I'd like to partition a list into a list of lists, by specifying the number of elements in each partition.
For instance, suppose I have the list {1, 2, ... 11}, and would like to partition it such that each set has 4 elements, with the last set filling as many elements as it can. The resulting partition would look like {{1..4}, {5..8}, {9..11}}
What would be an elegant way of writing this?
Here is an extension method that will do what you want:
public static IEnumerable<List<T>> Partition<T>(this IList<T> source, Int32 size)
{
for (int i = 0; i < (source.Count / size) + (source.Count % size > 0 ? 1 : 0); i++)
yield return new List<T>(source.Skip(size * i).Take(size));
}
Edit: Here is a much cleaner version of the function:
public static IEnumerable<List<T>> Partition<T>(this IList<T> source, Int32 size)
{
for (int i = 0; i < Math.Ceiling(source.Count / (Double)size); i++)
yield return new List<T>(source.Skip(size * i).Take(size));
}
Using LINQ you could cut your groups up in a single line of code like this...
var x = new List<int>() { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 };
var groups = x.Select((i, index) => new
{
i,
index
}).GroupBy(group => group.index / 4, element => element.i);
You could then iterate over the groups like the following...
foreach (var group in groups)
{
Console.WriteLine("Group: {0}", group.Key);
foreach (var item in group)
{
Console.WriteLine("\tValue: {0}", item);
}
}
and you'll get an output that looks like this...
Group: 0
Value: 1
Value: 2
Value: 3
Value: 4
Group: 1
Value: 5
Value: 6
Value: 7
Value: 8
Group: 2
Value: 9
Value: 10
Value: 11
Something like (untested air code):
IEnumerable<IList<T>> PartitionList<T>(IList<T> list, int maxCount)
{
List<T> partialList = new List<T>(maxCount);
foreach(T item in list)
{
if (partialList.Count == maxCount)
{
yield return partialList;
partialList = new List<T>(maxCount);
}
partialList.Add(item);
}
if (partialList.Count > 0) yield return partialList;
}
This returns an enumeration of lists rather than a list of lists, but you can easily wrap the result in a list:
IList<IList<T>> listOfLists = new List<T>(PartitionList<T>(list, maxCount));
To avoid grouping, mathematics and reiteration.
The method avoids unnecessary calculations, comparisons and allocations. Parameter validation is included.
Here is a working demonstration on fiddle.
public static IEnumerable<IList<T>> Partition<T>(
this IEnumerable<T> source,
int size)
{
if (size < 2)
{
throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException(
nameof(size),
size,
"Must be greater or equal to 2.");
}
T[] partition;
int count;
using (var e = source.GetEnumerator())
{
if (e.MoveNext())
{
partition = new T[size];
partition[0] = e.Current;
count = 1;
}
else
{
yield break;
}
while(e.MoveNext())
{
partition[count] = e.Current;
count++;
if (count == size)
{
yield return partition;
count = 0;
partition = new T[size];
}
}
}
if (count > 0)
{
Array.Resize(ref partition, count);
yield return partition;
}
}
var yourList = new List<int> { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 };
var groupSize = 4;
// here's the actual query that does the grouping...
var query = yourList
.Select((x, i) => new { x, i })
.GroupBy(i => i.i / groupSize, x => x.x);
// and here's a quick test to ensure that it worked properly...
foreach (var group in query)
{
foreach (var item in group)
{
Console.Write(item + ",");
}
Console.WriteLine();
}
If you need an actual List<List<T>> rather than an IEnumerable<IEnumerable<T>> then change the query as follows:
var query = yourList
.Select((x, i) => new { x, i })
.GroupBy(i => i.i / groupSize, x => x.x)
.Select(g => g.ToList())
.ToList();
Or in .Net 2.0 you would do this:
static void Main(string[] args)
{
int[] values = new int[] { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 };
List<int[]> items = new List<int[]>(SplitArray(values, 4));
}
static IEnumerable<T[]> SplitArray<T>(T[] items, int size)
{
for (int index = 0; index < items.Length; index += size)
{
int remains = Math.Min(size, items.Length-index);
T[] segment = new T[remains];
Array.Copy(items, index, segment, 0, remains);
yield return segment;
}
}
public static IEnumerable<IEnumerable<T>> Partition<T>(this IEnumerable<T> list, int size)
{
while (list.Any()) { yield return list.Take(size); list = list.Skip(size); }
}
and for the special case of String
public static IEnumerable<string> Partition(this string str, int size)
{
return str.Partition<char>(size).Select(AsString);
}
public static string AsString(this IEnumerable<char> charList)
{
return new string(charList.ToArray());
}
Using ArraySegments might be a readable and short solution (casting your list to array is required):
var list = new List<int>() { 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 }; //Added 0 in front on purpose in order to enhance simplicity.
int[] array = list.ToArray();
int step = 4;
List<int[]> listSegments = new List<int[]>();
for(int i = 0; i < array.Length; i+=step)
{
int[] segment = new ArraySegment<int>(array, i, step).ToArray();
listSegments.Add(segment);
}
I'm not sure why Jochems answer using ArraySegment was voted down. It could be really useful as long as you are not going to need to extend the segments (cast to IList). For example, imagine that what you are trying to do is pass segments into a TPL DataFlow pipeline for concurrent processing. Passing the segments in as IList instances allows the same code to deal with arrays and lists agnostically.
Of course, that begs the question: Why not just derive a ListSegment class that does not require wasting memory by calling ToArray()? The answer is that arrays can actually be processed marginally faster in some situations (slightly faster indexing). But you would have to be doing some fairly hardcore processing to notice much of a difference. More importantly, there is no good way to protect against random insert and remove operations by other code holding a reference to the list.
Calling ToArray() on a million value numeric list takes about 3 milliseconds on my workstation. That's usually not too great a price to pay when you're using it to gain the benefits of more robust thread safety in concurrent operations, without incurring the heavy cost of locking.
You could use an extension method:
public static IList<HashSet<T>> Partition<T>(this IEnumerable<T> input, Func<T, object> partitionFunc)
{
Dictionary<object, HashSet> partitions = new Dictionary<object, HashSet<T>>();
object currentKey = null;
foreach (T item in input ?? Enumerable.Empty<T>())
{
currentKey = partitionFunc(item);
if (!partitions.ContainsKey(currentKey))
{
partitions[currentKey] = new HashSet<T>();
}
partitions[currentKey].Add(item);
}
return partitions.Values.ToList();
}
To avoid multiple checks, unnecessary instantiations, and repetitive iterations, you could use the code:
namespace System.Collections.Generic
{
using Linq;
using Runtime.CompilerServices;
public static class EnumerableExtender
{
[MethodImpl(MethodImplOptions.AggressiveInlining)]
public static bool IsEmpty<T>(this IEnumerable<T> enumerable) => !enumerable?.GetEnumerator()?.MoveNext() ?? true;
public static IEnumerable<IEnumerable<T>> Partition<T>(this IEnumerable<T> source, int size)
{
if (source == null)
throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(source));
if (size < 2)
throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException(nameof(size));
IEnumerable<T> items = source;
IEnumerable<T> partition;
while (true)
{
partition = items.Take(size);
if (partition.IsEmpty())
yield break;
else
yield return partition;
items = items.Skip(size);
}
}
}
}
Related
I have an unknown number of buckets(collections), and each bucket having an unknown number of entities
I need to produce a cartesian product of all the entities, so that I endup with a single COLLECTION that has ARRAYS of entities and in each array, there is 1 representetive from EVERY bucket.
So that if I have 5 buckets (B1..B5), and buckets B1, B2 have 1 item each, and bucket B3, B4 and B5 have 4, 8 and 10 items each, I'll have a collection of 320 arrays, and each array will have 5 items.
The only stupud issue here, is that both size of buckets and number of buckets is unknown at development time.
Performance is not super important here, as most of the time, my buckets will have only 1 entity, and only rarely will there be times when some of my buckets will contain 20-30 items...and I'll usually have 5-30 buckets
I'd love to utilize linq here in someway, but my brain is getting fried as I try to imagine how this would work
You could create an extension method like the following:
public static class EnumerableExtensions
{
public static IEnumerable<TValue []> Permutations<TKey, TValue>(this IEnumerable<TKey> keys, Func<TKey, IEnumerable<TValue>> selector)
{
var keyArray = keys.ToArray();
if (keyArray.Length < 1)
yield break;
TValue [] values = new TValue[keyArray.Length];
foreach (var array in Permutations(keyArray, 0, selector, values))
yield return array;
}
static IEnumerable<TValue []> Permutations<TKey, TValue>(TKey [] keys, int index, Func<TKey, IEnumerable<TValue>> selector, TValue [] values)
{
Debug.Assert(keys.Length == values.Length);
var key = keys[index];
foreach (var value in selector(key))
{
values[index] = value;
if (index < keys.Length - 1)
{
foreach (var array in Permutations(keys, index+1, selector, values))
yield return array;
}
else
{
yield return values.ToArray(); // Clone the array;
}
}
}
}
As an example, it could be used like:
public static void TestPermutations()
{
int [][] seqence = new int [][]
{
new int [] {1, 2, 3},
new int [] {101},
new int [] {201},
new int [] {301, 302, 303},
};
foreach (var array in seqence.Permutations(a => a))
{
Debug.WriteLine(array.Aggregate(new StringBuilder(), (sb, i) => { if (sb.Length > 0) sb.Append(","); sb.Append(i); return sb; }));
}
}
and produce the following output:
1,101,201,301
1,101,201,302
1,101,201,303
2,101,201,301
2,101,201,302
2,101,201,303
3,101,201,301
3,101,201,302
3,101,201,303
Is that what you want?
Here's how to do it without recursion in a single Linq statement (wrapped around an extension method for convenience):
public static IEnumerable<IEnumerable<T>> GetPermutations<T>(
IEnumerable<IEnumerable<T>> listOfLists)
{
return listOfLists.Skip(1)
.Aggregate(listOfLists.First()
.Select(c => new List<T>() { c }),
(previous, next) => previous
.SelectMany(p => next.Select(d => new List<T>(p) { d })));
}
The idea is simple:
Skip the first row, so we can use it as the initial value of an aggregate.
Place this initial value in a list that we'll grow on each iteration.
On each iteration, create a new list for each element in previous and add to it each of the elements in next (this is done by new List<T>(p) { d }).
EXAMPLE
Suppose you have an array of arrays as follows:
var arr = new[] {
new[] { 1,2 },
new[] { 10,11,12 },
new[] { 100,101 }
};
Then arr.GetPermutations() will return a list of lists containing:
1,10,100
1,10,101
1,11,100
1,11,101
1,12,100
1,12,101
2,10,100
2,10,101
2,11,100
2,11,101
2,12,100
2,12,101
Non-Linq, non-recursive solution that's faster. We pre-allocate the entire output matrix and then just fill it in a column at a time.
T[][] Permutations<T>(T[][] vals)
{
int numCols = vals.Length;
int numRows = vals.Aggregate(1, (a, b) => a * b.Length);
var results = Enumerable.Range(0, numRows)
.Select(c => new T[numCols])
.ToArray();
int repeatFactor = 1;
for (int c = 0; c < numCols; c++)
{
for (int r = 0; r < numRows; r++)
results[r][c] = vals[c][r / repeatFactor % vals[c].Length];
repeatFactor *= vals[c].Length;
}
return results;
}
Another LINQ-based option, based on suggestion from Diego, but more precise in terms of argument and return types.
It also does not require multiple enumerations of outer collection and hence does not produce Resharper's hint "Possible multiple enumerations".
public static IEnumerable<IReadOnlyCollection<T>> GetPermutations<T>(
IEnumerable<IReadOnlyCollection<T>> collections) =>
collections
.Aggregate(
new[] { Array.Empty<T>() },
(acc, next) =>
acc
.SelectMany(accItem =>
next.Select(nextItem => accItem.Concat(new[] { nextItem }).ToArray()))
.ToArray());
This is probably a very late answer, but I encounter a similar problem i.e. generate all permutations of a list of list of string. However, in my problem, I don't need all permutations simultaneously. I only need/generate next permutation if current permutation doesn't satisfy my condition. Therefore, the following is my way of doing a kind of "for each" and with conditional continuation during permutations generation. This answer is inpsired by Tom19's answer.
void ForEachPermutationDo<T>(IEnumerable<IEnumerable<T>> listOfList, Func<IEnumerable<T>, bool> whatToDo) {
var numCols = listOfList.Count();
var numRows = listOfList.Aggregate(1, (a, b) => a * b.Count());
var continueGenerating = true;
var permutation = new List<T>();
for (var r = 0; r < numRows; r++) {
var repeatFactor = 1;
for (var c = 0; c < numCols; c++) {
var aList = listOfList.ElementAt(c);
permutation.Add(aList.ElementAt((r / repeatFactor) % aList.Count()));
repeatFactor *= aList.Count();
}
continueGenerating = whatToDo(permutation.ToList()); // send duplicate
if (!continueGenerating) break;
permutation.Clear();
}
}
Using the above method, generating all permutation can be done like
IEnumerable<IEnumerable<T>> GenerateAllPermutations<T>(IEnumerable<IEnumerable<T>> listOfList) {
var results = new List<List<T>>();
ForEachPermutationDo(listOfList, (permutation) => {
results.Add(permutation);
return true;
});
return results;
}
I need to write a method to find the commons between 2 arrays in C# but the thing is I can't convert my python logic from the past to C#
it used to be like this in python:
def commonfinder(list1, list2):
commonlist = []
for x in list1:
for y in list2:
if x==y:
commonlist.append(x)
return commonlist
but when I tried to convert it to C#:
public int [] Commons(int[] ar1, int[] ar2)
{
int commoncount;
int[] Commonslist = new int[commoncount];
foreach (int x in ar1)
{
foreach (int y in ar2)
{
if (x == y)
{
commoncount++;
// here I should add x to Commonlist
}
}
}
return Commonslist;
}
I couldn't find any method or functions that would append x to my Commonlist
and ofc I got a lot of errors I couldn't solve
can I get a tip?
Your original algorithm has O(n * m) time complexity, which can be too long:
imagine that you have lists of 1 million items each (1 trillion compares to perform). You can implement a better code with O(n + m) complexity only:
Code: (let's generalize the problem)
using System.Linq;
...
public static T[] CommonFinder<T>(IEnumerable<T> left,
IEnumerable<T> right,
IEqualityComparer<T> comparer = null) {
if (null == left || null == right)
return new T[0]; // Or throw ArgumentNullException exception
comparer = comparer ?? EqualityComparer<T>.Default;
Dictionary<T, int> dict = right
.GroupBy(item => item)
.ToDictionary(group => group.Key, group => group.Count());
List<T> result = new List<T>();
foreach (T item in left)
if (dict.TryGetValue(item, out int count)) {
result.Add(item);
if (count <= 1)
dict.Remove(item);
else
dict[item] = count - 1;
}
return result.ToArray();
}
Demo:
int[] left = new int[] { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 };
int[] right = new int[] { 0, 3, 2, 6, 9};
var common = CommonFinder(left, right);
Console.WriteLine(string.Join(", ", common));
Outcome:
2, 3
Note: What I understood is you want a method that takes 2 int arrays and yields 1 int array as the output with the unique intersecting values.
You can use HashSet to speed up to insert and lookup time (amortized O(1)). The running time is O(Max(n,m)) due to us having to go through both the entire arrays (separately). In terms of memory, O(Min(n,m)) because we select the smaller array at the beginning to populate the set and for the rest of the logic naturally won't have more elements than the smaller array because it is the intersect.
The Main method shows you how to utilize the method. CommonIntegers has the logic which you seek.
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Linq;
namespace TestCode.StackOverflow
{
public class So66935672
{
public static void Main(string[] args)
{
int[] intArray1 = new int[] { 9, 9, 1, 3, 5, 6, 10, 9 };
int[] intArray2 = new int[] { 19, 17, 16, 5, 1, 6 };
Console.Write(
CommonIntegers(intArray1, intArray2)
.Select(i => $"{i}, ")
.Aggregate(string.Empty, string.Concat));
}
private static int[] CommonIntegers(int[] intArray1, int[] intArray2)
{
if (intArray1 == null || intArray1.Length == 0
|| intArray2 == null || intArray2.Length == 0)
{
return Array.Empty<int>();
}
var primaryArraySet = new HashSet<int>(); // Contains the unique values from the shorter array
var intersectSet = new HashSet<int>(); // Contains unique values found in both arrays
int[] secondarySet;
// Fill primary set
if (intArray1.Length > intArray2.Length)
{
foreach (var i in intArray2)
primaryArraySet.Add(i);
secondarySet = intArray1;
}
else
{
foreach (var i in intArray1)
primaryArraySet.Add(i);
secondarySet = intArray2;
}
// Fill intersect array
foreach (var i in secondarySet)
if (primaryArraySet.Contains(i))
intersectSet.Add(i);
return intersectSet.ToArray();
}
}
}
You can try this one:
static List<int> CommonFinder(List<int> list1, List<int> list2)
{
List<int> commonList = new List<int>();
foreach (int x in list1)
foreach (int y in list2)
if (x == y)
commonList.Add(x);
return commonList;
}
static void Main()
{
List<int> list1 = new List<int> { 1, 2, 3 };
List<int> list2 = new List<int> { 2, 3, 4};
var common = CommonFinder(list1, list2);
Console.WriteLine(string.Join(", ", common));
}
Say I have two lists with following entries
List<int> a = new List<int> { 1, 2, 5, 10 };
List<int> b = new List<int> { 6, 20, 3 };
I want to create another List c where its entries are items inserted by position from two lists. So List c would contain the following entries:
List<int> c = {1, 6, 2, 20, 5, 3, 10}
Is there a way to do it in .NET using LINQ? I was looking at .Zip() LINQ extension, but wasn't sure how to use it in this case.
Thanks in advance!
To do it using LINQ, you can use this piece of LINQPad example code:
void Main()
{
List<int> a = new List<int> { 1, 2, 5, 10 };
List<int> b = new List<int> { 6, 20, 3 };
var result = Enumerable.Zip(a, b, (aElement, bElement) => new[] { aElement, bElement })
.SelectMany(ab => ab)
.Concat(a.Skip(Math.Min(a.Count, b.Count)))
.Concat(b.Skip(Math.Min(a.Count, b.Count)));
result.Dump();
}
Output:
This will:
Zip the two lists together (which will stop when either runs out of elements)
Producing an array containing the two elements (one from a, another from b)
Using SelectMany to "flatten" this out to one sequence of values
Concatenate in the remainder from either list (only one or neither of the two calls to Concat should add any elements)
Now, having said that, personally I would've used this:
public static IEnumerable<T> Intertwine<T>(this IEnumerable<T> a, IEnumerable<T> b)
{
using (var enumerator1 = a.GetEnumerator())
using (var enumerator2 = b.GetEnumerator())
{
bool more1 = enumerator1.MoveNext();
bool more2 = enumerator2.MoveNext();
while (more1 && more2)
{
yield return enumerator1.Current;
yield return enumerator2.Current;
more1 = enumerator1.MoveNext();
more2 = enumerator2.MoveNext();
}
while (more1)
{
yield return enumerator1.Current;
more1 = enumerator1.MoveNext();
}
while (more2)
{
yield return enumerator2.Current;
more2 = enumerator2.MoveNext();
}
}
}
Reasons:
It doesn't enumerate a nor b more than once
I'm skeptical about the performance of Skip
It can work with any IEnumerable<T> and not just List<T>
I'd create an extension method to do it.
public static List<T> MergeAll<T>(this List<T> first, List<T> second)
{
int maxCount = (first.Count > second. Count) ? first.Count : second.Count;
var ret = new List<T>();
for (int i = 0; i < maxCount; i++)
{
if (first.Count < maxCount)
ret.Add(first[i]);
if (second.Count < maxCount)
ret.Add(second[i]);
}
return ret;
}
This would iterate through both lists once. If one list is bigger than the other it will continue to add until it's done.
You could try this code:
List<int> c = a.Select((i, index) => new Tuple<int, int>(i, index * 2))
.Union(b.Select((i, index) => new Tuple<int, int>(i, index * 2 + 1)))
.OrderBy(t => t.Second)
.Select(t => t.First).ToList();
It makes a union of two collections and then sorts that union using index. Elements from the first collection have even indices, from the second - odd ones.
Just wrote a little extension for this:
public static class MyEnumerable
{
public static IEnumerable<T> Smash<T>(this IEnumerable<T> one, IEnumerable<T> two)
{
using (IEnumerator<T> enumeratorOne = one.GetEnumerator(),
enumeratorTwo = two.GetEnumerator())
{
bool twoFinished = false;
while (enumeratorOne.MoveNext())
{
yield return enumeratorOne.Current;
if (!twoFinished && enumeratorTwo.MoveNext())
{
yield return enumeratorTwo.Current;
}
}
if (!twoFinished)
{
while (enumeratorTwo.MoveNext())
{
yield return enumeratorTwo.Current;
}
}
}
}
}
Usage:
var a = new List<int> { 1, 2, 5, 10 };
var b = new List<int> { 6, 20, 3 };
var c = a.Smash(b); // 1, 6, 2, 20, 5, 3, 10
var d = b.Smash(a); // 6, 1, 20, 2, 3, 5, 10
This will work for any IEnumerable so you can also do:
var a = new List<string> { "the", "brown", "jumped", "the", "lazy", "dog" };
var b = new List<string> { "quick", "dog", "over" };
var c = a.Smash(b); // the, quick, brown, fox, jumped, over, the, lazy, dog
You could use Concat and an anonymous type which you order by the index:
List<int> c = a
.Select((val, index) => new { val, index })
.Concat(b.Select((val, index) => new { val, index }))
.OrderBy(x => x.index)
.Select(x => x.val)
.ToList();
However, since that's not really elegant and also less efficient than:
c = new List<int>(a.Count + b.Count);
int max = Math.Max(a.Count, b.Count);
int aMax = a.Count;
int bMax = b.Count;
for (int i = 0; i < max; i++)
{
if(i < aMax)
c.Add(a[i]);
if(i < bMax)
c.Add(b[i]);
}
I wouldn't use LINQ at all.
Sorry for adding a third extension method inspired by the other two, but I like it shorter:
static IEnumerable<T> Intertwine<T>(this IEnumerable<T> a, IEnumerable<T> b)
{
using (var enumerator1 = a.GetEnumerator())
using (var enumerator2 = b.GetEnumerator()) {
bool more1 = true, more2 = true;
do {
if (more1 && (more1 = enumerator1.MoveNext()))
yield return enumerator1.Current;
if (more2 && (more2 = enumerator2.MoveNext()))
yield return enumerator2.Current;
} while (more1 || more2);
}
}
This question already has answers here:
Closed 10 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
Combination of List<List<int>>
I have multiple Lists, could be 2 or 3 up to 10 lists, with multiple
values in them. Now what I need to do is to get a combination of all
of them.
For example, if I have 3 lists with the following values:
List 1: 3, 5, 7
List 2: 3, 5, 6
List 3: 2, 9
I would get these combinations
3,3,2
3,3,9
3,5,2
Etc..
Now the problem is I cannot do this easily because I do not know how many lists I have, therefore determine how many loops I need.
You could probably make that a lot easier, but this is what I had in mind just now:
List<List<int>> lists = new List<List<int>>();
lists.Add(new List<int>(new int[] { 3, 5, 7 }));
lists.Add(new List<int>(new int[] { 3, 5, 6 }));
lists.Add(new List<int>(new int[] { 2, 9 }));
int listCount = lists.Count;
List<int> indexes = new List<int>();
for (int i = 0; i < listCount; i++)
indexes.Add(0);
while (true)
{
// construct values
int[] values = new int[listCount];
for (int i = 0; i < listCount; i++)
values[i] = lists[i][indexes[i]];
Console.WriteLine(string.Join(" ", values));
// increment indexes
int incrementIndex = listCount - 1;
while (incrementIndex >= 0 && ++indexes[incrementIndex] >= lists[incrementIndex].Count)
{
indexes[incrementIndex] = 0;
incrementIndex--;
}
// break condition
if (incrementIndex < 0)
break;
}
If I’m not completely wrong, this should be O(Nm) with m being the number of lists and N the number of permutations (product of the lengths of all m lists).
you could make a List<List<yourValueType> mainlist in which you put all your lists.
then with a simple
int numberOfIterations = 1;
foreach(var item in mainlist)
{
numberOfIterations *= item.Count;
}
this would get the amount of iterations you would have to execute in total.
Non-recursive solution, works on any IEnumerables (not just lists) without solidifying them:
public static IEnumerable<IEnumerable<T>> Permutations<T>(
this IEnumerable<IEnumerable<T>> source)
{
// Check source non-null, non-empty?
var enumerables = source.ToArray();
Stack<IEnumerator<T>> fe = new Stack<IEnumerator<T>>();
fe.Push(enumerables[0].GetEnumerator());
while (fe.Count > 0)
{
if (fe.Peek().MoveNext())
{
if (fe.Count == enumerables.Length)
yield return new Stack<T>(fe.Select(e => e.Current));
else
fe.Push(enumerables[fe.Count].GetEnumerator());
}
else
{
fe.Pop().Dispose();
}
}
}
Not very efficient but very easy to understand approach might be to solve this task recursively. Consider a method which computes permutations for N lists. If you have such a method then you can easily compute permutations for N+1 lists by combining all permutation of N lists with every number in the last list. You should also handle corner case which permutations of 0 lists. Then implementation seems to be straightforward:
IEnumerable<IEnumerable<T>> GetAllPermutations<T>(IEnumerable<IEnumerable<T>> inputLists)
{
if (!inputLists.Any()) return new [] { Enumerable.Empty<T>() };
else
{
foreach (var perm in GetAllPermutations(inputLists.Skip(1)))
foreach (var x in inputLists.First())
yield return new[]{x}.Concat(perm);
}
}
As an alternative, following rawlings general idea the following should work
public static IEnumerable<IEnumerable<T>> Permutations<T> (this IEnumerable<IEnumerable<T>> underlying)
{
var enumerators = new Queue<IEnumerator<T>>(underlying.Select(u => u.GetEnumerator())
.Where(enumerator => enumerator.MoveNext());
Boolean streaming = enumerators.Any();
if(streaming)
{
IEnumerable<T> result;
IEnumerator<T> finalEnumerator = enumerators.Dequeue();
Func<Boolean,Boolean> finalAction = b => b ? b : finalEnumerator.MoveNext();
Func<Boolean,Boolean> interimAction =
enumerators.Reverse()
.Select(enumerator => new Func<Boolean,Boolean>(b => b ? b : (enumerator.MoveNext() ? true : enumerator.ResetMove())))
.Aggregate((f1,f2) => (b => f1(f2(b)));
enumerators.Enqueue(finalEnumerator);
Func<Boolean,Boolean> permutationAction =
interimAction == null ?
finalAction :
b => finalAction(interimAction(b));
while(streaming)
{
result = new Queue<T>(enumerators.Select(enumerator => enumerator.Current))
streaming = permutationAction(true);
yield return result;
}
}
private static Boolean ResetMove<T>(this IEnumerator<T> underlying)
{
underlying.Reset();
underlying.MoveNext();
return false;
}
I have an IEnumerable and I want to get a new IEnumerable containing every nth element.
Can this be done in Linq?
Just figured it out myself...
The IEnumerable<T>.Where() method has an overload that takes the index of the current element - just what the doctor ordered.
(new []{1,2,3,4,5}).Where((elem, idx) => idx % 2 == 0);
This would return
{1, 3, 5}
Update: In order to cover both my use case and Dan Tao's suggestion, let's also specify what the first returned element should be:
var firstIdx = 1;
var takeEvery = 2;
var list = new []{1,2,3,4,5};
var newList = list
.Skip(firstIdx)
.Where((elem, idx) => idx % takeEvery == 0);
...would return
{2, 4}
To implement Cristi's suggestion:
public static IEnumerable<T> Sample<T>(this IEnumerable<T> source, int interval)
{
// null check, out of range check go here
return source.Where((value, index) => (index + 1) % interval == 0);
}
Usage:
var upToTen = new[] { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 };
var evens = upToTen.Sample(2);
var multiplesOfThree = upToTen.Sample(3);
While not LINQ you may also create an extension method with yield.
public static IEnumerable<T> EverySecondObject<T>(this IEnumerable<T> list)
{
using (var enumerator = list.GetEnumerator())
{
while (true)
{
if (!enumerator.MoveNext())
yield break;
if (enumerator.MoveNext())
yield return enumerator.Current;
else
yield break;
}
}
}