Related
I am new to C# and I've been trying to make a simple method that is supposed to take a string array and a prefix, then filter the array items by the prefix.
Basically, if I pass an array like string[] data = "A horse, or a HORSE!!!".Split(' '); to it it should return {"horse,","HORSE!!!"} if the prefix = "horse". Naturally, if an empty string prefix is passed, it should return every item. I think I got close to getting it right myself, but now I hit the wall.
I also wanted it to return the ArgumentIsNull exception for when prefix = null. But weirdly it just doesn't want to trigger! I tested and the exception is thrown when there is no foreach loop, but isn't with foreach. Why does it behave like that?
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Linq;
namespace Enumerable
{
public class EnumerableManipulation
{
public IEnumerable<string> GetPrefixItems(IEnumerable<string> data, string prefix)
{
if (prefix == null)
{
throw new ArgumentNullException();
}
///Why does this exception never trigger when I pass a null prefix? But it works if there is no foreach.
foreach (string item in data)
{
///I thought this would do the trick and now I can't figure out why it doesn't work
if (data.All(prefix.Contains))
{
yield return item;
}
}
}
}
}
It is an enumeration. All of your code including the stuff happening before the yield, will only be executed, if you actually enumerate through the result of your function. By calling .ToList() or by a foreach loop.
If you do this:
var result = GetPrefixItems(..., null).ToList()
It should give you an exception.
If you don't need to yield the output then you can use Linq to filter your array like following:
IEnumerable<string> data = "A horse, or a HORSE!!!".Split(' ');
IEnumerable<string> result = data.Where(x => x.Contains("horse"));
First, I know this isn't possible out of the box because of obvious reasons.
foreach(string item in myListOfStrings) {
myListOfStrings.Remove(item);
}
The snipped above is one of the most horrible things I've ever seen. So, how do you achieve it then? You could iterate through the list backwards using for, but I don't like this solution either.
What I'm wondering is: Is there a method/extensions that returns an IEnumerable from the current list, something like a floating copy? LINQ has numerous extension methods that do exactly this, but you always have to do something with it, such as filtering (where, take...).
I'm looking forward to something like this:
foreach(string item in myListOfStrings.Shadow()) {
myListOfStrings.Remove(item);
}
where as .Shadow() is:
public static IEnumerable<T> Shadow<T>(this IEnumerable<T> source) {
return new IEnumerable<T>(source);
// or return source.Copy()
// or return source.TakeAll();
}
Example
foreach(ResponseFlags flag in responseFlagsList.Shadow()) {
switch(flag) {
case ResponseFlags.Case1:
...
case ResponseFlags.Case2:
...
}
...
this.InvokeSomeVoidEvent(flag)
responseFlagsList.Remove(flag);
}
Solution
This is how I solved it, and it works like a charm:
public static IEnumerable<T> Shadow<T>(this IEnumerable<T> source) where T: new() {
foreach(T item in source)
yield return item;
}
It's not that super fast (obviously), but it's safe and exactly what I intended to do.
Removing multiple elements from a list 1 by 1 is a C# anti-pattern due to how lists are implemented.
Of course, it can be done with a for loop (instead of foreach). Or it can be done by making a copy of the list. But here is why it should not be done. On a list of 100000 random integers, this takes 2500 ms on my machine:
foreach (var x in listA.ToList())
if (x % 2 == 0)
listA.Remove(x);
and this takes 1250 ms:
for (int i = 0; i < listA.Count; i++)
if (listA[i] % 2 == 0)
listA.RemoveAt(i--);
while these two take 5 and 2 ms respectively:
listB = listB.Where(x => x % 2 != 0).ToList();
listB.RemoveAll(x => x % 2 == 0);
This is because when you remove an element from a list, you are actually deleting from an array, and this is O(N) time, as you need to shift each element after the deleted element one position to the left. On average, this will be N/2 elements.
Remove(element) also needs to find the element before removing it. So Remove(element) will actually always take N steps - elementindex steps to find the element, N - elementindex steps to remove it - in total, N steps.
RemoveAt(index) doesn't have to find the element, but it still has to shift the underlying array, so on average, a RemoveAt is N/2 steps.
The end result is O(N^2) complexity either way, as you're removing up to N elements.
Instead, you should use Linq, which will modify the entire list in O(N) time, or roll your own, but you should not use Remove (or RemoveAt) in a loop.
Why not just do:
foreach(string item in myListOfStrings.ToList())
{
myListOfStrings.Remove(item);
}
To create a copy of the original and use for iterating, then remove from the existing.
If you really need your extension method you could perhaps create something more readable to the user such as:
public static IEnumerable<T> Shadow<T>(this IEnumerable<T> items)
{
if (items == null)
throw new NullReferenceException("Items cannot be null");
List<T> list = new List<T>();
foreach (var item in items)
{
list.Add(item);
}
return list;
}
Which is essentially the same as .ToList().
Calling:
foreach(string item in myListOfStrings.Shadow())
You do not LINQ extension methods for this - you can create a new list explicitly, like this:
foreach(string item in new List<string>(myListOfStrings)) {
myListOfStrings.Remove(item);
}
You have to create a copy of the original list while iterating as below:
var myListOfStrings = new List<string>();
myListOfStrings.Add("1");
myListOfStrings.Add("2");
myListOfStrings.Add("3");
myListOfStrings.Add("4");
myListOfStrings.Add("5");
foreach (string item in myListOfStrings.ToList())
{
myListOfStrings.Remove(item);
}
Your example removes all items from the string, so it's equivalent to:
myListOfStrings.Clear();
It is also equivalent to:
myListOfStrings.RemoveAll(x => true); // Empties myListOfStrings
But what I think you're looking for is a way to remove items for which a predicate is true - which is what RemoveAll() does.
So you could write, for example:
myListOfStrings.RemoveAll(x => x == "TEST"); // Modifies myListOfStrings
Or use any other predicate.
However, that changes the ORIGINAL list; If you just want a copy of the list with certain items removed, you can just use normal Linq:
// Note != instead of == as used in Removeall(),
// because the logic here is reversed.
var filteredList = myListOfStrings.Where(x => x != "TEST").ToList();
Picking up on the answer of svinja I do believe the most efficient way of solving this problem is by doing:
for (int i = 0; i < listA.Count;) {
if (listA[i] % 2 == 0)
listA.RemoveAt(i);
else
i++;
}
It improves on the answer by removing unnecessary sums and subtractions.
So I frequently run into this situation... where Do.Something(...) returns a null collection, like so:
int[] returnArray = Do.Something(...);
Then, I try to use this collection like so:
foreach (int i in returnArray)
{
// do some more stuff
}
I'm just curious, why can't a foreach loop operate on a null collection? It seems logical to me that 0 iterations would get executed with a null collection... instead it throws a NullReferenceException. Anyone know why this could be?
This is annoying as I'm working with APIs that aren't clear on exactly what they return, so I end up with if (someCollection != null) everywhere.
Well, the short answer is "because that's the way the compiler designers designed it." Realistically, though, your collection object is null, so there's no way for the compiler to get the enumerator to loop through the collection.
If you really need to do something like this, try the null coalescing operator:
int[] array = null;
foreach (int i in array ?? Enumerable.Empty<int>())
{
System.Console.WriteLine(string.Format("{0}", i));
}
A foreach loop calls the GetEnumerator method.
If the collection is null, this method call results in a NullReferenceException.
It is bad practice to return a null collection; your methods should return an empty collection instead.
There is a big difference between an empty collection and a null reference to a collection.
When you use foreach, internally, this is calling the IEnumerable's GetEnumerator() method. When the reference is null, this will raise this exception.
However, it is perfectly valid to have an empty IEnumerable or IEnumerable<T>. In this case, foreach will not "iterate" over anything (since the collection is empty), but it will also not throw, since this is a perfectly valid scenario.
Edit:
Personally, if you need to work around this, I'd recommend an extension method:
public static IEnumerable<T> AsNotNull<T>(this IEnumerable<T> original)
{
return original ?? Enumerable.Empty<T>();
}
You can then just call:
foreach (int i in returnArray.AsNotNull())
{
// do some more stuff
}
It is being answer long back but i have tried to do this in the following way to just avoid null pointer exception and may be useful for someone using C# null check operator ?.
//fragments is a list which can be null
fragments?.ForEach((obj) =>
{
//do something with obj
});
Another extension method to work around this:
public static void ForEach<T>(this IEnumerable<T> items, Action<T> action)
{
if(items == null) return;
foreach (var item in items) action(item);
}
Consume in several ways:
(1) with a method that accepts T:
returnArray.ForEach(Console.WriteLine);
(2) with an expression:
returnArray.ForEach(i => UpdateStatus(string.Format("{0}% complete", i)));
(3) with a multiline anonymous method
int toCompare = 10;
returnArray.ForEach(i =>
{
var thisInt = i;
var next = i++;
if(next > 10) Console.WriteLine("Match: {0}", i);
});
Because a null collection is not the same thing as an empty collection. An empty collection is a collection object with no elements; a null collection is a nonexistent object.
Here's something to try: Declare two collections of any sort. Initialize one normally so that it's empty, and assign the other the value null. Then try adding an object to both collections and see what happens.
Just write an extension method to help you out:
public static class Extensions
{
public static void ForEachWithNull<T>(this IEnumerable<T> source, Action<T> action)
{
if(source == null)
{
return;
}
foreach(var item in source)
{
action(item);
}
}
}
It is the fault of Do.Something(). The best practice here would be to return an array of size 0 (that is possible) instead of a null.
Because behind the scenes the foreach acquires an enumerator, equivalent to this:
using (IEnumerator<int> enumerator = returnArray.getEnumerator()) {
while (enumerator.MoveNext()) {
int i = enumerator.Current;
// do some more stuff
}
}
I think the explanation of why exception is thrown is very clear with the answers provided here. I just wish to complement with the way I usually work with these collections. Because, some times, I use the collection more then once and have to test if null every time. To avoid that, I do the following:
var returnArray = DoSomething() ?? Enumerable.Empty<int>();
foreach (int i in returnArray)
{
// do some more stuff
}
This way we can use the collection as much as we want without fear the exception and we don't polute the code with excessive conditional statements.
Using the null check operator ?. is also a great approach. But, in case of arrays (like the example in the question), it should be transformed into List before:
int[] returnArray = DoSomething();
returnArray?.ToList().ForEach((i) =>
{
// do some more stuff
});
SPListItem item;
DataRow dr = datatable.NewRow();
dr["ID"] = (!Object.Equals(item["ID"], null)) ? item["ID"].ToString() : string.Empty;
For my function
IEnumerable<CallbackListRecord> LoadOpenListToProcess(CallbackSearchParams usp);
This line errors when the sequence contains no elements (as it should)
CallbackListRecord nextRecord = CallbackSearch.LoadOpenListToProcess(p).First();
I have changed it to the following
CallbackListRecord nextRecord = null;
IEnumerable<CallbackListRecord> nextRecords = CallbackSearch.LoadOpenListToProcess(p);
if (nextRecords.Any())
{
nextRecord = nextRecords.First();
}
Are there better, easier or more elegant ways to determine if the IEnumerable sequence has no elements?
You should try to avoid enumerating it more times than necessary (even if short-circuited, like First and Any) - how about:
var nextRecord = CallbackSearch.LoadOpenListToProcess(p).FirstOrDefault();
if(nextRecord != null) {
// process it...
}
This works well with classes (since you can just compare the reference to null).
You can shorten the code to the following
var nextrecord = CallbackSearch.LoadOpenListToProcess(p).FirstOrDefault();
nextrecord will either contain the First element if there was one or null if the collection was empty.
If you are anticipating that there could be null values in the sequence, you could handle the enumerator yourself.
var enumerator = CallbackSearch.LoadOpenListToProcess(p).GetEnumerator();
if (enumerator.MoveNext()) {
var item = enumerator.Current;
...
}
You could add an extension method like this:
public static class Extensions
{
public static bool HasElements<T>(this IEnumerable<T> collection)
{
foreach (T t in collection)
return true;
return false;
}
}
What is the best way to approach removing items from a collection in C#, once the item is known, but not it's index. This is one way to do it, but it seems inelegant at best.
//Remove the existing role assignment for the user.
int cnt = 0;
int assToDelete = 0;
foreach (SPRoleAssignment spAssignment in workspace.RoleAssignments)
{
if (spAssignment.Member.Name == shortName)
{
assToDelete = cnt;
}
cnt++;
}
workspace.RoleAssignments.Remove(assToDelete);
What I would really like to do is find the item to remove by property (in this case, name) without looping through the entire collection and using 2 additional variables.
If RoleAssignments is a List<T> you can use the following code.
workSpace.RoleAssignments.RemoveAll(x =>x.Member.Name == shortName);
If you want to access members of the collection by one of their properties, you might consider using a Dictionary<T> or KeyedCollection<T> instead. This way you don't have to search for the item you're looking for.
Otherwise, you could at least do this:
foreach (SPRoleAssignment spAssignment in workspace.RoleAssignments)
{
if (spAssignment.Member.Name == shortName)
{
workspace.RoleAssignments.Remove(spAssignment);
break;
}
}
#smaclell asked why reverse iteration was more efficient in in a comment to #sambo99.
Sometimes it's more efficient. Consider you have a list of people, and you want to remove or filter all customers with a credit rating < 1000;
We have the following data
"Bob" 999
"Mary" 999
"Ted" 1000
If we were to iterate forward, we'd soon get into trouble
for( int idx = 0; idx < list.Count ; idx++ )
{
if( list[idx].Rating < 1000 )
{
list.RemoveAt(idx); // whoops!
}
}
At idx = 0 we remove Bob, which then shifts all remaining elements left. The next time through the loop idx = 1, but
list[1] is now Ted instead of Mary. We end up skipping Mary by mistake. We could use a while loop, and we could introduce more variables.
Or, we just reverse iterate:
for (int idx = list.Count-1; idx >= 0; idx--)
{
if (list[idx].Rating < 1000)
{
list.RemoveAt(idx);
}
}
All the indexes to the left of the removed item stay the same, so you don't skip any items.
The same principle applies if you're given a list of indexes to remove from an array. In order to keep things straight you need to sort the list and then remove the items from highest index to lowest.
Now you can just use Linq and declare what you're doing in a straightforward manner.
list.RemoveAll(o => o.Rating < 1000);
For this case of removing a single item, it's no more efficient iterating forwards or backwards. You could also use Linq for this.
int removeIndex = list.FindIndex(o => o.Name == "Ted");
if( removeIndex != -1 )
{
list.RemoveAt(removeIndex);
}
If it's an ICollection then you won't have a RemoveAll method. Here's an extension method that will do it:
public static void RemoveAll<T>(this ICollection<T> source,
Func<T, bool> predicate)
{
if (source == null)
throw new ArgumentNullException("source", "source is null.");
if (predicate == null)
throw new ArgumentNullException("predicate", "predicate is null.");
source.Where(predicate).ToList().ForEach(e => source.Remove(e));
}
Based on:
http://phejndorf.wordpress.com/2011/03/09/a-removeall-extension-for-the-collection-class/
For a simple List structure the most efficient way seems to be using the Predicate RemoveAll implementation.
Eg.
workSpace.RoleAssignments.RemoveAll(x =>x.Member.Name == shortName);
The reasons are:
The Predicate/Linq RemoveAll method is implemented in List and has access to the internal array storing the actual data. It will shift the data and resize the internal array.
The RemoveAt method implementation is quite slow, and will copy the entire underlying array of data into a new array. This means reverse iteration is useless for List
If you are stuck implementing this in a the pre c# 3.0 era. You have 2 options.
The easily maintainable option. Copy all the matching items into a new list and and swap the underlying list.
Eg.
List<int> list2 = new List<int>() ;
foreach (int i in GetList())
{
if (!(i % 2 == 0))
{
list2.Add(i);
}
}
list2 = list2;
Or
The tricky slightly faster option, which involves shifting all the data in the list down when it does not match and then resizing the array.
If you are removing stuff really frequently from a list, perhaps another structure like a HashTable (.net 1.1) or a Dictionary (.net 2.0) or a HashSet (.net 3.5) are better suited for this purpose.
What type is the collection? If it's List, you can use the helpful "RemoveAll":
int cnt = workspace.RoleAssignments
.RemoveAll(spa => spa.Member.Name == shortName)
(This works in .NET 2.0. Of course, if you don't have the newer compiler, you'll have to use "delegate (SPRoleAssignment spa) { return spa.Member.Name == shortName; }" instead of the nice lambda syntax.)
Another approach if it's not a List, but still an ICollection:
var toRemove = workspace.RoleAssignments
.FirstOrDefault(spa => spa.Member.Name == shortName)
if (toRemove != null) workspace.RoleAssignments.Remove(toRemove);
This requires the Enumerable extension methods. (You can copy the Mono ones in, if you are stuck on .NET 2.0). If it's some custom collection that cannot take an item, but MUST take an index, some of the other Enumerable methods, such as Select, pass in the integer index for you.
This is my generic solution
public static IEnumerable<T> Remove<T>(this IEnumerable<T> items, Func<T, bool> match)
{
var list = items.ToList();
for (int idx = 0; idx < list.Count(); idx++)
{
if (match(list[idx]))
{
list.RemoveAt(idx);
idx--; // the list is 1 item shorter
}
}
return list.AsEnumerable();
}
It would look much simpler if extension methods support passing by reference !
usage:
var result = string[]{"mike", "john", "ali"}
result = result.Remove(x => x.Username == "mike").ToArray();
Assert.IsTrue(result.Length == 2);
EDIT: ensured that the list looping remains valid even when deleting items by decrementing the index (idx).
Here is a pretty good way to do it
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555972
System.Collections.ArrayList arr = new System.Collections.ArrayList();
arr.Add("1");
arr.Add("2");
arr.Add("3");
/*This throws an exception
foreach (string s in arr)
{
arr.Remove(s);
}
*/
//where as this works correctly
Console.WriteLine(arr.Count);
foreach (string s in new System.Collections.ArrayList(arr))
{
arr.Remove(s);
}
Console.WriteLine(arr.Count);
Console.ReadKey();
There is another approach you can take depending on how you're using your collection. If you're downloading the assignments one time (e.g., when the app runs), you could translate the collection on the fly into a hashtable where:
shortname => SPRoleAssignment
If you do this, then when you want to remove an item by short name, all you need to do is remove the item from the hashtable by key.
Unfortunately, if you're loading these SPRoleAssignments a lot, that obviously isn't going to be any more cost efficient in terms of time. The suggestions other people made about using Linq would be good if you're using a new version of the .NET Framework, but otherwise, you'll have to stick to the method you're using.
Similar to Dictionary Collection point of view, I have done this.
Dictionary<string, bool> sourceDict = new Dictionary<string, bool>();
sourceDict.Add("Sai", true);
sourceDict.Add("Sri", false);
sourceDict.Add("SaiSri", true);
sourceDict.Add("SaiSriMahi", true);
var itemsToDelete = sourceDict.Where(DictItem => DictItem.Value == false);
foreach (var item in itemsToDelete)
{
sourceDict.Remove(item.Key);
}
Note:
Above code will fail in .Net Client Profile (3.5 and 4.5) also some viewers mentioned it is
Failing for them in .Net4.0 as well not sure which settings are causing the problem.
So replace with below code (.ToList()) for Where statement, to avoid that error. “Collection was modified; enumeration operation may not execute.”
var itemsToDelete = sourceDict.Where(DictItem => DictItem.Value == false).ToList();
Per MSDN From .Net4.5 onwards Client Profile are discontinued. http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc656912(v=vs.110).aspx
Save your items first, than delete them.
var itemsToDelete = Items.Where(x => !!!your condition!!!).ToArray();
for (int i = 0; i < itemsToDelete.Length; ++i)
Items.Remove(itemsToDelete[i]);
You need to override GetHashCode() in your Item class.
The best way to do it is by using linq.
Example class:
public class Product
{
public string Name { get; set; }
public string Price { get; set; }
}
Linq query:
var subCollection = collection1.RemoveAll(w => collection2.Any(q => q.Name == w.Name));
This query will remove all elements from collection1 if Name match any element Name from collection2
Remember to use: using System.Linq;
To do this while looping through the collection and not to get the modifying a collection exception, this is the approach I've taken in the past (note the .ToList() at the end of the original collection, this creates another collection in memory, then you can modify the existing collection)
foreach (SPRoleAssignment spAssignment in workspace.RoleAssignments.ToList())
{
if (spAssignment.Member.Name == shortName)
{
workspace.RoleAssignments.Remove(spAssignment);
}
}
If you have got a List<T>, then List<T>.RemoveAll is your best bet. There can't be anything more efficient. Internally it does the array moving in one shot, not to mention it is O(N).
If all you got is an IList<T> or an ICollection<T> you got roughly these three options:
public static void RemoveAll<T>(this IList<T> ilist, Predicate<T> predicate) // O(N^2)
{
for (var index = ilist.Count - 1; index >= 0; index--)
{
var item = ilist[index];
if (predicate(item))
{
ilist.RemoveAt(index);
}
}
}
or
public static void RemoveAll<T>(this ICollection<T> icollection, Predicate<T> predicate) // O(N)
{
var nonMatchingItems = new List<T>();
// Move all the items that do not match to another collection.
foreach (var item in icollection)
{
if (!predicate(item))
{
nonMatchingItems.Add(item);
}
}
// Clear the collection and then copy back the non-matched items.
icollection.Clear();
foreach (var item in nonMatchingItems)
{
icollection.Add(item);
}
}
or
public static void RemoveAll<T>(this ICollection<T> icollection, Func<T, bool> predicate) // O(N^2)
{
foreach (var item in icollection.Where(predicate).ToList())
{
icollection.Remove(item);
}
}
Go for either 1 or 2.
1 is lighter on memory and faster if you have less deletes to perform (i.e. predicate is false most of the times).
2 is faster if you have more deletes to perform.
3 is the cleanest code but performs poorly IMO. Again all that depends on input data.
For some benchmarking details see https://github.com/dotnet/BenchmarkDotNet/issues/1505
A lot of good responses here; I especially like the lambda expressions...very clean. I was remiss, however, in not specifying the type of Collection. This is a SPRoleAssignmentCollection (from MOSS) that only has Remove(int) and Remove(SPPrincipal), not the handy RemoveAll(). So, I have settled on this, unless there is a better suggestion.
foreach (SPRoleAssignment spAssignment in workspace.RoleAssignments)
{
if (spAssignment.Member.Name != shortName) continue;
workspace.RoleAssignments.Remove((SPPrincipal)spAssignment.Member);
break;
}