).
What I am doing wrong here? I have tried using an ArrayList and also a basic array instead, but get the same result. It's acting as though the board member is decared as static, but it's not.
[edit]
In response to those who suggested making copies of ps, you are correct and I had tried this before - but only tried single-stepping after the change and didn't run the full program (this method is used hundreds of times). When running the full program, making copies of ps certainly makes a difference to the result (although it's still not correct). The problem now, and why I didn't stick with using the copies, is that an added test still shows the list to contain the same versions of ps, even though the debugger has shown 2 or 3 different tracks being deployed:
private PotentialSolution tryFirstTrack(PotentialSolution ps, List<PotentialSolution> possibleTracks)
{
for (Track trytrack = Track.Empty + 1; trytrack < Track.MaxVal; trytrack++)
{
if (validMove(ps.nextSide, trytrack))
{
PotentialSolution newps = new PotentialSolution(ps);
newps.SetCell(trytrack);
possibleTracks.Add(newps);
}
}
// temporary test, can be removed
if (possibleTracks.Count >= 2)
{
PotentialSolution ps1 = new PotentialSolution(possibleTracks.First());
PotentialSolution ps2 = new PotentialSolution(possibleTracks.Last());
if (ps1.GetCell() != ps2.GetCell())
{
// should always get here but never does
int foo = 1;
}
}
return tryNextTrack(ps, possibleTracks);
}
By the way, Track and nextSide are just enum integers, they will be 0-6, and the list will contain 0,1,2,or 3 members, never more.

You are adding references to the same object: ps in possibleTracks.Add(ps)
You could add a constructor to PotentialSolution duplicating the class:
public class PotentialSolution
{
public Track[,] board;
public Side nextSide;
public int h;
public int w;
static int cellsPerSide;
static bool testing;
static int minTracks;
//.....
public PotentialSolution()
{
}
public PotentialSolution(PotentialSolution ps)
{
board = ps.board;
nextSide = ps.nextSide;
h = ps.h;
w = ps.w;
}
//.....
Then use:
private PotentialSolution tryFirstTrack(PotentialSolution ps, List<PotentialSolution> possibleTracks)
{
for (Track trytrack = Track.Empty + 1; trytrack < Track.MaxVal; trytrack++)
{
if (validMove(ps.nextSide, trytrack))
{
ps.SetCell(trytrack);
possibleTracks.Add(new PotentialSolution(ps)); // duplicate object
}
}
return tryNextTrack(ps, possibleTracks);
}
This creates a new instance of the class each time it is added to the list.

Consider giving the PotentialSolution type value semantics by making it a struct and implementing a Clone method, or a constructor that takes another PotentialSolution as an argument. Also, to clone a 2D array of value types, call Object.Clone() and cast the result to T[,].
When making a copy of your PotentialSolution, you'll need to make sure your clone your board array, because, in your case, each PotentialSolution keeps its own representation of the state of the board.
I feel like the critical part you're missing is how to shallow clone a 2D array, which in general, is:
T[,] copy = (T[,])original.Clone();
WARNING: Clone creates a shallow copy of the array. For value-types this copies the values of each element, so for your int-like "Track" type it does what you want, but for other readers who may be using reference-types (like classes) it does not clone each object referred to by each element of the array. The elements of the new array are just object references, and will still refer to the same objects referred to by the elements of the original array. See the documentation.
Full example below that changes the middle cell of a 3x3 board from A to B.
using System;
using System.Linq;
public enum Track { A, B, C }
public enum Side { X, Y, Z }
public struct PotentialSolution
{
public Track[,] board;
public Side nextSide;
public int h;
public int w;
public void SetCell(Track t)
{
board[h, w] = t;
}
public PotentialSolution(Track[,] board, Side nextSide, int h, int w)
{
this.board = (Track[,])board.Clone();
this.nextSide = nextSide;
this.h = h;
this.w = w;
}
public PotentialSolution Clone()
{
return new PotentialSolution(board, nextSide, h, w);
}
// This `ToString` is provided for illustration only
public override string ToString()
{
var range0 = board.GetLength(0);
var range1 = board.GetLength(1);
var b = board;
return string.Join(",",
Enumerable.Range(0, range0)
.Select(x => Enumerable.Range(0, range1)
.Select(y => b[x, y]))
.Select(z => "[" + string.Join(",", z) + "]"));
}
}
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Track[,] someBoard = new Track[3, 3];
PotentialSolution ps1 = new PotentialSolution(someBoard, Side.X, 1, 1);
ps1.SetCell(Track.A);
PotentialSolution ps2 = ps1.Clone();
ps2.SetCell(Track.B);
Console.WriteLine(ps1);
Console.WriteLine(ps2);
}
}
I'm filling in the blanks liberally, so please excuse any assumptions I have made that differ from your actual situation, because I have done so only to make this example self-contained. My ToString implementation and its usage of System.Linq is not necessary; it's purely for the purposes of displaying the 2D array in my example.

You always call SetCell on the same ps object you received as a parameter then add the same instance to the possibleTracks list. The result is: possibleTrack contains ps n times and because it is the same instance you used in each cycle it will have the last change you applied via SetCell call.
Not sure what you wanted to achieve but it looks you need a modified copy of ps in each cycle for adding to possibleTrack list. Making PotentialSolution a struct instead of class could be enough? Structs are copied in such a way but may hit your performance if PotentialSolution is big.
The board member will still generate the same problem, because despite ps will be copied but the board inside it will contain same Track references. The trick can be applied to Track too, but the performance issues may raise more.
Just implement a Clone on PotentialSolution to have fully detached instances of it, then call ````SetCell``` on cloned instance and add that instance to the list.

Does C# have pointers to members like in C++?

In C++, you could write the following code:
int Animal::*pAge= &Animal::age;
Animal a;
a.*pAge = 50;
Is there similar functionality in C#?
Edit: To clarify, I am not asking about pointers. I am asking about "pointers to members", a feature found in C++ that is used with the .* and ->* operators.
Edit 2: Here is an example of a use case for members to pointers.
Let's say we have the following class:
class Animal
{
int age;
int height;
int weight;
…
}
And let's say that we want to write methods that will find the average age/height/weight/etc. of all Animals in an array. We could then do this:
int averageAge(Animal[] animals)
{
double average = 0;
for (…)
average += animals[i].age;
return average/animals.length;
}
int averageHeight(Animal[] animals)
{
//code here again
}
int averageWeight(Animal[] animals)
{
//code here again
}
We would end up copying and pasting a lot of code here, and if our algorithm for finding the average changed, we would encounter a maintenance nightmare. Thus, we want an abstraction of this process for any member. Consider something like this:
int averageAttribute(Animal[] animals, Func<Animal, int> getter)
{
double average = 0;
for (…)
average += getter(animals[i]);
return average/animals.length;
}
which we could then call with
averageAttribute(animals, (animal) => animal.age);
or something similar. However, using delegates is slower than it has to be; we are using an entire function just to return the value at a certain location in the Animal struct. In C++, members to pointers allow you to do pointer math (not the right term but I can't think of a better term) on structs. Just as you can say
int p_fourthAnimal = 3;
(animals + p_fourthAnimal)*
to get the value so many bytes ahead of the pointer stored in the variable animals, in C++, you could say
int Animal::* p_age = &Animal::age;
animal.*p_age //(animal + [the appropriate offset])*
to get the value so many bytes ahead of the pointer stored in the variable animal; conceptually, the compiler will turn animal.*p_age into (animal + [the appropriate offset])*. Thus, we could declare our averageAttribute as this instead:
int averageAttribute(Animal[] animals, Animal::* member)
{
double average = 0;
for (…)
average += animals[i].*member; //(animals[i] + [offset])*
return average/animals.length;
}
which we could then call with
averageAttribute(animals, &Animal::age);
In summary, pointers to members allow you to abstract a method such as our averageAttribute to all members of a struct without having to copy and paste code. While a delegate can achieve the same functionality, it is a rather inefficient way to get a member of a struct if you know you do not actually need the freedom allotted to you by a function, and there could even be edge use cases in which a delegate does not suffice, but I could not give any examples of such use cases. Does C# have similar functionality?

As other people have commented here, delegates are the way to achieve this in C#.
While a delegate can achieve the same functionality, it is a rather
inefficient way to get a member of a struct if you know you do not
actually need the freedom allotted to you by a function
It depends how the compiler and runtime implement that delegate. They could very well see that this is a trivial function and optimize the call away, like they do for trivial getters and setters. In F# for instance you can achieve this:
type Animal = { Age : int }
let getAge (animal:Animal) =
animal.Age
let inline average (prop:Animal->int) (animals:Animal[]) =
let mutable avg = 0.
for animal in animals do
avg <- avg + float(prop(animal)) // no function call in the assembly here when calling averageAge
avg / (float(animals.Length))
let averageAge = average getAge

You can get the same behaviour using delegates but that's not the same thing as delegates are pointers to functions in C++. What you're trying to achieve is possible in C# but not in the way you're doing in C++.
I think about a solution using Func:
public class Animal
{
public int Age { get; set; }
public int Height { get; set; }
public double Weight { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public static double AverageAttributeDelegates(List<Animal> animals, Func<Animal, int> getter)
{
double average = 0;
foreach(Animal animal in animals)
{
average += getter(animal);
}
return average/animals.Count;
}
}
List<Animal> animals = new List<Animal> { new Animal { Age = 1, Height = 2, Weight = 2.5, Name = "a" }, new Animal { Age = 3, Height = 1, Weight = 3.5, Name = "b" } };
Animal.AverageAttributeDelegates(animals, x => x.Age); //2
Animal.AverageAttributeDelegates(animals, x => x.Height); //1.5
It's working but you are bound to the int type of the property since the func is declared as Func<Animal, int>. You could set to object and handle the cast:
public static double AverageAttributeDelegates2(List<Animal> animals, Func<Animal, object> getter)
{
double average = 0;
foreach(Animal animal in animals)
{
int value = 0;
object rawValue = getter(animal);
try
{
//Handle the cast of the value
value = Convert.ToInt32(rawValue);
average += value;
}
catch(Exception)
{}
}
return average/animals.Count;
}
Example:
Animal.AverageAttributeDelegates2(animals, x => x.Height).Dump(); //1.5
Animal.AverageAttributeDelegates2(animals, x => x.Weight).Dump(); //3
Animal.AverageAttributeDelegates2(animals, x => x.Name).Dump(); //0

no, c# doesn't have a feature to point into (reference) object's members the way c++ does.
but why?
A pointer is considered unsafe. And even in unsafe area you cannot point to a reference or to a struct that contains references, because an object reference can be garbage collected even if a pointer is pointing to it. The garbage collector does not keep track of whether an object is being pointed to by any pointer types.
you mentioned a lot of duplicate code is used to implement it the non-pointer way, which isn't true.
Speed depends on how well the JIT compiles it, but you didn't test?
if you really run into performance problems, you need to think about your data structures and less about a certain way to access members.
If think the amount of comments under your Q shows, that you did not really hit a commonly accepted drawback of c#
var Animals = new Animal[100];
//fill array
var AvgAnimal = new Animal() {
age = (int)Animals.Average(a => a.age ),
height = (int)Animals.Average(a => a.height),
weight = (int)Animals.Average(a => a.weight)
};
the unsafe area of c# serves some ways access members by pointer, but only to value types like single structs and not for an array of structs.
struct CoOrds
{
public int x;
public int y;
}
class AccessMembers
{
static void Main()
{
CoOrds home;
unsafe
{
CoOrds* p = &home;
p->x = 25;
p->y = 12;
System.Console.WriteLine("The coordinates are: x={0}, y={1}", p->x, p->y );
}
}
}

How to validate two out parameters do not point to the same address?

I created a method that takes 2 out parameters. I noticed that it is possible for calling code to pass in the same variable for both parameters, but this method requires that these parameters be separate. I came up with what I think is the best way to validate that this is true, but I am unsure if it will work 100% of the time. Here is the code I came up with, with questions embedded.
private static void callTwoOuts()
{
int same = 0;
twoOuts(out same, out same);
Console.WriteLine(same); // "2"
}
private static void twoOuts(out int one, out int two)
{
unsafe
{
// Is the following line guaranteed atomic so that it will always work?
// Or could the GC move 'same' to a different address between statements?
fixed (int* oneAddr = &one, twoAddr = &two)
{
if (oneAddr == twoAddr)
{
throw new ArgumentException("one and two must be seperate variables!");
}
}
// Does this help?
GC.KeepAlive(one);
GC.KeepAlive(two);
}
one = 1;
two = 2;
// Assume more complicated code the requires one/two be seperate
}
I know that an easier way to solve this problem would simply be to use method-local variables and only copy to the out parameters at the end, but I am curious if there is an easy way to validate the addresses such that this is not required.

I'm not sure why you ever would want to know it, but here's a possible hack:
private static void AreSameParameter(out int one, out int two)
{
one = 1;
two = 1;
one = 2;
if (two == 2)
Console.WriteLine("Same");
else
Console.WriteLine("Different");
}
static void Main(string[] args)
{
int a;
int b;
AreSameParameter(out a, out a); // Same
AreSameParameter(out a, out b); // Different
Console.ReadLine();
}
Initially I have to set both variables to any value. Then setting one variable to a different value: if the other variable was also changed, then they both point to the same variable.

Saving a reference to a int

Here is a much simplified version of what I am trying to do
static void Main(string[] args)
{
int test = 0;
int test2 = 0;
Test A = new Test(ref test);
Test B = new Test(ref test);
Test C = new Test(ref test2);
A.write(); //Writes 1 should write 1
B.write(); //Writes 1 should write 2
C.write(); //Writes 1 should write 1
Console.ReadLine();
}
class Test
{
int _a;
public Test(ref int a)
{
_a = a; //I loose the reference here
}
public void write()
{
var b = System.Threading.Interlocked.Increment(ref _a);
Console.WriteLine(b);
}
}
In my real code I have a int that will be incremented by many threads however where the threads a called it will not be easy to pass it the parameter that points it at the int(In the real code this is happening inside a IEnumerator). So a requirement is the reference must be made in the constructor. Also not all threads will be pointing at the same single base int so I can not use a global static int either. I know I can just box the int inside a class and pass the class around but I wanted to know if that is the correct way of doing something like this?
What I think could be the correct way:
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Holder holder = new Holder(0);
Holder holder2 = new Holder(0);
Test A = new Test(holder);
Test B = new Test(holder);
Test C = new Test(holder2);
A.write(); //Writes 1 should write 1
B.write(); //Writes 2 should write 2
C.write(); //Writes 1 should write 1
Console.ReadLine();
}
class Holder
{
public Holder(int i)
{
num = i;
}
public int num;
}
class Test
{
Holder _holder;
public Test(Holder holder)
{
_holder = holder;
}
public void write()
{
var b = System.Threading.Interlocked.Increment(ref _holder.num);
Console.WriteLine(b);
}
}
Is there a better way than this?

Basically, the answer is Yes, you need a class.
There is no concept of 'reference to int' that you can store as a field. In C# it is limited to parameters.
And while there is an unsafe way (pointer to int, int*) the complexities of dealing with the GC in that scenario make it impractical and inefficient.
So your second example looks OK.

You cannot store a reference to a variable, for precisely the reason that someone could do what you are doing: take a reference to a local variable, and then use that reference after the local variable's storage is reclaimed.
Your approach of making the variable into a field of a class is fine. An alternative way of doing the same thing is to make getter and setter delegates to the variable. If the delegates are closed over an outer local variable, that outer local will be hoisted to a field so that its lifetime is longer than that of the delegates.

It is not possible to store a reference as a field.
You need to hold the int in a class.

Cannot use ref or out parameter in lambda expressions

Why can't you use a ref or out parameter in a lambda expression?
I came across the error today and found a workaround but I was still curious why this is a compile-time error.
CS1628: Cannot use in ref or out parameter 'parameter' inside an anonymous method, lambda expression, or query expression
Here's a simple example:
private void Foo()
{
int value;
Bar(out value);
}
private void Bar(out int value)
{
value = 3;
int[] array = { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 };
int newValue = array.Where(a => a == value).First();
}

Lambdas have the appearance of changing the lifetime of variables that they capture. For instance, the following lambda expression causes the parameter p1 to live longer than the current method frame as its value can be accessed after the method frame is no longer on the stack
Func<int> Example(int p1) {
return () => p1;
}
Another property of captured variables is that changes to the variables are also visible outside the lambda expression. For example, the following code prints out 42
void Example2(int p1) {
Action del = () => { p1 = 42; };
del();
Console.WriteLine(p1);
}
These two properties produce a certain set of effects which fly in the face of a ref parameter in the following ways:
ref parameters may have a fixed lifetime. Consider passing a local variable as a ref parameter to a function.
Side effects in the lambda would need to be visible on the ref parameter itself. Both within the method and in the caller.
These are somewhat incompatible properties and are one of the reasons they are disallowed in lambda expressions.

Under the hood, the anonymous method is implemented by hoisting captured variables (which is what your question body is all about) and storing them as fields of a compiler generated class. There is no way to store a ref or out parameter as a field. Eric Lippert discussed it in a blog entry. Note that there is a difference between captured variables and lambda parameters. You can have "formal parameters" like the following as they are not captured variables:
delegate void TestDelegate (out int x);
static void Main(string[] args)
{
TestDelegate testDel = (out int x) => { x = 10; };
int p;
testDel(out p);
Console.WriteLine(p);
}

You can but you must explicitly define all the types so
(a, b, c, ref d) => {...}
Is invalid, however
(int a, int b, int c, ref int d) => {...}
Is valid

As this is one of the top results for "C# lambda ref" on Google; I feel I need to expand on the above answers. The older (C# 2.0) anonymous delegate syntax works and it does support more complex signatures (as well closures). Lambda's and anonymous delegates at the very least have shared perceived implementation in the compiler backend (if they are not identical) - and most importantly, they support closures.
What I was trying to do when I did the search, to demonstrate the syntax:
public static ScanOperation<TToken> CreateScanOperation(
PrattTokenDefinition<TNode, TToken, TParser, TSelf> tokenDefinition)
{
var oldScanOperation = tokenDefinition.ScanOperation; // Closures still work.
return delegate(string text, ref int position, ref PositionInformation currentPosition)
{
var token = oldScanOperation(text, ref position, ref currentPosition);
if (token == null)
return null;
if (tokenDefinition.LeftDenotation != null)
token._led = tokenDefinition.LeftDenotation(token);
if (tokenDefinition.NullDenotation != null)
token._nud = tokenDefinition.NullDenotation(token);
token.Identifier = tokenDefinition.Identifier;
token.LeftBindingPower = tokenDefinition.LeftBindingPower;
token.OnInitialize();
return token;
};
}
Just keep in mind that Lambdas are procedurally and mathematically safer (because of the ref value promotion mentioned earlier): you might open a can of worms. Think carefully when using this syntax.

And maybe this?
private void Foo()
{
int value;
Bar(out value);
}
private void Bar(out int value)
{
value = 3;
int[] array = { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 };
var val = value;
int newValue = array.Where(a => a == val).First();
}

You can not use an out parameter directly in a lambda expression. The reason why you can not do that is explained in the other answers.
Workaround
But you can use a local temporary variable with for the inner function and, after the inner function has been executed, assign the out value from the inner function to the out value of the outer function:
private static int OuterFunc (int i_param1, out int o_param2)
{
int param2 = 0;
var del = () => InnerFunc (i_param1, out param2);
int result = del ();
o_param2 = param2;
return result;
}
private static int InnerFunc (int i_param1, out int o_param2)
{
o_param2 = i_param1;
return i_param1;
}
private static void Main (string[] args)
{
int result = OuterFunc (123, out int param2);
Console.WriteLine (result); // prints '123'
Console.WriteLine (param2); // prints '123'
}
Please note
The question was created in 2009. My answer was created in 2023 using C#10 and .NET 6. I don't know whether this answer had also worked back in 2009, which means, the code here might depend on enhancements to C# and .NET that might have been made in the meantime.

I will give you another example.
Description
The code below will throw out this error. Because the change brought by the lambda expression (i)=>{...} only works in the function test.
static void test(out System.Drawing.Image[] bitmaps)
{
int count = 10;
bitmaps = new System.Drawing.Image[count];
Parallel.For(0, count, (i) =>
{
bitmaps[i] = System.Drawing.Image.FromFile("2.bmp");
});
}
Solution
So, if you remove out of the parameter, it works.
static void test(System.Drawing.Image[] bitmaps)
{
int count = 10;
bitmaps = new System.Drawing.Image[count];
Parallel.For(0, count, (i) =>
{
bitmaps[i] = System.Drawing.Image.FromFile("2.bmp");
});
}
If you need out really, don't change the parameter in the lambda expression directly. Instead, use a temporary variable please.
static void test(out System.Drawing.Image[] bitmaps)
{
int count = 10;
System.Drawing.Image[] bitmapsTemp = new System.Drawing.Image[count];
Parallel.For(0, count, (i) =>
{
bitmapsTemp[i] = System.Drawing.Image.FromFile("2.bmp");
});
bitmaps = bitmapsTemp;
}