Moving the first array element to end in C# - c#

This is a basic question ( I am new to C#), but is there an efficient way to move the first element to the end of the array in C#?
I found this question, which describes the .rotate method in ruby, but I have been unable to find a similar method in C#.
If I have an array:
[1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
Is there a function in C# that returns:
[2, 3, 4, 5, 1]
Thanks in advance!
EDIT: Answer
The best solution is to use LinkedList<T> as many of you suggested and as shown in Alex's answer. His suggested solution was using:
list.AddLast(list.RemoveFirst());
which can be run in a for loop:
void func<T>(LinkedList<T> list, int rotate) {
for(var i = 0; i < rotate; i++) {
list.AddLast(list.RemoveFirst());
}
}
Thank you all for your help!


There are many ways to achieve this. One way would be:
var result = arr.Skip(1).Concat(arr.Take(1))


If you use LinkedList<T> instead of array<T> you could just use this:
list.AddLast(list.RemoveAndGetFirst());
Edit: RemoveAndGetFirst() can be an extension like:
LinkedListNode<T> elem = list.First;
list.RemoveFirst();
return elem;
Complexity O(1). When you perform this multiple times:
void func<T>(LinkedList<T> list, int rotate) {
for(var i = 0; i < rotate; i++) {
list.AddLast(list.RemoveFirst());
}
}
You will have a complexity of O(N) [where N is the number of rotations]. This is, performance wise, the best solution.
If you really need to use arrays this could be a naiv solution:
var tmp = list[0];
for(var i = 1; i < list.Length; i++) {
list[i - 1] = list[i];
}
list[list.Length - 1] = tmp;
(Be aware there are no range checks)
But this will be very time consuming if you need to do this often. If you perform this multiple times:
void func<T>(T[] list, int rotate) {
for(var j = 0; j < rotate; j++) {
var tmp = list[0];
for(var i = 1; i < list.Length; i++) {
list[i - 1] = list[i];
}
list[list.Length - 1] = tmp;
}
}
You will end up with O(N^2) = O(N * M) [where N is the number of elements and M the number of rotations]. This would be really bad. A better approach, if you know in advance you'll perform this often would be:
void func<T>(T[] list, int rotate {
for(var j = 0; j < list.Length; j++) {
var tmp = list[j];
var ix = (rotate + j) % list.Length;
list[j] = list[ix];
list[ix] = tmp;
}
}
Which will result in O(N) [where N is the number of elements].
As others already suggested, it's a good idea to write an extension method if you need this at multiple locations.


Using Array.Copy to copy elements to itself just shifted ;)
var array = new int[]{1, 2, 3, 4, 5};
var head = array[0];
Array.Copy(array, 1, array, 0, array.Length- 1);
array[array.Length - 1] = head;
And as an extension method returning a new array just like the Ruby version
static class ArrayRotateExtensions {
public static int[] Rotate(this int[] arr, int offset) {
var l = arr.Length;
var rot = new int[l];
if (offset == 0) {
Array.Copy(arr, 0, rot, 0, l);
return rot;
}
// constrain rotations greater than array length, it's the same result anyway
offset = offset % l;
// negative rotation is equal to positive rotation length - offset
if (offset < 0) {
offset += l;
}
Array.Copy(arr, offset, rot, 0, l - offset);
Array.Copy(arr, 0, rot, l - offset, offset);
return rot;
}
}
This will allow you to do
var array = new int[]{1, 2, 3, 4, 5};
var rotated = array.Rotate(1);
Plus rotation by any arbitrary amount.
Only downside is you'd have to add a version for every array type you'd like to use it on.


It's starting to look like Code Golf now :-) so here's my contribution:
var x = new[] { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 };
var y = Enumerable.Range(1, x.Length).Select(i => x[i % x.Length]).ToArray();


The reason why there is no function like that in LINQ is most likely that people who developed LINQ didn't think it's something that is an absolute must...
If you really need that you can create an extension method.
Something along the lines of:
public static IEnumerable<T> Rotate<T>(this IEnumerable<T> elements, int number)
{
var elemetsList = elements as IList<T> ?? elements.ToList();
var list = new List<T>(elemetsList.Count);
if (number > elemetsList.Count - 1)
{
throw new ArgumentException(nameof(number));
}
for (int i = number; i < elemetsList.Count; i++)
{
list.Add(elemetsList[i]);
}
for (int i = 0; i < number; i++)
{
list.Add(elemetsList[i]);
}
return list;
}
And use it:
var arr = new int[] {1, 2, 3, 4, 5};
int[] result = arr.Rotate(1).ToArray();
int[] result2 = arr.Rotate(3).ToArray();
Output:
2 3 4 5 1
4 5 1 2 3
This solution is fairly efficient.
For an array 500 000 in length it took only 7ms on my machine to execute.


Try this one..
using System;
public class Program
{
public static int[] arrData = new int[5]{1,2,3,4,5};
public static void Main()
{
Console.WriteLine("\nOriginal array\n");
foreach(var item in arrData)
{
Console.WriteLine(item.ToString());
}
Console.WriteLine("\nShift to last\n");
arrData = shiftLast(arrData);
foreach(var item in arrData)
{
Console.WriteLine(item.ToString());
}
}
public static int[] shiftLast(int[] arr)
{
int last = arr[arr.Length - 1];
int first= arr[0];
arr[arr.Length - 1] = first;
arr[0] = last;
return arr;
}
}
Try to run here
Cheers


Maybe like this -
static void Main( string[] args ) {
Console.WriteLine(string.Join(", ", getArray(new int[] { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 })));
Console.Read();
return;
}
static int[] getArray( int[] arr ) {
List<int> O = new List<int>();
for (int x = 1, l = arr.Length; x < l; x++) {
O.Add(arr[x]);
}
O.Add(arr[0]);
return O.ToArray();
}


As far as I know there isn't such method for an array. If you do this often perhaps you should consider using a different object (List<T>, Stack<T>, etc).
But even with an array you can implement simple functionality like this using extension methods:
public static int[] MoveFirstToLast (this int[] obj)
{
int movedValue = obj[0];
(int i = 1; i < obj.Length; i++)
{
obj[i - 1] = obj[i];
}
obj[obj.Length - 1] = movedValue;
return obj;
}
And then the use is just:
int[] myArray = //whatever;
int[] changedArray = myArray.MoveFirstToLast();

Related

Getting Time limit Exceed for last 3 Test Cases in a Program:C# [duplicate]

Given an array of n integers and a number, d, perform left rotations on the array. Then print the updated array as a single line of space-separated integers.
Sample Input:
5 4
1 2 3 4 5
The first line contains two space-separated integers denoting the respective values of n (the number of integers) and d (the number of left rotations you must perform).
The second line contains n space-separated integers describing the respective elements of the array's initial state.
Sample Output:
5 1 2 3 4
static void Main(String[] args)
{
string[] arr_temp = Console.ReadLine().Split(' ');
int n = Int32.Parse(arr_temp[0]);
int d = Int32.Parse(arr_temp[1]);
string[] arr = Console.ReadLine().Split(' ');
string[] ans = new string[n];
for (int i = 0; i < n; ++i)
{
ans[(i + n - d) % n] = arr[i];
}
for (int j = 0; j < n; ++j)
{
Console.Write(ans[j] + " ");
}
}
How to use less memory to solve this problem?

This will use less memory in most cases as the second array is only as big as the shift.
public static void Main(string[] args)
{
int[] n = { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 };
LeftShiftArray(n, 4);
Console.WriteLine(String.Join(",", n));
}
public static void LeftShiftArray<T>(T[] arr, int shift)
{
shift = shift % arr.Length;
T[] buffer = new T[shift];
Array.Copy(arr, buffer, shift);
Array.Copy(arr, shift, arr, 0, arr.Length - shift);
Array.Copy(buffer, 0, arr, arr.Length - shift, shift);
}

This problem can get a bit tricky but also has a simple solution if one is familiar with Queues and Stacks.
All I have to do is define a Queue (which will contain the given array) and a Stack.
Next, I just have to Push the Dequeued index to the stack and Enqueue the Popped index in the Queue and finally return the Queue.
Sounds confusing? Check the code below:
static int[] rotLeft(int[] a, int d) {
Queue<int> queue = new Queue<int>(a);
Stack<int> stack = new Stack<int>();
while(d > 0)
{
stack.Push(queue.Dequeue());
queue.Enqueue(stack.Pop());
d--;
}
return queue.ToArray();
}

Do you really need to physically move anything? If not, you could just shift the index instead.

Actually you asked 2 questions:
How to efficiently rotate an array?
and
How to use less memory to solve this problem?
Usually efficiency and low memory usage are mutually exclusive. So I'm going to answer your second question, still providing the most efficient implementation under that memory constraint.
The following method can be used for both left (passing negative count) or right (passing positive count) rotation. It uses O(1) space (single element) and O(n * min(d, n - d)) array element copy operations (O(min(d, n - d)) array block copy operations). In the worst case scenario it performs O(n / 2) block copy operations.
The algorithm is utilizing the fact that
rotate_left(n, d) == rotate_right(n, n - d)
Here it is:
public static class Algorithms
{
public static void Rotate<T>(this T[] array, int count)
{
if (array == null || array.Length < 2) return;
count %= array.Length;
if (count == 0) return;
int left = count < 0 ? -count : array.Length + count;
int right = count > 0 ? count : array.Length - count;
if (left <= right)
{
for (int i = 0; i < left; i++)
{
var temp = array[0];
Array.Copy(array, 1, array, 0, array.Length - 1);
array[array.Length - 1] = temp;
}
}
else
{
for (int i = 0; i < right; i++)
{
var temp = array[array.Length - 1];
Array.Copy(array, 0, array, 1, array.Length - 1);
array[0] = temp;
}
}
}
}
Sample usage like in your example:
var array = Enumerable.Range(1, 5).ToArray(); // { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 }
array.Rotate(-4); // { 5, 1, 2, 3, 4 }

Isn't using IEnumerables better? Since It won't perform all of those maths, won't allocate that many arrays, etc
public static int[] Rotate(int[] elements, int numberOfRotations)
{
IEnumerable<int> newEnd = elements.Take(numberOfRotations);
IEnumerable<int> newBegin = elements.Skip(numberOfRotations);
return newBegin.Union(newEnd).ToArray();
}
IF you don't actually need to return an array, you can even remove the .ToArray() and return an IEnumerable
Usage:
void Main()
{
int[] n = { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 };
int d = 4;
int[] rotated = Rotate(n,d);
Console.WriteLine(String.Join(" ", rotated));
}

I have also tried this and below is my approach...
Thank you
public static int[] RotationOfArray(int[] A, int k)
{
if (A == null || A.Length==0)
return null;
int[] result =new int[A.Length];
int arrayLength=A.Length;
int moveBy = k % arrayLength;
for (int i = 0; i < arrayLength; i++)
{
int tmp = i + moveBy;
if (tmp > arrayLength-1)
{
tmp = + (tmp - arrayLength);
}
result[tmp] = A[i];
}
return result;
}

I have tried to used stack and queue in C# to achieve the output as follows:
public int[] rotateArray(int[] A, int rotate)
{
Queue<int> q = new Queue<int>(A);
Stack<int> s;
while (rotate > 0)
{
s = new Stack<int>(q);
int x = s.Pop();
s = new Stack<int>(s);
s.Push(x);
q = new Queue<int>(s);
rotate--;
}
return q.ToArray();
}

I've solve the challange from Hackerrank by following code. Hope it helps.
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.IO;
using System.Text;
namespace ConsoleApp1
{
class ArrayLeftRotationSolver
{
TextWriter mTextWriter;
public ArrayLeftRotationSolver()
{
mTextWriter = new StreamWriter(#System.Environment.GetEnvironmentVariable("OUTPUT_PATH"), true);
}
public void Solve()
{
string[] nd = Console.ReadLine().Split(' ');
int n = Convert.ToInt32(nd[0]);
int d = Convert.ToInt32(nd[1]);
int[] a = Array.ConvertAll(Console.ReadLine().Split(' '), aTemp => Convert.ToInt32(aTemp))
;
int[] result = rotLeft(a, d);
mTextWriter.WriteLine(string.Join(" ", result));
mTextWriter.Flush();
mTextWriter.Close();
}
private int[] rotLeft(int[] arr, int shift)
{
int n = arr.Length;
shift %= n;
int[] vec = new int[n];
for (int i = 0; i < n; i++)
{
vec[(n + i - shift) % n] = arr[i];
}
return vec;
}
static void Main(string[] args)
{
ArrayLeftRotationSolver solver = new ArrayLeftRotationSolver();
solver.Solve();
}
}
}

Hope this helps.
public static int[] leftrotation(int[] arr, int d)
{
int[] newarr = new int[arr.Length];
var n = arr.Length;
bool isswapped = false;
for (int i = 0; i < n; i++)
{
int index = Math.Abs((i) -d);
if(index == 0)
{
isswapped = true;
}
if (!isswapped)
{
int finalindex = (n) - index;
newarr[finalindex] = arr[i];
}
else
{
newarr[index] = arr[i];
}
}
return newarr;
}

Take the Item at position 0 and add it at the end. remove the item at position 0. repeat n times.
List<int> iList = new List<int>();
private void shift(int n)
{
for (int i = 0; i < n; i++)
{
iList.Add(iList[0]);
iList.RemoveAt(0);
}
}

An old question, but I thought I'd add another possible solution using just one intermediate array (really, 2 if you include the LINQ Take expression). This code rotates to right rather than left, but may be useful nonetheless.
public static Int32[] ArrayRightRotation(Int32[] A, Int32 k)
{
if (A == null)
{
return A;
}
if (!A.Any())
{
return A;
}
if (k % A.Length == 0)
{
return A;
}
if (A.Length == 1)
{
return A;
}
if (A.Distinct().Count() == 1)
{
return A;
}
for (var i = 0; i < k; i++)
{
var intermediateArray = new List<Int32> {A.Last()};
intermediateArray.AddRange(A.Take(A.Length - 1).ToList());
A = intermediateArray.ToArray();
}
return A;
}

O(1) space, O(n) time solution
I think in theory this is as optimal as it gets, since it makes a.Length in-place swaps and 1 temp variable swap per inner loop.
However I suspect O(d) space solutions would be faster in real life due to less code branching (fewer CPU command pipeline resets) and cache locality (mostly sequential access vs in d element steps).
static int[] RotateInplaceLeft(int[] a, int d)
{
var swapCount = 0;
//get canonical/actual d
d = d % a.Length;
if(d < 0) d += a.Length;
if(d == 0) return a;
for (var i = 0; swapCount < a.Length; i++) //we're done after a.Length swaps
{
var dstIdx = i; //we need this becasue of ~this: https://youtu.be/lJ3CD9M3nEQ?t=251
var first = a[i]; //save first element in this group
for (var j = 0; j < a.Length; j++)
{
var srcIdx = (dstIdx + d) % a.Length;
if(srcIdx == i)// circled around
{
a[dstIdx] = first;
swapCount++;
break; //hence we're done with this group
}
a[dstIdx] = a[srcIdx];
dstIdx = srcIdx;
swapCount++;
}
}
return a;
}

If you take a look at constrains you will see that d <= n (number of rotations <= number of elements in array). Because of that this can be solved in 1 line.
static int[] rotLeft(int[] a, int d)
{
return a.Skip(d).Concat(a.Take(d)).ToArray();
}

// using the same same array, and only one temp variable
// shifting everything several times by one
// works, simple, but slow
public static int[] ArrayRotateLeftCyclical(int[] a, int shift)
{
var length = a.Length;
for (int j = 0; j < shift; j++)
{
int t = a[0];
for (int i = 0; i < length; i++)
{
if (i == length - 1)
a[i] = t;
else
a[i] = a[i + 1];
}
}
return a;
}

Let's say if I have a array of integer 'Arr'. To rotate the array 'n' you can do as follows:
static int[] leftRotation(int[] Arr, int n)
{
int tempVariable = 0;
Queue<int> TempQueue = new Queue<int>(a);
for(int i=1;i<=d;i++)
{
tempVariable = TempQueue.Dequeue();
TempQueue.Enqueue(t);
}
return TempQueue.ToArray();`
}
Let me know if any comments. Thanks!

This is my attempt. It is easy, but for some reason it timed out on big chunks of data:
int arrayLength = arr.Length;
int tmpCell = 0;
for (int rotation = 1; rotation <= d; rotation++)
{
for (int i = 0; i < arrayLength; i++)
{
if (arr[i] < arrayElementMinValue || arr[i] > arrayElementMaxValue)
{
throw new ArgumentException($"Array element needs to be between {arrayElementMinValue} and {arrayElementMaxValue}");
}
if (i == 0)
{
tmpCell = arr[0];
arr[0] = arr[1];
}
else if (i == arrayLength - 1)
{
arr[arrayLength - 1] = tmpCell;
}
else
{
arr[i] = arr[i + 1];
}
}
}

what about this?
public static void RotateArrayAndPrint(int[] n, int rotate)
{
for (int i = 1; i <= n.Length; i++)
{
var arrIndex = (i + rotate) > n.Length ? n.Length - (i + rotate) : (i + rotate);
arrIndex = arrIndex < 0 ? arrIndex * -1 : arrIndex;
var output = n[arrIndex-1];
Console.Write(output + " ");
}
}

It's very straight forward answer.
Main thing is how you choose the start index.
public static List<int> rotateLeft(int d, List<int> arr) {
int n = arr.Count;
List<int> t = new List<int>();
int h = d;
for (int j = 0; j < n; j++)
{
if ((j + d) % n == 0)
{
h = 0;
}
t.Add(arr[h]);
h++;
}
return t;
}
using this code, I have successfully submitted to hacker rank problem,

// fast and beautiful method
// reusing the same array
// using small temp array to store replaced values when unavoidable
// a - array, s - shift
public static int[] ArrayRotateLeftWithSmallTempArray(int[] a, int s)
{
var l = a.Length;
var t = new int[s]; // temp array with size s = shift
for (int i = 0; i < l; i++)
{
// save cells which will be replaced by shift
if (i < s)
t[i] = a[i];
if (i + s < l)
a[i] = a[i + s];
else
a[i] = t[i + s - l];
}
return a;
}
https://github.com/sam-klok/ArraysRotation

public static void Rotate(int[] arr, int steps)
{
for (int i = 0; i < steps; i++)
{
int previousValue = arr[arr.Length - 1];
for (int j = 0; j < arr.Length; j++)
{
int currentValue = arr[j];
arr[j] = previousValue;
previousValue = currentValue;
}
}
}

Here is an in-place Rotate implementation of a trick posted by גלעד ברקן in another question. The trick is:
Example, k = 3:
1234567
First reverse in place each of the two sections delineated by n-k:
4321 765
Now reverse the whole array:
5671234
My implementation, based on the Array.Reverse method:
/// <summary>
/// Rotate left for negative k. Rotate right for positive k.
/// </summary>
public static void Rotate<T>(T[] array, int k)
{
ArgumentNullException.ThrowIfNull(array);
k = k % array.Length;
if (k < 0) k += array.Length;
if (k == 0) return;
Debug.Assert(k > 0);
Debug.Assert(k < array.Length);
Array.Reverse(array, 0, array.Length - k);
Array.Reverse(array, array.Length - k, k);
Array.Reverse(array);
}
Live demo.
Output:
Array: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12
Rotate(5)
Array: 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
Rotate(-2)
Array: 10, 11, 12, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

How to quickly move items in the row of the matrix [duplicate]

How can I quickly shift all the items in an array one to the left, padding the end with null?
For example, [0,1,2,3,4,5,6] would become [1,2,3,4,5,6,null]
Edit: I said quickly but I guess I meant efficiently. I need to do this without creating a List or some other data structure. This is something I need to do several hundred thousand times in as short amount of time as possible.

Here's my test harness...
var source = Enumerable.Range(1, 100).Cast<int?>().ToArray();
var destination = new int?[source.Length];
var s = new Stopwatch();
s.Start();
for (int i = 0; i < 1000000;i++)
{
Array.Copy(source, 1, destination, 0, source.Length - 1);
}
s.Stop();
Console.WriteLine(s.Elapsed);
Here are the performance results for 1 million iterations of each solution (8 Core Intel Xeon E5450 # 3.00GHz)
100 elements 10000 elements
For Loop 0.390s 31.839s
Array.Copy() 0.177s 12.496s
Aaron 1 3.789s 84.082s
Array.ConstrainedCopy() 0.197s 17.658s
Make the choice for yourself :)

The quickest way to do this is to use Array.Copy, which in the final implementation uses a bulk memory transfer operation (similar to memcpy):
var oldArray = new int?[] { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 };
var newArray = new int?[oldArray.Length];
Array.Copy(oldArray, 1, newArray, 0, oldArray.Length - 1);
// newArray is now { 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, null }
Edited: according to the documentation:
If sourceArray and destinationArray overlap, this method behaves as if the original values of sourceArray were preserved in a temporary location before destinationArray is overwritten.
So if you don't want to allocate a new array, you can pass in the original array for both source and destination--although I imagine the tradeoff will be a somewhat slower performance since the values go through a temporary holding position.
I suppose, as in any investigation of this kind, you should do some quick benchmarking.

Here is my solution, similar to Task's in that it is a simple Array wrapper and that it takes O(1) time to shift the array to the left.
public class ShiftyArray<T>
{
private readonly T[] array;
private int front;
public ShiftyArray(T[] array)
{
this.array = array;
front = 0;
}
public void ShiftLeft()
{
array[front++] = default(T);
if(front > array.Length - 1)
{
front = 0;
}
}
public void ShiftLeft(int count)
{
for(int i = 0; i < count; i++)
{
ShiftLeft();
}
}
public T this[int index]
{
get
{
if(index > array.Length - 1)
{
throw new IndexOutOfRangeException();
}
return array[(front + index) % array.Length];
}
}
public int Length { get { return array.Length; } }
}
Running it through Jason Punyon's test code...
int?[] intData = Enumerable.Range(1, 100).Cast<int?>().ToArray();
ShiftyArray<int?> array = new ShiftyArray<int?>(intData);
Stopwatch watch = new Stopwatch();
watch.Start();
for(int i = 0; i < 1000000; i++)
{
array.ShiftLeft();
}
watch.Stop();
Console.WriteLine(watch.ElapsedMilliseconds);
Takes ~29ms, regardless of the array size.

Use the Array.Copy() method as in
int?[] myArray = new int?[]{0,1,2,3,4};
Array.Copy(myArray, 1, myArray, 0, myArray.Length - 1);
myArray[myArray.Length - 1] = null
The Array.Copy is probably the way, Microsoft wanted us to copy array elements...

Couldn't you use a System.Collections.Generic.Queue instead of an array ?
I feel like you need to perform actions on your value the discard it, thus using a queue seems to be more appropriate :
// dummy initialization
System.Collections.Generic.Queue<int> queue = new Queue<int>();
for (int i = 0; i < 7; ++i ) { queue.Enqueue(i); }// add each element at the end of the container
// working thread
if (queue.Count > 0)
doSomething(queue.Dequeue());// removes the last element of the container and calls doSomething on it

For any pour soul finding this thread and about to implement one of the highly rated answers. All of them are trash, I'm not sure why that is. Maybe Dested asked for a new array implementation at first or something that has now been removed from the question. Well if you simply want to shift the array and don't need a new one, see an answer like tdaines's answer. And read up on things like the Circular Buffer / Ring Buffer : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_buffer. No moving of the actual data is necessary. The performance of shifting an array should not be tied to the size of the array.

If it absolutely has to be in an array, then I would recommend the most obvious code possible.
for (int index = startIndex; index + 1 < values.Length; index++)
values[index] = values[index + 1];
values[values.Length - 1] = null;
This gives the optimizer the most opportunities to find the best way on whatever target platform the program is installed on.
EDIT:
I just borrowed Jason Punyon's test code, and I'm afraid he's right. Array.Copy wins!
var source = Enumerable.Range(1, 100).Cast<int?>().ToArray();
int indexToRemove = 4;
var s = new Stopwatch();
s.Start();
for (int i = 0; i < 1000000; i++)
{
Array.Copy(source, indexToRemove + 1, source, indexToRemove, source.Length - indexToRemove - 1);
//for (int index = indexToRemove; index + 1 < source.Length; index++)
// source[index] = source[index + 1];
}
s.Stop();
Console.WriteLine(s.Elapsed);
Array.Copy takes between 103 and 150 ms on my machine.
for loop takes between 269 and 338 ms on my machine.

Can't you
allocate the array with an extra 1000 elements
have an integer variable int base = 0
instead of accessing a[i] access a[base+i]
to do your shift, just say base++
Then after you've done this 1000 times, copy it down and start over.
That way, you only do the copy once per 1000 shifts.
Old joke:
Q: How many IBM 360s does it take to shift a register by 1 bit?
A: 33. 32 to hold the bits in place, and 1 to move the register. (or some such...)

You can use the same array as source and destination for fast in-place copy:
static void Main(string[] args)
{
int[] array = {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7};
Array.ConstrainedCopy(array, 1, array, 0, array.Length - 1);
array[array.Length - 1] = 0;
}

You might do it like this:
var items = new int?[] { 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 }; // Your array
var itemList = new List<int?>(items); // Put the items in a List<>
itemList.RemoveAt(1); // Remove the item at index 1
itemList.Add(null); // Add a null to the end of the list
items = itemList.ToArray(); // Turn the list back into an array
Of course, it would be more efficient to get rid of the array entirely and just use a List<>. You could then forget the first line and last line and do it like this:
var itemList = new List<int?> { 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 };
itemList.RemoveAt(1); // Remove the item at index 1
itemList.Add(null); // Add a null to the end of the list

The best and most efficient method I believe is using Buffer.BlockCopy function.
You will set both source and destination to your array, the offset of the source is 1. Depending on your array type (I assume it is int), 1 int = 4 bytes, so you must pass in 4 as the second parameter of this function. Note that the offset is byte offset.
So it looks like this:
int bytes2copy = yourArray.length - 4;
Buffer.BlockCopy(yourArray, 4, yourArray, 0, bytes2copy);
yourArray[yourArray.length-1] = null;

Try this! using Linq. No need of second Array.
var i_array = new int?[] {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 };
i_array = i_array.Select((v, k) => new { v = v, k = k }).
Where(i => i.k > 0).Select(i => i.v).ToArray();
Array.Resize(ref i_array, i_array.Length + 1);
Output:
[0,1,2,3,4,5,6] would become [1,2,3,4,5,6,null]

If you own the memory you could consider using Unsafe Code and good old fashioned pointers.
Make yourself a memory stream and lock it down or use Marshal.AllocHGlobal
Construct all your arrays in it with a little bit of padding at the beginning and end.
increment or decrement all of the array pointers at once. You'll still need to loop back and set your nulls.
If you need to selectively increment or decrement the arrays you would have to add padding between them.
Arrays are incredibly low level data structures, if you treat them in a low level way you can get huge performance out of them.
A baytrail doing this could outperform Jason's with all its copying 8 Core Intel Xeon E5450 # 3.00GHz

Not tested this code, but it should shifts all the values to right by one. Note that the last three lines of code is all you require to efficiently shift the array.
public class Shift : MonoBehaviour {
//Initialize Array
public int[] queue;
void Start () {
//Create Array Rows
queue = new int[5];
//Set Values to 1,2,3,4,5
for (int i=0; i<5;i++)
{
queue[i] = i + 1;
}
//Get the integer at the first index
int prev = queue[0];
//Copy the array to the new array.
System.Array.Copy(queue, 1, queue, 0, queue.Length - 1);
//Set the last shifted value to the previously first value.
queue[queue.Length - 1] = prev;

Implementation with Extension methods passing shifting direction as Enum.
"for" statements and indexers only (don't use Array.Copy method).
using System;
namespace ShiftArrayElements
{
public static class EnumShifter
{
public static int[] Shift(int[] source, Direction[] directions)
{
for (var i = 0; i < directions.Length; i++)
{
var direction = directions[i];
if (direction == Direction.Left)
{
source.LeftShift();
}
else if (direction == Direction.Right)
{
source.RightShift();
}
else
{
throw new InvalidOperationException("Direction is invalid");
}
}
return source;
}
public static void LeftShift(this int[] source)
{
var lastIndex = source?.Length - 1 ?? 0;
var temp = source[0];
for (int j = 0; j + 1 < source.Length; j++)
{
source[j] = source[j + 1];
}
source[lastIndex] = temp;
}
public static void RightShift(this int[] source)
{
var lastIndex = source?.Length - 1 ?? 0;
var temp = source[lastIndex];
for (int j = lastIndex; j > 0; j--)
{
source[j] = source[j - 1];
}
source[0] = temp;
}
}
}

Array copying is an O(n) operation and creates a new array.
While array copying can certainly be done quickly and efficiently, the problem you've stated can actually be solved in an entirely different way without (as you've requested) creating a new array/data structure and only creating one small wrapping object instance per array:
using System;
using System.Text;
public class ArrayReindexer
{
private Array reindexed;
private int location, offset;
public ArrayReindexer( Array source )
{
reindexed = source;
}
public object this[int index]
{
get
{
if (offset > 0 && index >= location)
{
int adjustedIndex = index + offset;
return adjustedIndex >= reindexed.Length ? "null" : reindexed.GetValue( adjustedIndex );
}
return reindexed.GetValue( index );
}
}
public void Reindex( int position, int shiftAmount )
{
location = position;
offset = shiftAmount;
}
public override string ToString()
{
StringBuilder output = new StringBuilder( "[ " );
for (int i = 0; i < reindexed.Length; ++i)
{
output.Append( this[i] );
if (i == reindexed.Length - 1)
{
output.Append( " ]" );
}
else
{
output.Append( ", " );
}
}
return output.ToString();
}
}
By wrapping and controlling access to the array in this manner, we can now demonstrate how the problem was solved with an O(1) method call...
ArrayReindexer original = new ArrayReindexer( SourceArray );
Console.WriteLine( " Base array: {0}", original.ToString() );
ArrayReindexer reindexed = new ArrayReindexer( SourceArray );
reindexed.Reindex( 1, 1 );
Console.WriteLine( "Shifted array: {0}", reindexed.ToString() );
Will produce the output:
Base array: [ 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ]
Shifted array: [ 0, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, null ]
I'm willing to bet that there will be a reason that such a solution won't work for you, but I believe this does match your initial stated requirements. 8 )
It's often helpful to think about all the different kinds of solutions to a problem before implementing a specific one, and perhaps that might be the most important thing that this example can demonstrate.
Hope this helps!

Incorrect and slightly amusing answer (thanks, i'll be here all night !)
int?[] test = new int?[] {0,1,2,3,4,5,6 };
int?[] t = new int?[test.Length];
t = test.Skip(1).ToArray();
t[t.Length - 1] = null;
In the spirit of still using Skip (dont ask me, i know worst usage of LINQ extension methods ever), the only way I thought of rewriting it would be
int?[] test = new int?[] { 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 };
int?[] t = new int?[test.Length];
Array.Copy(test.Skip(1).ToArray(), t, t.Length - 1);
But it's in NO WAY faster than the other options.

I know this is an old question but coming from Google there was no simple example so thanks to this is the easiest way to reorder a list, and you don't have to supply the type it will work it out at runtime,
private static List<T> reorderList<T>(List<T> list){
List<T> newList = new List<T>();
list.ForEach(delegate(T item)
{
newList.Add(item);
});
return newList;
}

using System;
using System.Threading;
namespace ShiftMatrix
{
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
MatrixOperation objMatrixOperation = new MatrixOperation();
//Create a matrix
int[,] mat = new int[,]
{
{1, 2},
{3,4 },
{5, 6},
{7,8},
{8,9},
};
int type = 2;
int counter = 0;
if (type == 1)
{
counter = mat.GetLength(0);
}
else
{
counter = mat.GetLength(1);
}
while (true)
{
for (int i = 0; i < counter; i++)
{
ShowMatrix(objMatrixOperation.ShiftMatrix(mat, i, type));
Thread.Sleep(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(2));
}
}
}
public static void ShowMatrix(int[,] matrix)
{
int rows = matrix.GetLength(0);
int columns = matrix.GetLength(1);
for (int k = 0; k < rows; k++)
{
for (int l = 0; l < columns; l++)
{
Console.Write(matrix[k, l] + " ");
}
Console.WriteLine();
}
}
}
class MatrixOperation
{
public int[,] ShiftMatrix(int[,] origanalMatrix, int shift, int type)
{
int rows = origanalMatrix.GetLength(0);
int cols = origanalMatrix.GetLength(1);
int[,] _tmpMatrix = new int[rows, cols];
if (type == 2)
{
for (int x1 = 0; x1 < rows; x1++)
{
int y2 = 0;
for (int y1 = shift; y2 < cols - shift; y1++, y2++)
{
_tmpMatrix[x1, y2] = origanalMatrix[x1, y1];
}
y2--;
for (int y1 = 0; y1 < shift; y1++, y2++)
{
_tmpMatrix[x1, y2] = origanalMatrix[x1, y1];
}
}
}
else
{
int x2 = 0;
for (int x1 = shift; x2 < rows - shift; x1++, x2++)
{
for (int y1 = 0; y1 < cols; y1++)
{
_tmpMatrix[x2, y1] = origanalMatrix[x1, y1];
}
}
x2--;
for (int x1 = 0; x1 < shift; x1++, x2++)
{
for (int y1 = 0; y1 < cols; y1++)
{
_tmpMatrix[x2, y1] = origanalMatrix[x1, y1];
}
}
}
return _tmpMatrix;
}
}
}

See C# code below to remove space from string. That shift character in array. Performance is O(n). No other array is used. So no extra memory either.
static void Main(string[] args)
{
string strIn = System.Console.ReadLine();
char[] chraryIn = strIn.ToCharArray();
int iShift = 0;
char chrTemp;
for (int i = 0; i < chraryIn.Length; ++i)
{
if (i > 0)
{
chrTemp = chraryIn[i];
chraryIn[i - iShift] = chrTemp;
chraryIn[i] = chraryIn[i - iShift];
}
if (chraryIn[i] == ' ') iShift++;
if (i >= chraryIn.Length - 1 - iShift) chraryIn[i] = ' ';
}
System.Console.WriteLine(new string(chraryIn));
System.Console.Read();
}

a is array of ints & d is number of times array has to shift left.
static int[] rotLeft(int[] a, int d)
{
var innerLoop = a.Length - 1;
for(var loop=0; loop < d; loop++)
{
var res = a[innerLoop];
for (var i= innerLoop; i>=0; i--)
{
var tempI = i-1;
if (tempI < 0)
{
tempI = innerLoop;
}
var yolo = a[tempI];
a[tempI] = res;
res = yolo;
}
}
return a;
}

Simple way to do it when you need to resize the same array.
var nLength = args.Length - 1;
Array.Copy(args, 1, args, 0, nLength);
Array.Resize(ref args, nLength);

Union two 2-D arrays in c#(not two 1-D arrays) [duplicate]

int[] x = new int [] { 1, 2, 3};
int[] y = new int [] { 4, 5 };
int[] z = // your answer here...
Debug.Assert(z.SequenceEqual(new int[] { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 }));
Right now I use
int[] z = x.Concat(y).ToArray();
Is there an easier or more efficient method?
Be careful with the Concat method. The post Array Concatenation in C# explains that:
var z = x.Concat(y).ToArray();
Will be inefficient for large arrays. That means the Concat method is only for meduim-sized arrays (up to 10000 elements).

var z = new int[x.Length + y.Length];
x.CopyTo(z, 0);
y.CopyTo(z, x.Length);

Try this:
List<int> list = new List<int>();
list.AddRange(x);
list.AddRange(y);
int[] z = list.ToArray();

You could write an extension method:
public static T[] Concat<T>(this T[] x, T[] y)
{
if (x == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("x");
if (y == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("y");
int oldLen = x.Length;
Array.Resize<T>(ref x, x.Length + y.Length);
Array.Copy(y, 0, x, oldLen, y.Length);
return x;
}
Then:
int[] x = {1,2,3}, y = {4,5};
int[] z = x.Concat(y); // {1,2,3,4,5}

This is it:
using System.Linq;
int[] array1 = { 1, 3, 5 };
int[] array2 = { 0, 2, 4 };
// Concatenate array1 and array2.
int[] result1 = array1.Concat(array2).ToArray();

I settled on a more general-purpose solution that allows concatenating an arbitrary set of one-dimensional arrays of the same type. (I was concatenating 3+ at a time.)
My function:
public static T[] ConcatArrays<T>(params T[][] list)
{
var result = new T[list.Sum(a => a.Length)];
int offset = 0;
for (int x = 0; x < list.Length; x++)
{
list[x].CopyTo(result, offset);
offset += list[x].Length;
}
return result;
}
And usage:
int[] a = new int[] { 1, 2, 3 };
int[] b = new int[] { 4, 5, 6 };
int[] c = new int[] { 7, 8 };
var y = ConcatArrays(a, b, c); //Results in int[] {1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8}

I know the OP was only mildly curious about performance. That larger arrays may get a different result (see #kurdishTree). And that it usually does not matter (#jordan.peoples). None the less, I was curious and therefore lost my mind ( as #TigerShark was explaining).... I mean that I wrote a simple test based on the original question.... and all the answers....
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Linq;
using System.Text;
using System.Threading.Tasks;
namespace concat
{
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
int[] x = new int [] { 1, 2, 3};
int[] y = new int [] { 4, 5 };
int itter = 50000;
Console.WriteLine("test iterations: {0}", itter);
DateTime startTest = DateTime.Now;
for(int i = 0; i < itter; i++)
{
int[] z;
z = x.Concat(y).ToArray();
}
Console.WriteLine ("Concat Test Time in ticks: {0}", (DateTime.Now - startTest).Ticks );
startTest = DateTime.Now;
for(int i = 0; i < itter; i++)
{
var vz = new int[x.Length + y.Length];
x.CopyTo(vz, 0);
y.CopyTo(vz, x.Length);
}
Console.WriteLine ("CopyTo Test Time in ticks: {0}", (DateTime.Now - startTest).Ticks );
startTest = DateTime.Now;
for(int i = 0; i < itter; i++)
{
List<int> list = new List<int>();
list.AddRange(x);
list.AddRange(y);
int[] z = list.ToArray();
}
Console.WriteLine("list.AddRange Test Time in ticks: {0}", (DateTime.Now - startTest).Ticks);
startTest = DateTime.Now;
for (int i = 0; i < itter; i++)
{
int[] z = Methods.Concat(x, y);
}
Console.WriteLine("Concat(x, y) Test Time in ticks: {0}", (DateTime.Now - startTest).Ticks);
startTest = DateTime.Now;
for (int i = 0; i < itter; i++)
{
int[] z = Methods.ConcatArrays(x, y);
}
Console.WriteLine("ConcatArrays Test Time in ticks: {0}", (DateTime.Now - startTest).Ticks);
startTest = DateTime.Now;
for (int i = 0; i < itter; i++)
{
int[] z = Methods.SSConcat(x, y);
}
Console.WriteLine("SSConcat Test Time in ticks: {0}", (DateTime.Now - startTest).Ticks);
startTest = DateTime.Now;
for (int k = 0; k < itter; k++)
{
int[] three = new int[x.Length + y.Length];
int idx = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < x.Length; i++)
three[idx++] = x[i];
for (int j = 0; j < y.Length; j++)
three[idx++] = y[j];
}
Console.WriteLine("Roll your own Test Time in ticks: {0}", (DateTime.Now - startTest).Ticks);
startTest = DateTime.Now;
for (int i = 0; i < itter; i++)
{
int[] z = Methods.ConcatArraysLinq(x, y);
}
Console.WriteLine("ConcatArraysLinq Test Time in ticks: {0}", (DateTime.Now - startTest).Ticks);
startTest = DateTime.Now;
for (int i = 0; i < itter; i++)
{
int[] z = Methods.ConcatArraysLambda(x, y);
}
Console.WriteLine("ConcatArraysLambda Test Time in ticks: {0}", (DateTime.Now - startTest).Ticks);
startTest = DateTime.Now;
for (int i = 0; i < itter; i++)
{
List<int> targetList = new List<int>(x);
targetList.Concat(y);
}
Console.WriteLine("targetList.Concat(y) Test Time in ticks: {0}", (DateTime.Now - startTest).Ticks);
startTest = DateTime.Now;
for (int i = 0; i < itter; i++)
{
int[] result = x.ToList().Concat(y.ToList()).ToArray();
}
Console.WriteLine("x.ToList().Concat(y.ToList()).ToArray() Test Time in ticks: {0}", (DateTime.Now - startTest).Ticks);
}
}
static class Methods
{
public static T[] Concat<T>(this T[] x, T[] y)
{
if (x == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("x");
if (y == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("y");
int oldLen = x.Length;
Array.Resize<T>(ref x, x.Length + y.Length);
Array.Copy(y, 0, x, oldLen, y.Length);
return x;
}
public static T[] ConcatArrays<T>(params T[][] list)
{
var result = new T[list.Sum(a => a.Length)];
int offset = 0;
for (int x = 0; x < list.Length; x++)
{
list[x].CopyTo(result, offset);
offset += list[x].Length;
}
return result;
}
public static T[] SSConcat<T>(this T[] first, params T[][] arrays)
{
int length = first.Length;
foreach (T[] array in arrays)
{
length += array.Length;
}
T[] result = new T[length];
length = first.Length;
Array.Copy(first, 0, result, 0, first.Length);
foreach (T[] array in arrays)
{
Array.Copy(array, 0, result, length, array.Length);
length += array.Length;
}
return result;
}
public static T[] ConcatArraysLinq<T>(params T[][] arrays)
{
return (from array in arrays
from arr in array
select arr).ToArray();
}
public static T[] ConcatArraysLambda<T>(params T[][] arrays)
{
return arrays.SelectMany(array => array.Select(arr => arr)).ToArray();
}
}
}
The result was:
Roll your own wins.

More efficient (faster) to use Buffer.BlockCopy over Array.CopyTo,
int[] x = new int [] { 1, 2, 3};
int[] y = new int [] { 4, 5 };
int[] z = new int[x.Length + y.Length];
var byteIndex = x.Length * sizeof(int);
Buffer.BlockCopy(x, 0, z, 0, byteIndex);
Buffer.BlockCopy(y, 0, z, byteIndex, y.Length * sizeof(int));
I wrote a simple test program that "warms up the Jitter", compiled in release mode and ran it without a debugger attached, on my machine.
For 10,000,000 iterations of the example in the question
Concat took 3088ms
CopyTo took 1079ms
BlockCopy took 603ms
If I alter the test arrays to two sequences from 0 to 99 then I get results similar to this,
Concat took 45945ms
CopyTo took 2230ms
BlockCopy took 1689ms
From these results I can assert that the CopyTo and BlockCopy methods are significantly more efficient than Concat and furthermore, if performance is a goal, BlockCopy has value over CopyTo.
To caveat this answer, if performance doesn't matter, or there will be few iterations choose the method you find easiest. Buffer.BlockCopy does offer some utility for type conversion beyond the scope of this question.

You can take the ToArray() call off the end. Is there a reason you need it to be an array after the call to Concat?
Calling Concat creates an iterator over both arrays. It does not create a new array so you have not used more memory for a new array. When you call ToArray you actually do create a new array and take up the memory for the new array.
So if you just need to easily iterate over both then just call Concat.

Late Answer :-).
public static class ArrayExtention
{
public static T[] Concatenate<T>(this T[] array1, T[] array2)
{
T[] result = new T[array1.Length + array2.Length];
array1.CopyTo(result, 0);
array2.CopyTo(result, array1.Length);
return result;
}
}

Here's my answer:
int[] z = new List<string>()
.Concat(a)
.Concat(b)
.Concat(c)
.ToArray();
This method can be used at initialization level, for example to define a static concatenation of static arrays:
public static int[] a = new int [] { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 };
public static int[] b = new int [] { 6, 7, 8 };
public static int[] c = new int [] { 9, 10 };
public static int[] z = new List<string>()
.Concat(a)
.Concat(b)
.Concat(c)
.ToArray();
However, it comes with two caveats that you need to consider:
The Concat method creates an iterator over both arrays: it does not create a new array, thus being efficient in terms of memory used: however, the subsequent ToArray  will negate such advantage, since it will actually create a new array and take up the memory for the new array.
As #Jodrell said, Concat would be rather inefficient for large arrays: it should only be used for medium-sized arrays.
If aiming for performance is a must, the following method can be used instead:
/// <summary>
/// Concatenates two or more arrays into a single one.
/// </summary>
public static T[] Concat<T>(params T[][] arrays)
{
// return (from array in arrays from arr in array select arr).ToArray();
var result = new T[arrays.Sum(a => a.Length)];
int offset = 0;
for (int x = 0; x < arrays.Length; x++)
{
arrays[x].CopyTo(result, offset);
offset += arrays[x].Length;
}
return result;
}
Or (for one-liners fans):
int[] z = (from arrays in new[] { a, b, c } from arr in arrays select arr).ToArray();
Although the latter method is much more elegant, the former one is definitely better for performance.
For additional info, please refer to this post on my blog.

public static T[] Concat<T>(this T[] first, params T[][] arrays)
{
int length = first.Length;
foreach (T[] array in arrays)
{
length += array.Length;
}
T[] result = new T[length];
length = first.Length;
Array.Copy(first, 0, result, 0, first.Length);
foreach (T[] array in arrays)
{
Array.Copy(array, 0, result, length, array.Length);
length += array.Length;
}
return result;
}

The most efficient structure in terms of RAM (and CPU) to hold the combined array would be a special class that implements IEnumerable (or if you wish even derives from Array) and links internally to the original arrays to read the values. AFAIK Concat does just that.
In your sample code you could omit the .ToArray() though, which would make it more efficient.

Sorry to revive an old thread, but how about this:
static IEnumerable<T> Merge<T>(params T[][] arrays)
{
var merged = arrays.SelectMany(arr => arr);
foreach (var t in merged)
yield return t;
}
Then in your code:
int[] x={1, 2, 3};
int[] y={4, 5, 6};
var z=Merge(x, y); // 'z' is IEnumerable<T>
var za=z.ToArray(); // 'za' is int[]
Until you call .ToArray(), .ToList(), or .ToDictionary(...), the memory is not allocated, you are free to "build your query" and either call one of those three to execute it or simply go through them all by using foreach (var i in z){...} clause which returns an item at a time from the yield return t; above...
The above function can be made into an extension as follows:
static IEnumerable<T> Merge<T>(this T[] array1, T[] array2)
{
var merged = array1.Concat(array2);
foreach (var t in merged)
yield return t;
}
So in the code, you can do something like:
int[] x1={1, 2, 3};
int[] x2={4, 5, 6};
int[] x3={7, 8};
var z=x1.Merge(x2).Merge(x3); // 'z' is IEnumerable<T>
var za=z.ToArray(); // 'za' is int[]
The rest is the same as before.
One other improvement to this would be changing T[] into IEnumerable<T> (so the params T[][] would become params IEnumerable<T>[]) to make these functions accept more than just arrays.
Hope this helps.

I've found an elegant one line solution using LINQ or Lambda expression, both work the same (LINQ is converted to Lambda when program is compiled). The solution works for any array type and for any number of arrays.
Using LINQ:
public static T[] ConcatArraysLinq<T>(params T[][] arrays)
{
return (from array in arrays
from arr in array
select arr).ToArray();
}
Using Lambda:
public static T[] ConcatArraysLambda<T>(params T[][] arrays)
{
return arrays.SelectMany(array => array.Select(arr => arr)).ToArray();
}
I've provided both for one's preference. Performance wise #Sergey Shteyn's or #deepee1's solutions are a bit faster, Lambda expression being the slowest. Time taken is dependant on type(s) of array elements, but unless there are millions of calls, there is no significant difference between the methods.

You can do it the way you have referred to, or if you want to get really manual about it, you can roll your own loop:
string[] one = new string[] { "a", "b" };
string[] two = new string[] { "c", "d" };
string[] three;
three = new string[one.Length + two.Length];
int idx = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < one.Length; i++)
three[idx++] = one[i];
for (int j = 0; j < two.Length; j++)
three[idx++] = two[j];

What you need to remember is that when using LINQ you are utilizing delayed execution. The other methods described here all work perfectly, but they are executed immediately. Furthermore the Concat() function is probably optimized in ways you can't do yourself (calls to internal API's, OS calls etc.).
Anyway, unless you really need to try and optimize, you're currently on your path to "the root of all evil" ;)

Try the following:
T[] r1 = new T[size1];
T[] r2 = new T[size2];
List<T> targetList = new List<T>(r1);
targetList.Concat(r2);
T[] targetArray = targetList.ToArray();

For int[] what you've done looks good to me. astander's answer would also work well for List<int>.

For smaller arrays <10000 elements:
using System.Linq;
int firstArray = {5,4,2};
int secondArray = {3,2,1};
int[] result = firstArray.ToList().Concat(secondArray.ToList()).toArray();

static class Extensions
{
public static T[] Concat<T>(this T[] array1, params T[] array2) => ConcatArray(array1, array2);
public static T[] ConcatArray<T>(params T[][] arrays)
{
int l, i;
for (l = i = 0; i < arrays.Length; l += arrays[i].Length, i++);
var a = new T[l];
for (l = i = 0; i < arrays.Length; l += arrays[i].Length, i++)
arrays[i].CopyTo(a, l);
return a;
}
}
I think the above solution is more general & lighter than the others I saw here. It is more general because it doesn't limit concatenation for only two arrays and is lighter because it doesn't use LINQ nor List.
Note the solution is concise and the added generality doesn't add significant runtime overhead.

I think a list would be apt for this purpose.
You can create a list like this.
List<int> Items = new List<int>();
Then you can pretty easily just use a for each loop to iterate over any number of arrays and add them to the list.
foreach (int i in nameOfArray)
{
Items.Add(i);
}
If you use a list it would remove the problem of an out of bounds exception. A list can be used for all the same functionality as an array. The only meaningful difference is the lack of a hard limit in the number of items.

int[] scores = { 100, 90, 90, 80, 75, 60 };
int[] alice = { 50, 65, 77, 90, 102 };
int[] scoreBoard = new int[scores.Length + alice.Length];
int j = 0;
for (int i=0;i<(scores.Length+alice.Length);i++) // to combine two arrays
{
if(i<scores.Length)
{
scoreBoard[i] = scores[i];
}
else
{
scoreBoard[i] = alice[j];
j = j + 1;
}
}
for (int l = 0; l < (scores.Length + alice.Length); l++)
{
Console.WriteLine(scoreBoard[l]);
}

var z = x.Concat(y).ToArray();

Reverse an array without using Array.Reverse()

How to reverse an array (in C#) without using Array.Reverse() method?
For example,
int[] arr = {1,3,4,9,8};
// some code here
Console.WriteLine(string.Join(",", arr));
should result in
8,9,4,3,1
I got this as an interview task.

The code to be substituted in place of // some code here in the question is:
for (int i = 0; i < arr.Length / 2; i++)
{
int tmp = arr[i];
arr[i] = arr[arr.Length - i - 1];
arr[arr.Length - i - 1] = tmp;
}
You should iterate only through the first half of the array (arr.Length / 2). If you iterate through the whole array (arr.Length), it will be reversed twice, yielding the same element order as before it started.

Basically, you are asked to reimplement Array.Reverse(Array). If you look at how it is implemented in the framework itself and ignore many technical details around, you’ll find that it just calls its three-parameter version (which reverses specified part of an array) on the whole array.
Array.Reverse(Array,Int32,Int32) is a while-loop that swaps elements and maintains two indexes:
i points to the first element of the reversed part, and
j points to the last element of the reversed part.
Rewritten to be substituted in place of // some code here in the question:
int i = 0;
int j = arr.Length - 1;
while (i < j)
{
var temp = arr[i];
arr[i] = arr[j];
arr[j] = temp;
i++;
j--;
}
This is easier to grasp than the implementation using for-loop, does less arithmetic and elegantly evades the gotcha with double reversion.

That is So Simple Start loop from Array legth and so on watch code and you will get understand :)))
int[] arr = new int[5] { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 };
for (int i = arr.Length-1; i >= 0; i--)
{
Console.WriteLine(arr[i]);
}

int[] arr1 = {1,3,4,9,8};
int[] arr2 = new int[5];
int j = 0;
for(int i = arr1.Length - 1; i >= 0; i--)
{
arr2[j] = arr1[i];
j++;
}

for (int i = 0; i < array.Length - i; i++)
{
var value = array[array.Length - i - 1];
array[array.Length - i - 1] = array[i];
array[i] = value;
}

Well, obviously you can just copy to a new array, in reverse order.
To do the operation "in place", you can work from both ends towards the middle: Load the first and last elements, then store them back, the first into the last location, and the last into the first location. Then do the second and the next-to-last, etc. If you have an even number of elements you do N/2 iterations. If an odd number you do (N-1)/2 iterations and leave the middle element where it was.
There are probably other algorithms that would be marginally faster when considering cache line size and other memory characteristics, but they wouldn't be worth it unless you were in a really performance-critical situation.

// without using Reverse method and without using additional array
// try yield operator starting from the last element
public IEnumerable<int> Reverse (int[] array)
{
for (int i = array.Length - 1; i >= 0; i--) {
yield return array [i];
}
}

char[] strx = { '1','2','3','4','5','6','7','8','9' };
int i = strx.Length;
string ktr ="";
while (i>0)
{
i--;
ktr += strx[i];
if (i==0)
{
i = strx.Length;
while (i > 0)
{
i--;
strx[i] = ktr[i];
}
}
}
int j;
Console.WriteLine("Array strx in reverse order: ");
for (j = 0; j < strx.Length; j++ )
{
Console.Write("{0}", strx[j]);
}

try something like:
var counter = 1;
var newArr = new int[arr.length];
for(int i = 0; i < arr.length; i++)
{
newArr[i] = arr[arr.length - counter];
counter++;
}
I didn't test that but it should be on the right track. Any reason you dont want to use Array.Reverse? Its probably a well-optimized version of the algorithm.

You can do this in many ways, from the most fast to the most stupid like:
int[] arr = new int[] { 1,2,3 };
arr = (from a in arr orderby a descending select a).ToArray();
But I cannot understand why are you pursuing such a futile quest, if that is to impress someone somewhere then use this instead of the for loops :)

I am not good at loops at all. But this is what seems simple to me -
int[] array1 = { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 };
int[] reverseArray = new int[array1.Length];
for (int i = 0; i <= array1.Length - 1; i++)
{
reverseArray[i] = array1[array1.Length - i - 1];
}

This is the dynamic solution for reversing the array of any datatype.Some of the key points in my algorithm is first calculate the half of array length and add check to stop iteration when array indexes have same value.The stage having same indexes depict that it start the reverse operation again.So at this stage break the outer loop by using "goto Statement".
string[] unreversed = {"A","B","C","D","E","F","G","H","I","J","K"};
int q=unreversed.Length;
int t = q / 2;
var temp1 = "A";
for(int i = 0;i<unreversed.Length;i++)
{
q = q - 1;
for(int k=q;k<=q;k++)
{
if (unreversed[k] != unreversed[i] && i!=t)
{
temp1 = unreversed[i];
unreversed[i] = unreversed[k];
unreversed[k] = temp1;
}
else
{
goto printarray;
}
}
}
printarray:
foreach (var k in unreversed)
{
Console.WriteLine(k);
}

//Create temp array with the same size.
int[] arrTemp = new int[arr.Length];
int i = 0;
//Assign last value of arr to first value of arrTemp
for (int j = arr.Length - 1; j >= 0; j--)
{
arrTemp[i] = arr[j];
i++;
}
arr = arrTemp;

I prefer a LINQ expression that uses an index:
using System.Linq;
int[] arr = { 1, 3, 4, 9, 8 };
arr = arr.Select((n, idx) => new {n, idx})
.OrderByDescending(r => r.idx)
.Select(r => r.n).ToArray();

public int[] Reverse(params int[] numbers)
{
for (int i = 0; i < numbers.Length / 2; i++)
{
int tmp = numbers[i];
numbers[i] = numbers[numbers.Length - i - 1];
numbers[numbers.Length - i - 1] = tmp;
}
return numbers;
}

Here is an example of reversing an array using the Length() function and a simple for loop.
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Linq;
using System.Text.RegularExpressions;
namespace Rextester
{
public class Program
{
public static void Main(string[] args)
{
int[] arr = new int[] {4, 8, 2, 9, 5, 5};
int length = arr.Length;
for(int i = 0; i < arr.Length; i++)
{
Console.WriteLine(arr[length-1] + " ");
length = length - 1;
}
}
}
}

You can try this, Without using additional temporary variable:
for(int i = left; i < right/2; i++)
{
(nums[i], nums[right - i - 1]) = (nums[right - i - 1], nums[i]);
}

Stack stack=new Stack;
var newArr = new int[arr.length];
for(int i = 0; i < arr.length; i++)
{
stack.push(arrr[i])
}
for(int i = 0; i < arr.length; i++)
{
newarr[i]= stack.pop()
}

int[] array1 = { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 };
for (int x = 4; x < array1.Length && x != -1; x--)
{
int tmp;
tmp=array1[x];
Console.Write("{0} ", tmp);
}
That's my solution for this.

It is better to use Array.Reverse method
int[] arr ={1,3,4,9,8};
Array.Reverse(arr);
You can read more description Here

int[] triangles = new int[]{0,1,2,3}
for (int j = triangles.Length; j > (triangles.Length / 2); j--)
{
var temp = triangles[j - 1];
triangles[j - 1] = triangles[triangles.Length - j];
triangles[triangles.Length - j] = temp;
}
I would prefer to reverse an array from the end of it. My solution's above.

Console.WriteLine("Enter a string");
string input = Console.ReadLine();
string s = "";
for (int i = input.Length-1 ; i >= 0; i--)
{
s = s + input[i];
}
Console.WriteLine(s);

function printReverse(arr) {
for(var i = arr.length - 1; i >= 0; i--){
console.log(arr[i]);
}
}
printReverse([1, 2, 3, 6, 47, 88]);
function printReverse(arr) {
for (var i = arr.length - 1; i >= 0; i--) {
console.log(arr[i]);
}
}
printReverse([1, 2, 3, 6, 47, 88])

Can do this with single for loop..
int[] arr ={1,3,4,9,8};
for(int i=arr.length-1;i>=0;i--)
{
Console.Write(arr[i]);
}

You can just loop backwards:
int[] arr= new int[] {1, 2, 3, 4, 6};
for(int i=arr.Length-1 ;i>= 0 ; i--)
{
Console.WriteLine(arr[i].ToString());
}

C# quickest way to shift array

How can I quickly shift all the items in an array one to the left, padding the end with null?
For example, [0,1,2,3,4,5,6] would become [1,2,3,4,5,6,null]
Edit: I said quickly but I guess I meant efficiently. I need to do this without creating a List or some other data structure. This is something I need to do several hundred thousand times in as short amount of time as possible.

Here's my test harness...
var source = Enumerable.Range(1, 100).Cast<int?>().ToArray();
var destination = new int?[source.Length];
var s = new Stopwatch();
s.Start();
for (int i = 0; i < 1000000;i++)
{
Array.Copy(source, 1, destination, 0, source.Length - 1);
}
s.Stop();
Console.WriteLine(s.Elapsed);
Here are the performance results for 1 million iterations of each solution (8 Core Intel Xeon E5450 # 3.00GHz)
100 elements 10000 elements
For Loop 0.390s 31.839s
Array.Copy() 0.177s 12.496s
Aaron 1 3.789s 84.082s
Array.ConstrainedCopy() 0.197s 17.658s
Make the choice for yourself :)

The quickest way to do this is to use Array.Copy, which in the final implementation uses a bulk memory transfer operation (similar to memcpy):
var oldArray = new int?[] { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 };
var newArray = new int?[oldArray.Length];
Array.Copy(oldArray, 1, newArray, 0, oldArray.Length - 1);
// newArray is now { 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, null }
Edited: according to the documentation:
If sourceArray and destinationArray overlap, this method behaves as if the original values of sourceArray were preserved in a temporary location before destinationArray is overwritten.
So if you don't want to allocate a new array, you can pass in the original array for both source and destination--although I imagine the tradeoff will be a somewhat slower performance since the values go through a temporary holding position.
I suppose, as in any investigation of this kind, you should do some quick benchmarking.

Here is my solution, similar to Task's in that it is a simple Array wrapper and that it takes O(1) time to shift the array to the left.
public class ShiftyArray<T>
{
private readonly T[] array;
private int front;
public ShiftyArray(T[] array)
{
this.array = array;
front = 0;
}
public void ShiftLeft()
{
array[front++] = default(T);
if(front > array.Length - 1)
{
front = 0;
}
}
public void ShiftLeft(int count)
{
for(int i = 0; i < count; i++)
{
ShiftLeft();
}
}
public T this[int index]
{
get
{
if(index > array.Length - 1)
{
throw new IndexOutOfRangeException();
}
return array[(front + index) % array.Length];
}
}
public int Length { get { return array.Length; } }
}
Running it through Jason Punyon's test code...
int?[] intData = Enumerable.Range(1, 100).Cast<int?>().ToArray();
ShiftyArray<int?> array = new ShiftyArray<int?>(intData);
Stopwatch watch = new Stopwatch();
watch.Start();
for(int i = 0; i < 1000000; i++)
{
array.ShiftLeft();
}
watch.Stop();
Console.WriteLine(watch.ElapsedMilliseconds);
Takes ~29ms, regardless of the array size.

Use the Array.Copy() method as in
int?[] myArray = new int?[]{0,1,2,3,4};
Array.Copy(myArray, 1, myArray, 0, myArray.Length - 1);
myArray[myArray.Length - 1] = null
The Array.Copy is probably the way, Microsoft wanted us to copy array elements...

Couldn't you use a System.Collections.Generic.Queue instead of an array ?
I feel like you need to perform actions on your value the discard it, thus using a queue seems to be more appropriate :
// dummy initialization
System.Collections.Generic.Queue<int> queue = new Queue<int>();
for (int i = 0; i < 7; ++i ) { queue.Enqueue(i); }// add each element at the end of the container
// working thread
if (queue.Count > 0)
doSomething(queue.Dequeue());// removes the last element of the container and calls doSomething on it

For any pour soul finding this thread and about to implement one of the highly rated answers. All of them are trash, I'm not sure why that is. Maybe Dested asked for a new array implementation at first or something that has now been removed from the question. Well if you simply want to shift the array and don't need a new one, see an answer like tdaines's answer. And read up on things like the Circular Buffer / Ring Buffer : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_buffer. No moving of the actual data is necessary. The performance of shifting an array should not be tied to the size of the array.

If it absolutely has to be in an array, then I would recommend the most obvious code possible.
for (int index = startIndex; index + 1 < values.Length; index++)
values[index] = values[index + 1];
values[values.Length - 1] = null;
This gives the optimizer the most opportunities to find the best way on whatever target platform the program is installed on.
EDIT:
I just borrowed Jason Punyon's test code, and I'm afraid he's right. Array.Copy wins!
var source = Enumerable.Range(1, 100).Cast<int?>().ToArray();
int indexToRemove = 4;
var s = new Stopwatch();
s.Start();
for (int i = 0; i < 1000000; i++)
{
Array.Copy(source, indexToRemove + 1, source, indexToRemove, source.Length - indexToRemove - 1);
//for (int index = indexToRemove; index + 1 < source.Length; index++)
// source[index] = source[index + 1];
}
s.Stop();
Console.WriteLine(s.Elapsed);
Array.Copy takes between 103 and 150 ms on my machine.
for loop takes between 269 and 338 ms on my machine.

Can't you
allocate the array with an extra 1000 elements
have an integer variable int base = 0
instead of accessing a[i] access a[base+i]
to do your shift, just say base++
Then after you've done this 1000 times, copy it down and start over.
That way, you only do the copy once per 1000 shifts.
Old joke:
Q: How many IBM 360s does it take to shift a register by 1 bit?
A: 33. 32 to hold the bits in place, and 1 to move the register. (or some such...)

You can use the same array as source and destination for fast in-place copy:
static void Main(string[] args)
{
int[] array = {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7};
Array.ConstrainedCopy(array, 1, array, 0, array.Length - 1);
array[array.Length - 1] = 0;
}

You might do it like this:
var items = new int?[] { 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 }; // Your array
var itemList = new List<int?>(items); // Put the items in a List<>
itemList.RemoveAt(1); // Remove the item at index 1
itemList.Add(null); // Add a null to the end of the list
items = itemList.ToArray(); // Turn the list back into an array
Of course, it would be more efficient to get rid of the array entirely and just use a List<>. You could then forget the first line and last line and do it like this:
var itemList = new List<int?> { 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 };
itemList.RemoveAt(1); // Remove the item at index 1
itemList.Add(null); // Add a null to the end of the list

The best and most efficient method I believe is using Buffer.BlockCopy function.
You will set both source and destination to your array, the offset of the source is 1. Depending on your array type (I assume it is int), 1 int = 4 bytes, so you must pass in 4 as the second parameter of this function. Note that the offset is byte offset.
So it looks like this:
int bytes2copy = yourArray.length - 4;
Buffer.BlockCopy(yourArray, 4, yourArray, 0, bytes2copy);
yourArray[yourArray.length-1] = null;

Try this! using Linq. No need of second Array.
var i_array = new int?[] {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 };
i_array = i_array.Select((v, k) => new { v = v, k = k }).
Where(i => i.k > 0).Select(i => i.v).ToArray();
Array.Resize(ref i_array, i_array.Length + 1);
Output:
[0,1,2,3,4,5,6] would become [1,2,3,4,5,6,null]

If you own the memory you could consider using Unsafe Code and good old fashioned pointers.
Make yourself a memory stream and lock it down or use Marshal.AllocHGlobal
Construct all your arrays in it with a little bit of padding at the beginning and end.
increment or decrement all of the array pointers at once. You'll still need to loop back and set your nulls.
If you need to selectively increment or decrement the arrays you would have to add padding between them.
Arrays are incredibly low level data structures, if you treat them in a low level way you can get huge performance out of them.
A baytrail doing this could outperform Jason's with all its copying 8 Core Intel Xeon E5450 # 3.00GHz

Not tested this code, but it should shifts all the values to right by one. Note that the last three lines of code is all you require to efficiently shift the array.
public class Shift : MonoBehaviour {
//Initialize Array
public int[] queue;
void Start () {
//Create Array Rows
queue = new int[5];
//Set Values to 1,2,3,4,5
for (int i=0; i<5;i++)
{
queue[i] = i + 1;
}
//Get the integer at the first index
int prev = queue[0];
//Copy the array to the new array.
System.Array.Copy(queue, 1, queue, 0, queue.Length - 1);
//Set the last shifted value to the previously first value.
queue[queue.Length - 1] = prev;

Implementation with Extension methods passing shifting direction as Enum.
"for" statements and indexers only (don't use Array.Copy method).
using System;
namespace ShiftArrayElements
{
public static class EnumShifter
{
public static int[] Shift(int[] source, Direction[] directions)
{
for (var i = 0; i < directions.Length; i++)
{
var direction = directions[i];
if (direction == Direction.Left)
{
source.LeftShift();
}
else if (direction == Direction.Right)
{
source.RightShift();
}
else
{
throw new InvalidOperationException("Direction is invalid");
}
}
return source;
}
public static void LeftShift(this int[] source)
{
var lastIndex = source?.Length - 1 ?? 0;
var temp = source[0];
for (int j = 0; j + 1 < source.Length; j++)
{
source[j] = source[j + 1];
}
source[lastIndex] = temp;
}
public static void RightShift(this int[] source)
{
var lastIndex = source?.Length - 1 ?? 0;
var temp = source[lastIndex];
for (int j = lastIndex; j > 0; j--)
{
source[j] = source[j - 1];
}
source[0] = temp;
}
}
}

Array copying is an O(n) operation and creates a new array.
While array copying can certainly be done quickly and efficiently, the problem you've stated can actually be solved in an entirely different way without (as you've requested) creating a new array/data structure and only creating one small wrapping object instance per array:
using System;
using System.Text;
public class ArrayReindexer
{
private Array reindexed;
private int location, offset;
public ArrayReindexer( Array source )
{
reindexed = source;
}
public object this[int index]
{
get
{
if (offset > 0 && index >= location)
{
int adjustedIndex = index + offset;
return adjustedIndex >= reindexed.Length ? "null" : reindexed.GetValue( adjustedIndex );
}
return reindexed.GetValue( index );
}
}
public void Reindex( int position, int shiftAmount )
{
location = position;
offset = shiftAmount;
}
public override string ToString()
{
StringBuilder output = new StringBuilder( "[ " );
for (int i = 0; i < reindexed.Length; ++i)
{
output.Append( this[i] );
if (i == reindexed.Length - 1)
{
output.Append( " ]" );
}
else
{
output.Append( ", " );
}
}
return output.ToString();
}
}
By wrapping and controlling access to the array in this manner, we can now demonstrate how the problem was solved with an O(1) method call...
ArrayReindexer original = new ArrayReindexer( SourceArray );
Console.WriteLine( " Base array: {0}", original.ToString() );
ArrayReindexer reindexed = new ArrayReindexer( SourceArray );
reindexed.Reindex( 1, 1 );
Console.WriteLine( "Shifted array: {0}", reindexed.ToString() );
Will produce the output:
Base array: [ 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ]
Shifted array: [ 0, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, null ]
I'm willing to bet that there will be a reason that such a solution won't work for you, but I believe this does match your initial stated requirements. 8 )
It's often helpful to think about all the different kinds of solutions to a problem before implementing a specific one, and perhaps that might be the most important thing that this example can demonstrate.
Hope this helps!

Incorrect and slightly amusing answer (thanks, i'll be here all night !)
int?[] test = new int?[] {0,1,2,3,4,5,6 };
int?[] t = new int?[test.Length];
t = test.Skip(1).ToArray();
t[t.Length - 1] = null;
In the spirit of still using Skip (dont ask me, i know worst usage of LINQ extension methods ever), the only way I thought of rewriting it would be
int?[] test = new int?[] { 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 };
int?[] t = new int?[test.Length];
Array.Copy(test.Skip(1).ToArray(), t, t.Length - 1);
But it's in NO WAY faster than the other options.

I know this is an old question but coming from Google there was no simple example so thanks to this is the easiest way to reorder a list, and you don't have to supply the type it will work it out at runtime,
private static List<T> reorderList<T>(List<T> list){
List<T> newList = new List<T>();
list.ForEach(delegate(T item)
{
newList.Add(item);
});
return newList;
}

using System;
using System.Threading;
namespace ShiftMatrix
{
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
MatrixOperation objMatrixOperation = new MatrixOperation();
//Create a matrix
int[,] mat = new int[,]
{
{1, 2},
{3,4 },
{5, 6},
{7,8},
{8,9},
};
int type = 2;
int counter = 0;
if (type == 1)
{
counter = mat.GetLength(0);
}
else
{
counter = mat.GetLength(1);
}
while (true)
{
for (int i = 0; i < counter; i++)
{
ShowMatrix(objMatrixOperation.ShiftMatrix(mat, i, type));
Thread.Sleep(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(2));
}
}
}
public static void ShowMatrix(int[,] matrix)
{
int rows = matrix.GetLength(0);
int columns = matrix.GetLength(1);
for (int k = 0; k < rows; k++)
{
for (int l = 0; l < columns; l++)
{
Console.Write(matrix[k, l] + " ");
}
Console.WriteLine();
}
}
}
class MatrixOperation
{
public int[,] ShiftMatrix(int[,] origanalMatrix, int shift, int type)
{
int rows = origanalMatrix.GetLength(0);
int cols = origanalMatrix.GetLength(1);
int[,] _tmpMatrix = new int[rows, cols];
if (type == 2)
{
for (int x1 = 0; x1 < rows; x1++)
{
int y2 = 0;
for (int y1 = shift; y2 < cols - shift; y1++, y2++)
{
_tmpMatrix[x1, y2] = origanalMatrix[x1, y1];
}
y2--;
for (int y1 = 0; y1 < shift; y1++, y2++)
{
_tmpMatrix[x1, y2] = origanalMatrix[x1, y1];
}
}
}
else
{
int x2 = 0;
for (int x1 = shift; x2 < rows - shift; x1++, x2++)
{
for (int y1 = 0; y1 < cols; y1++)
{
_tmpMatrix[x2, y1] = origanalMatrix[x1, y1];
}
}
x2--;
for (int x1 = 0; x1 < shift; x1++, x2++)
{
for (int y1 = 0; y1 < cols; y1++)
{
_tmpMatrix[x2, y1] = origanalMatrix[x1, y1];
}
}
}
return _tmpMatrix;
}
}
}

See C# code below to remove space from string. That shift character in array. Performance is O(n). No other array is used. So no extra memory either.
static void Main(string[] args)
{
string strIn = System.Console.ReadLine();
char[] chraryIn = strIn.ToCharArray();
int iShift = 0;
char chrTemp;
for (int i = 0; i < chraryIn.Length; ++i)
{
if (i > 0)
{
chrTemp = chraryIn[i];
chraryIn[i - iShift] = chrTemp;
chraryIn[i] = chraryIn[i - iShift];
}
if (chraryIn[i] == ' ') iShift++;
if (i >= chraryIn.Length - 1 - iShift) chraryIn[i] = ' ';
}
System.Console.WriteLine(new string(chraryIn));
System.Console.Read();
}

a is array of ints & d is number of times array has to shift left.
static int[] rotLeft(int[] a, int d)
{
var innerLoop = a.Length - 1;
for(var loop=0; loop < d; loop++)
{
var res = a[innerLoop];
for (var i= innerLoop; i>=0; i--)
{
var tempI = i-1;
if (tempI < 0)
{
tempI = innerLoop;
}
var yolo = a[tempI];
a[tempI] = res;
res = yolo;
}
}
return a;
}

Simple way to do it when you need to resize the same array.
var nLength = args.Length - 1;
Array.Copy(args, 1, args, 0, nLength);
Array.Resize(ref args, nLength);

Categories