Develop Reference

c# find max value recursive (fastest)

I'm out of ideas on this one. Tried originally myself and then copied from SO and google, which worked on all cases except one, however still didn't find a recursive algorithm that is fast enough for that particular test case in my assignment :/
In any case, why this:
public static int FindMaximum(int[] array)
{
if (array is null)
{
throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(array));
}
if (array.Length == 0)
{
throw new ArgumentException(null);
}
return FindMaxRec(array, array.Length);
}
public static int FindMaxRec(int[] arr, int n)
{
if (n == 1)
{
return arr[0];
}
return Math.Max(arr[n - 1], FindMaxRec(arr, n - 1));
}
doesn't work with this TestCase?:
[Test]
[Order(0)]
[Timeout(5_000)]
public void FindMaximum_TestForLargeArray()
{
int expected = this.max;
int actual = FindMaximum(this.array);
Assert.AreEqual(expected, actual);
}
EDIT 1:
This works fine though, but I need recursive:
public static int FindMaximum(int[] array)
{
if (array is null)
{
throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(array));
}
if (array.Length == 0)
{
throw new ArgumentException(null);
}
int maxValue = int.MinValue;
for (int i = 0; i < array.Length; i++)
{
if (array[i] > maxValue)
{
maxValue = array[i];
}
}
return maxValue;
}

You can try splitting array in two:
public static int FindMaximum(int[] array) {
if (null == array)
throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(array));
if (array.Length <= 0)
throw new ArgumentException("Empty array is not allowed.", nameof(array));
return FindMaxRec(array, 0, array.Length - 1);
}
private static int FindMaxRec(int[] array, int from, int to) {
if (to < from)
throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException(nameof(to));
if (to <= from + 1)
return Math.Max(array[from], array[to]);
return Math.Max(FindMaxRec(array, from, (from + to) / 2),
FindMaxRec(array, (from + to) / 2 + 1, to));
}
Demo:
Random random = new Random(123);
int[] data = Enumerable
.Range(0, 10_000_000)
.Select(_ => random.Next(1_000_000_000))
.ToArray();
Stopwatch sw = new Stopwatch();
sw.Start();
int max = FindMaximum(data);
sw.Stop();
Console.WriteLine($"max = {max}");
Console.WriteLine($"time = {sw.ElapsedMilliseconds}");
Outcome:
max = 999999635
time = 100

An easy way to turn a simple linear algorithm into a recursive one is to make use of the enumerator of the array.
public static int FindMax(int[] values)
{
using var enumerator = values.GetEnumerator();
return FindMaxRecursively(enumerator, int.MinValue);
}
private static T FindMaxRecursively<T>(IEnumerator<T> enumerator, T currentMax) where T : IComparable
{
if (!enumerator.MoveNext()) return currentMax;
var currentValue = enumerator.Current;
if (currentValue.CompareTo(currentMax) > 0) currentMax = currentValue;
return FindMaxRecursively(enumerator, currentMax);
}
This passes your test case and uses recursion.
Edit: Here is a more beginner friendly version of the above, with comments to explain what it is doing:
public static int FindMax(IEnumerable<int> values)
{
using var enumerator = values.GetEnumerator();//the using statement disposes the enumerator when we are done
//disposing the enumerator is important because we want to reset the index back to zero for the next time someone enumerates the array
return FindMaxRecursively(enumerator, int.MinValue);
}
private static int FindMaxRecursively(IEnumerator<int> enumerator, int currentMax)
{
if (!enumerator.MoveNext()) //move to the next item in the array. If there are no more items in the array MoveNext() returns false
return currentMax; //if there are no more items in the array return the current maximum value
var currentValue = enumerator.Current;//this is the value in the array at the current index
if (currentValue > currentMax) currentMax = currentValue;//if it's larger than the current maximum update the maximum
return FindMaxRecursively(enumerator, currentMax);//continue on to the next value, making sure to pass the current maximum
}
Something that might help understand this is that the IEnumerator is what enables foreach loops. Under the hood, foreach loops are just repeatedly calling MoveNext on an item that has an IEnumerator. Here is some more info on that topic.

public static int findMax(int[] a, int index) {
if (index > 0) {
return Math.max(a[index], findMax(a, index-1))
} else {
return a[0];
}
}

Switch 2 spots in a list [duplicate]

Is there a LINQ way to swap the position of two items inside a List<T>?

Check the answer from Marc from C#: Good/best implementation of Swap method.
public static void Swap<T>(IList<T> list, int indexA, int indexB)
{
T tmp = list[indexA];
list[indexA] = list[indexB];
list[indexB] = tmp;
}
which can be linq-i-fied like
public static IList<T> Swap<T>(this IList<T> list, int indexA, int indexB)
{
T tmp = list[indexA];
list[indexA] = list[indexB];
list[indexB] = tmp;
return list;
}
var lst = new List<int>() { 8, 3, 2, 4 };
lst = lst.Swap(1, 2);

Maybe someone will think of a clever way to do this, but you shouldn't. Swapping two items in a list is inherently side-effect laden but LINQ operations should be side-effect free. Thus, just use a simple extension method:
static class IListExtensions {
public static void Swap<T>(
this IList<T> list,
int firstIndex,
int secondIndex
) {
Contract.Requires(list != null);
Contract.Requires(firstIndex >= 0 && firstIndex < list.Count);
Contract.Requires(secondIndex >= 0 && secondIndex < list.Count);
if (firstIndex == secondIndex) {
return;
}
T temp = list[firstIndex];
list[firstIndex] = list[secondIndex];
list[secondIndex] = temp;
}
}

List<T> has a Reverse() method, however it only reverses the order of two (or more) consecutive items.
your_list.Reverse(index, 2);
Where the second parameter 2 indicates we are reversing the order of 2 items, starting with the item at the given index.
Source: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hf2ay11y(v=vs.110).aspx

Starting with C# 7 you can do
public static IList<T> Swap<T>(IList<T> list, int indexA, int indexB)
{
(list[indexA], list[indexB]) = (list[indexB], list[indexA]);
return list;
}

There is no existing Swap-method, so you have to create one yourself. Of course you can linqify it, but that has to be done with one (unwritten?) rules in mind: LINQ-operations do not change the input parameters!
In the other "linqify" answers, the (input) list is modified and returned, but this action brakes that rule. If would be weird if you have a list with unsorted items, do a LINQ "OrderBy"-operation and than discover that the input list is also sorted (just like the result). This is not allowed to happen!
So... how do we do this?
My first thought was just to restore the collection after it was finished iterating. But this is a dirty solution, so do not use it:
static public IEnumerable<T> Swap1<T>(this IList<T> source, int index1, int index2)
{
// Parameter checking is skipped in this example.
// Swap the items.
T temp = source[index1];
source[index1] = source[index2];
source[index2] = temp;
// Return the items in the new order.
foreach (T item in source)
yield return item;
// Restore the collection.
source[index2] = source[index1];
source[index1] = temp;
}
This solution is dirty because it does modify the input list, even if it restores it to the original state. This could cause several problems:
The list could be readonly which will throw an exception.
If the list is shared by multiple threads, the list will change for the other threads during the duration of this function.
If an exception occurs during the iteration, the list will not be restored. (This could be resolved to write an try-finally inside the Swap-function, and put the restore-code inside the finally-block).
There is a better (and shorter) solution: just make a copy of the original list. (This also makes it possible to use an IEnumerable as a parameter, instead of an IList):
static public IEnumerable<T> Swap2<T>(this IList<T> source, int index1, int index2)
{
// Parameter checking is skipped in this example.
// If nothing needs to be swapped, just return the original collection.
if (index1 == index2)
return source;
// Make a copy.
List<T> copy = source.ToList();
// Swap the items.
T temp = copy[index1];
copy[index1] = copy[index2];
copy[index2] = temp;
// Return the copy with the swapped items.
return copy;
}
One disadvantage of this solution is that it copies the entire list which will consume memory and that makes the solution rather slow.
You might consider the following solution:
static public IEnumerable<T> Swap3<T>(this IList<T> source, int index1, int index2)
{
// Parameter checking is skipped in this example.
// It is assumed that index1 < index2. Otherwise a check should be build in and both indexes should be swapped.
using (IEnumerator<T> e = source.GetEnumerator())
{
// Iterate to the first index.
for (int i = 0; i < index1; i++)
yield return source[i];
// Return the item at the second index.
yield return source[index2];
if (index1 != index2)
{
// Return the items between the first and second index.
for (int i = index1 + 1; i < index2; i++)
yield return source[i];
// Return the item at the first index.
yield return source[index1];
}
// Return the remaining items.
for (int i = index2 + 1; i < source.Count; i++)
yield return source[i];
}
}
And if you want to input parameter to be IEnumerable:
static public IEnumerable<T> Swap4<T>(this IEnumerable<T> source, int index1, int index2)
{
// Parameter checking is skipped in this example.
// It is assumed that index1 < index2. Otherwise a check should be build in and both indexes should be swapped.
using(IEnumerator<T> e = source.GetEnumerator())
{
// Iterate to the first index.
for(int i = 0; i < index1; i++)
{
if (!e.MoveNext())
yield break;
yield return e.Current;
}
if (index1 != index2)
{
// Remember the item at the first position.
if (!e.MoveNext())
yield break;
T rememberedItem = e.Current;
// Store the items between the first and second index in a temporary list.
List<T> subset = new List<T>(index2 - index1 - 1);
for (int i = index1 + 1; i < index2; i++)
{
if (!e.MoveNext())
break;
subset.Add(e.Current);
}
// Return the item at the second index.
if (e.MoveNext())
yield return e.Current;
// Return the items in the subset.
foreach (T item in subset)
yield return item;
// Return the first (remembered) item.
yield return rememberedItem;
}
// Return the remaining items in the list.
while (e.MoveNext())
yield return e.Current;
}
}
Swap4 also makes a copy of (a subset of) the source. So worst case scenario, it is as slow and memory consuming as function Swap2.

If order matters, you should keep a property on the "T" objects in your list that denotes sequence. In order to swap them, just swap the value of that property, and then use that in the .Sort(comparison with sequence property)

BinarySearch on List<T> seems to be returning strange result

I am very new to C#. I have created a List object and then I am performing BinarySearch on a particular item. But the search results seem to strange. Here is the code :
class Element
{
public int x;
public Element(int val) { x = val; }
}
class MyContainer : IComparable<MyContainer>
{
public Element elem;
public MyContainer(int val) { elem = new Element(val); }
public MyContainer(Element e) { elem = e; }
public int CompareTo(MyContainer obj)
{
if (elem.x < obj.elem.x) { return -1; }
else if (elem.x == obj.elem.x) { return 0; }
else { return 1; }
}
}
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
MyContainer container1 = new MyContainer(100);
MyContainer container2 = new MyContainer(21);
MyContainer container3 = new MyContainer(-122);
Element elemObj = new Element(-122);
List<MyContainer> list = new List<MyContainer>();
list.Add(new MyContainer(80));
list.Add(container1);
list.Add(container2);
list.Add(container3);
list.Add(new MyContainer(90));
foreach(MyContainer c in list) Console.WriteLine(c.elem.x);
if (list.Contains(container3) == true) Console.WriteLine("present");
else Console.WriteLine("NOT present");
Console.WriteLine("Search result:::"+list.BinarySearch(new MyContainer(elemObj)));
Console.WriteLine("Search result:::" + list.BinarySearch(container1));
Console.WriteLine("Search result:::" + list.BinarySearch(container2));
Console.WriteLine("Search result:::" + list.BinarySearch(container3));
}
}
The output is as follows :
80
100
21
-122
90
present
Search result:::-1
Search result:::-6
Search result:::2
Search result:::-1
Why is only the element corresponding to value 21 found and why not the others

Your list isn't sorted to start with. Binary search only works when the original input is sorted. The whole point is that you know that if list[x] = y, then list[a] <= y for all a < x and list[a] >= y for all a > x.
So either you need to sort your list first, or you need to choose a different way of searching (e.g. using a separate hash-based dictionary, or just doing a linear search).
Also note that your CompareTo method can be implemented a lot more simply:
public int CompareTo(MyContainer obj)
{
return elem.x.CompareTo(obj.elem.x);
}

A BinarySearch only works on a sorted list. Since your list is not sorted in the way it should be, it may or may not find the result correctly. You could fix this by sorting first:
list.Add(new MyContainer(90));
// after adding all elements
list.Sort();
foreach(MyContainer c in list) Console.WriteLine(c.elem.x);

Using LINQ to select item in List<T> and add integer to populate new List<T>

Lets say I have List<string> = new List<string>() {"20","26","32"}
I want to create a new List based on the first number in the previous list and it should have the same number of elements in it. I will be adding a certain number to that first number and so on and so on. As an example, using 6 as the number to add I would get 20,26,32. The resulting list will be List. The number 6 is a class wide property.
The issue comes if I have a list of "N","N","32"
I need to produce the same list of 20,26,32 but I have to use the last number to work out the others.
If I had "N","26","N" I would have to use the middle number to work out the others.
The N represents no data in the input list and it will always be this character
In summary, I need to produce a new list with the same number of elements as the input list and it must take the first or next numerical element to produce the resulting list using a specified number to add/subtract values to.
I wondered if LINQ's aggregate function might be able to handle it but got a bit lost using it.
Examples:
"20","26","32" = 20,26,32
"N","26","32" = 20,26,32
"N","N","32" = 20,26,32
"20","26","N" = 20,26,32

What about something like this:
var n = 6;
List<string> strList = new List<string>() {"20","26","32"};
// list can also be {null, "26", null} , {null, "N", "32"} ,
// {"N", "26", null } etc...
var list = strList.Select(s =>
{
int v;
if(string.IsNullOrEmpty(s) || !int.TryParse(s,out v))
return (int?)null;
return v;
});
var firstValidVal = list.Select((Num, Index) => new { Num, Index })
.FirstOrDefault(x => x.Num.HasValue);
if(firstValidVal == null)
throw new Exception("No valid number found");
var bases = Enumerable.Range(0, strList.Count).Select(i => i * n);
int startVal = firstValidVal.Num.Value - bases.ElementAt(firstValidVal.Index);
var completeSequence = bases.Select(x => x + startVal);

It sounds like you want a function which will
Take a List<int> as input
Make the first element of the original list the first element of the new list
New list has same number of elements as original
Remaining numbers are the first element + a value * position
If so then try the following
static bool TryGetFirstNumber(List<string> list, out number, out index) {
for (var i = 0; i < list.Count; i++) {
var cur = list[0];
if (!String.IsNullOrEmpty(cur) && Int32.TryParse(cur, out number)) {
index = i;
return true;
}
}
number = 0;
index = 0;
return false;
}
static List<T> TheFunction(List<string> list, int increment) {
var newList = new List<int>();
int first;
int index;
if (TryGetFirstNumber(list, out first, out index)) {
first -= index * increment;
} else {
first = 0;
}
newList.Add(first);
for (var i = 1; i < list.Length; i++) {
newList.Add(first + increment);
increment += increment;
}
return newList;
}

For LINQ purposes, I sometimes resort to writing a parse method that returns an int?as the result so that I can return null when it fails to parse. Here's a complete LINQPad implementation that illustrates this and the positional select (taking an approach otherwise similar to digEmAll's):
void Main()
{
var n = 6;
var items = new List<string>
// {"20","N", "N"};
// {"N", "26", "N"};
{"N", "N", "32"};
var first = items
.Select((v,index) => new { val = Parse(v), index })
.First(x => x.val.HasValue);
int start = first.val.Value - n * first.index;
List<string> values = items
.Select((x,i) => (i * n + start).ToString())
.ToList();
}
int? Parse(string strVal)
{
int ret;
if (int.TryParse(strVal, out ret))
{
return ret;
}
return null;
}

Seems like a lot of work to do something kinda simple. Here is a non linq approach.
private List<int> getVals(List<string> input, int modifier)
{
if (input == null) return null; if (input.Count < 1) return null;
foreach (var s in input)
{
int i;
try{i = Convert.ToInt32(s);}
catch{continue;}
var returnList = new List<int>(input.Count);
for (int n = 0; n < input.Count;n++ )returnList[n] = ((n - input.IndexOf(s)) * modifier) + i;
return returnList;
}
return null;
}

DevGeezer's answer, but without the cruft.
But I still learned alot!
static List<String> genlist2(List<String> list, int interval)
{
if (list == null) return null;
var vali = list
.Select((x, i) => x != "N" ? new {val = Convert.ToInt32(x), i } : null)
.First(x => x != null);
if (vali == null) return list.ToList();
return Enumerable.Range(0, list.Count)
.Select(x => (vali.val - (vali.i - x) * interval).ToString())
.ToList();
}

Remove duplicates from a List<T> in C#

Anyone have a quick method for de-duplicating a generic List in C#?

If you're using .Net 3+, you can use Linq.
List<T> withDupes = LoadSomeData();
List<T> noDupes = withDupes.Distinct().ToList();

Perhaps you should consider using a HashSet.
From the MSDN link:
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
class Program
{
static void Main()
{
HashSet<int> evenNumbers = new HashSet<int>();
HashSet<int> oddNumbers = new HashSet<int>();
for (int i = 0; i < 5; i++)
{
// Populate numbers with just even numbers.
evenNumbers.Add(i * 2);
// Populate oddNumbers with just odd numbers.
oddNumbers.Add((i * 2) + 1);
}
Console.Write("evenNumbers contains {0} elements: ", evenNumbers.Count);
DisplaySet(evenNumbers);
Console.Write("oddNumbers contains {0} elements: ", oddNumbers.Count);
DisplaySet(oddNumbers);
// Create a new HashSet populated with even numbers.
HashSet<int> numbers = new HashSet<int>(evenNumbers);
Console.WriteLine("numbers UnionWith oddNumbers...");
numbers.UnionWith(oddNumbers);
Console.Write("numbers contains {0} elements: ", numbers.Count);
DisplaySet(numbers);
}
private static void DisplaySet(HashSet<int> set)
{
Console.Write("{");
foreach (int i in set)
{
Console.Write(" {0}", i);
}
Console.WriteLine(" }");
}
}
/* This example produces output similar to the following:
* evenNumbers contains 5 elements: { 0 2 4 6 8 }
* oddNumbers contains 5 elements: { 1 3 5 7 9 }
* numbers UnionWith oddNumbers...
* numbers contains 10 elements: { 0 2 4 6 8 1 3 5 7 9 }
*/

How about:
var noDupes = list.Distinct().ToList();
In .net 3.5?

Simply initialize a HashSet with a List of the same type:
var noDupes = new HashSet<T>(withDupes);
Or, if you want a List returned:
var noDupsList = new HashSet<T>(withDupes).ToList();

Sort it, then check two and two next to each others, as the duplicates will clump together.
Something like this:
list.Sort();
Int32 index = list.Count - 1;
while (index > 0)
{
if (list[index] == list[index - 1])
{
if (index < list.Count - 1)
(list[index], list[list.Count - 1]) = (list[list.Count - 1], list[index]);
list.RemoveAt(list.Count - 1);
index--;
}
else
index--;
}
Notes:
Comparison is done from back to front, to avoid having to resort list after each removal
This example now uses C# Value Tuples to do the swapping, substitute with appropriate code if you can't use that
The end-result is no longer sorted

I like to use this command:
List<Store> myStoreList = Service.GetStoreListbyProvince(provinceId)
.GroupBy(s => s.City)
.Select(grp => grp.FirstOrDefault())
.OrderBy(s => s.City)
.ToList();
I have these fields in my list: Id, StoreName, City, PostalCode
I wanted to show list of cities in a dropdown which has duplicate values.
solution: Group by city then pick the first one for the list.

It worked for me. simply use
List<Type> liIDs = liIDs.Distinct().ToList<Type>();
Replace "Type" with your desired type e.g. int.

As kronoz said in .Net 3.5 you can use Distinct().
In .Net 2 you could mimic it:
public IEnumerable<T> DedupCollection<T> (IEnumerable<T> input)
{
var passedValues = new HashSet<T>();
// Relatively simple dupe check alg used as example
foreach(T item in input)
if(passedValues.Add(item)) // True if item is new
yield return item;
}
This could be used to dedupe any collection and will return the values in the original order.
It's normally much quicker to filter a collection (as both Distinct() and this sample does) than it would be to remove items from it.

An extension method might be a decent way to go... something like this:
public static List<T> Deduplicate<T>(this List<T> listToDeduplicate)
{
return listToDeduplicate.Distinct().ToList();
}
And then call like this, for example:
List<int> myFilteredList = unfilteredList.Deduplicate();

In Java (I assume C# is more or less identical):
list = new ArrayList<T>(new HashSet<T>(list))
If you really wanted to mutate the original list:
List<T> noDupes = new ArrayList<T>(new HashSet<T>(list));
list.clear();
list.addAll(noDupes);
To preserve order, simply replace HashSet with LinkedHashSet.

This takes distinct (the elements without duplicating elements) and convert it into a list again:
List<type> myNoneDuplicateValue = listValueWithDuplicate.Distinct().ToList();

Use Linq's Union method.
Note: This solution requires no knowledge of Linq, aside from that it exists.
Code
Begin by adding the following to the top of your class file:
using System.Linq;
Now, you can use the following to remove duplicates from an object called, obj1:
obj1 = obj1.Union(obj1).ToList();
Note: Rename obj1 to the name of your object.
How it works
The Union command lists one of each entry of two source objects. Since obj1 is both source objects, this reduces obj1 to one of each entry.
The ToList() returns a new List. This is necessary, because Linq commands like Union returns the result as an IEnumerable result instead of modifying the original List or returning a new List.

As a helper method (without Linq):
public static List<T> Distinct<T>(this List<T> list)
{
return (new HashSet<T>(list)).ToList();
}

Here's an extension method for removing adjacent duplicates in-situ. Call Sort() first and pass in the same IComparer. This should be more efficient than Lasse V. Karlsen's version which calls RemoveAt repeatedly (resulting in multiple block memory moves).
public static void RemoveAdjacentDuplicates<T>(this List<T> List, IComparer<T> Comparer)
{
int NumUnique = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < List.Count; i++)
if ((i == 0) || (Comparer.Compare(List[NumUnique - 1], List[i]) != 0))
List[NumUnique++] = List[i];
List.RemoveRange(NumUnique, List.Count - NumUnique);
}

Installing the MoreLINQ package via Nuget, you can easily distinct object list by a property
IEnumerable<Catalogue> distinctCatalogues = catalogues.DistinctBy(c => c.CatalogueCode);

If you have tow classes Product and Customer and we want to remove duplicate items from their list
public class Product
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string ProductName { get; set; }
}
public class Customer
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string CustomerName { get; set; }
}
You must define a generic class in the form below
public class ItemEqualityComparer<T> : IEqualityComparer<T> where T : class
{
private readonly PropertyInfo _propertyInfo;
public ItemEqualityComparer(string keyItem)
{
_propertyInfo = typeof(T).GetProperty(keyItem, BindingFlags.GetProperty | BindingFlags.Instance | BindingFlags.Public);
}
public bool Equals(T x, T y)
{
var xValue = _propertyInfo?.GetValue(x, null);
var yValue = _propertyInfo?.GetValue(y, null);
return xValue != null && yValue != null && xValue.Equals(yValue);
}
public int GetHashCode(T obj)
{
var propertyValue = _propertyInfo.GetValue(obj, null);
return propertyValue == null ? 0 : propertyValue.GetHashCode();
}
}
then, You can remove duplicate items in your list.
var products = new List<Product>
{
new Product{ProductName = "product 1" ,Id = 1,},
new Product{ProductName = "product 2" ,Id = 2,},
new Product{ProductName = "product 2" ,Id = 4,},
new Product{ProductName = "product 2" ,Id = 4,},
};
var productList = products.Distinct(new ItemEqualityComparer<Product>(nameof(Product.Id))).ToList();
var customers = new List<Customer>
{
new Customer{CustomerName = "Customer 1" ,Id = 5,},
new Customer{CustomerName = "Customer 2" ,Id = 5,},
new Customer{CustomerName = "Customer 2" ,Id = 5,},
new Customer{CustomerName = "Customer 2" ,Id = 5,},
};
var customerList = customers.Distinct(new ItemEqualityComparer<Customer>(nameof(Customer.Id))).ToList();
this code remove duplicate items by Id if you want remove duplicate items by other property, you can change nameof(YourClass.DuplicateProperty) same nameof(Customer.CustomerName) then remove duplicate items by CustomerName Property.

If you don't care about the order you can just shove the items into a HashSet, if you do want to maintain the order you can do something like this:
var unique = new List<T>();
var hs = new HashSet<T>();
foreach (T t in list)
if (hs.Add(t))
unique.Add(t);
Or the Linq way:
var hs = new HashSet<T>();
list.All( x => hs.Add(x) );
Edit: The HashSet method is O(N) time and O(N) space while sorting and then making unique (as suggested by #lassevk and others) is O(N*lgN) time and O(1) space so it's not so clear to me (as it was at first glance) that the sorting way is inferior

Might be easier to simply make sure that duplicates are not added to the list.
if(items.IndexOf(new_item) < 0)
items.add(new_item)

You can use Union
obj2 = obj1.Union(obj1).ToList();

Another way in .Net 2.0
static void Main(string[] args)
{
List<string> alpha = new List<string>();
for(char a = 'a'; a <= 'd'; a++)
{
alpha.Add(a.ToString());
alpha.Add(a.ToString());
}
Console.WriteLine("Data :");
alpha.ForEach(delegate(string t) { Console.WriteLine(t); });
alpha.ForEach(delegate (string v)
{
if (alpha.FindAll(delegate(string t) { return t == v; }).Count > 1)
alpha.Remove(v);
});
Console.WriteLine("Unique Result :");
alpha.ForEach(delegate(string t) { Console.WriteLine(t);});
Console.ReadKey();
}

There are many ways to solve - the duplicates issue in the List, below is one of them:
List<Container> containerList = LoadContainer();//Assume it has duplicates
List<Container> filteredList = new List<Container>();
foreach (var container in containerList)
{
Container duplicateContainer = containerList.Find(delegate(Container checkContainer)
{ return (checkContainer.UniqueId == container.UniqueId); });
//Assume 'UniqueId' is the property of the Container class on which u r making a search
if(!containerList.Contains(duplicateContainer) //Add object when not found in the new class object
{
filteredList.Add(container);
}
}
Cheers
Ravi Ganesan

Here's a simple solution that doesn't require any hard-to-read LINQ or any prior sorting of the list.
private static void CheckForDuplicateItems(List<string> items)
{
if (items == null ||
items.Count == 0)
return;
for (int outerIndex = 0; outerIndex < items.Count; outerIndex++)
{
for (int innerIndex = 0; innerIndex < items.Count; innerIndex++)
{
if (innerIndex == outerIndex) continue;
if (items[outerIndex].Equals(items[innerIndex]))
{
// Duplicate Found
}
}
}
}

David J.'s answer is a good method, no need for extra objects, sorting, etc. It can be improved on however:
for (int innerIndex = items.Count - 1; innerIndex > outerIndex ; innerIndex--)
So the outer loop goes top bottom for the entire list, but the inner loop goes bottom "until the outer loop position is reached".
The outer loop makes sure the entire list is processed, the inner loop finds the actual duplicates, those can only happen in the part that the outer loop hasn't processed yet.
Or if you don't want to do bottom up for the inner loop you could have the inner loop start at outerIndex + 1.

A simple intuitive implementation:
public static List<PointF> RemoveDuplicates(List<PointF> listPoints)
{
List<PointF> result = new List<PointF>();
for (int i = 0; i < listPoints.Count; i++)
{
if (!result.Contains(listPoints[i]))
result.Add(listPoints[i]);
}
return result;
}

All answers copy lists, or create a new list, or use slow functions, or are just painfully slow.
To my understanding, this is the fastest and cheapest method I know (also, backed by a very experienced programmer specialized on real-time physics optimization).
// Duplicates will be noticed after a sort O(nLogn)
list.Sort();
// Store the current and last items. Current item declaration is not really needed, and probably optimized by the compiler, but in case it's not...
int lastItem = -1;
int currItem = -1;
int size = list.Count;
// Store the index pointing to the last item we want to keep in the list
int last = size - 1;
// Travel the items from last to first O(n)
for (int i = last; i >= 0; --i)
{
currItem = list[i];
// If this item was the same as the previous one, we don't want it
if (currItem == lastItem)
{
// Overwrite last in current place. It is a swap but we don't need the last
list[i] = list[last];
// Reduce the last index, we don't want that one anymore
last--;
}
// A new item, we store it and continue
else
lastItem = currItem;
}
// We now have an unsorted list with the duplicates at the end.
// Remove the last items just once
list.RemoveRange(last + 1, size - last - 1);
// Sort again O(n logn)
list.Sort();
Final cost is:
nlogn + n + nlogn = n + 2nlogn = O(nlogn) which is pretty nice.
Note about RemoveRange:
Since we cannot set the count of the list and avoid using the Remove funcions, I don't know exactly the speed of this operation but I guess it is the fastest way.

Using HashSet this can be done easily.
List<int> listWithDuplicates = new List<int> { 1, 2, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 };
HashSet<int> hashWithoutDuplicates = new HashSet<int> ( listWithDuplicates );
List<int> listWithoutDuplicates = hashWithoutDuplicates.ToList();

Using HashSet:
list = new HashSet<T>(list).ToList();

public static void RemoveDuplicates<T>(IList<T> list )
{
if (list == null)
{
return;
}
int i = 1;
while(i<list.Count)
{
int j = 0;
bool remove = false;
while (j < i && !remove)
{
if (list[i].Equals(list[j]))
{
remove = true;
}
j++;
}
if (remove)
{
list.RemoveAt(i);
}
else
{
i++;
}
}
}

If you need to compare complex objects, you will need to pass a Comparer object inside the Distinct() method.
private void GetDistinctItemList(List<MyListItem> _listWithDuplicates)
{
//It might be a good idea to create MyListItemComparer
//elsewhere and cache it for performance.
List<MyListItem> _listWithoutDuplicates = _listWithDuplicates.Distinct(new MyListItemComparer()).ToList();
//Choose the line below instead, if you have a situation where there is a chance to change the list while Distinct() is running.
//ToArray() is used to solve "Collection was modified; enumeration operation may not execute" error.
//List<MyListItem> _listWithoutDuplicates = _listWithDuplicates.ToArray().Distinct(new MyListItemComparer()).ToList();
return _listWithoutDuplicates;
}
Assuming you have 2 other classes like:
public class MyListItemComparer : IEqualityComparer<MyListItem>
{
public bool Equals(MyListItem x, MyListItem y)
{
return x != null
&& y != null
&& x.A == y.A
&& x.B.Equals(y.B);
&& x.C.ToString().Equals(y.C.ToString());
}
public int GetHashCode(MyListItem codeh)
{
return codeh.GetHashCode();
}
}
And:
public class MyListItem
{
public int A { get; }
public string B { get; }
public MyEnum C { get; }
public MyListItem(int a, string b, MyEnum c)
{
A = a;
B = b;
C = c;
}
}

I think the simplest way is:
Create a new list and add unique item.
Example:
class MyList{
int id;
string date;
string email;
}
List<MyList> ml = new Mylist();
ml.Add(new MyList(){
id = 1;
date = "2020/09/06";
email = "zarezadeh#gmailcom"
});
ml.Add(new MyList(){
id = 2;
date = "2020/09/01";
email = "zarezadeh#gmailcom"
});
List<MyList> New_ml = new Mylist();
foreach (var item in ml)
{
if (New_ml.Where(w => w.email == item.email).SingleOrDefault() == null)
{
New_ml.Add(new MyList()
{
id = item.id,
date = item.date,
email = item.email
});
}
}