This one should not be too hard but my mind seems to be having a stack overflow (huehue). I have a series of Lists and I want to find all permutations they can be ordered in. All of the lists have different lengths.
For example:
List 1: 1
List 2: 1, 2
All permutations would be:
1, 1
1, 2
In my case I don't switch the numbers around. (For example 2, 1)
What is the easiest way to write this?
I can't say if the following is the easiest way, but IMO it's the most efficient way. It's basically a generalized version of the my answer to the Looking at each combination in jagged array:
public static class Algorithms
{
public static IEnumerable<T[]> GenerateCombinations<T>(this IReadOnlyList<IReadOnlyList<T>> input)
{
var result = new T[input.Count];
var indices = new int[input.Count];
for (int pos = 0, index = 0; ;)
{
for (; pos < result.Length; pos++, index = 0)
{
indices[pos] = index;
result[pos] = input[pos][index];
}
yield return result;
do
{
if (pos == 0) yield break;
index = indices[--pos] + 1;
}
while (index >= input[pos].Count);
}
}
}
You can see the explanation in the linked answer (shortly it's emulating nested loops). Also since for performace reasons it yields the internal buffer w/o cloning it, you need to clone it if you want store the result for later processing.
Sample usage:
var list1 = new List<int> { 1 };
var list2 = new List<int> { 1, 2 };
var lists = new[] { list1, list2 };
// Non caching usage
foreach (var combination in lists.GenerateCombinations())
{
// do something with the combination
}
// Caching usage
var combinations = lists.GenerateCombinations().Select(c => c.ToList()).ToList();
UPDATE: The GenerateCombinations is a standard C# iterator method, and the implementation basically emulates N nested loops (where N is the input.Count) like this (in pseudo code):
for (int i0 = 0; i0 < input[0].Count; i0++)
for (int i1 = 0; i1 < input[1].Count; i1++)
for (int i2 = 0; i2 < input[2].Count; i2++)
...
for (int iN-1 = 0; iN-1 < input[N-1].Count; iN-1++)
yield { input[0][i0], input[1][i1], input[2][i2], ..., input[N-1][iN-1] }
or showing it differently:
for (indices[0] = 0; indices[0] < input[0].Count; indices[0]++)
{
result[0] = input[0][indices[0]];
for (indices[1] = 0; indices[1] < input[1].Count; indices[1]++)
{
result[1] = input[1][indices[1]];
// ...
for (indices[N-1] = 0; indices[N-1] < input[N-1].Count; indices[N-1]++)
{
result[N-1] = input[N-1][indices[N-1]];
yield return result;
}
}
}
Nested loops:
List<int> listA = (whatever), listB = (whatever);
var answers = new List<Tuple<int,int>>;
for(int a in listA)
for(int b in listB)
answers.add(Tuple.create(a,b));
// do whatever with answers
Try this:
Func<IEnumerable<string>, IEnumerable<string>> combine = null;
combine = xs =>
xs.Skip(1).Any()
? xs.First().SelectMany(x => combine(xs.Skip(1)), (x, y) => String.Format("{0}{1}", x, y))
: xs.First().Select(x => x.ToString());
var strings = new [] { "AB", "12", "$%" };
foreach (var x in combine(strings))
{
Console.WriteLine(x);
}
That gives me:
A1$
A1%
A2$
A2%
B1$
B1%
B2$
B2%
I made the following IEnumerable<IEnumerable<TValue>> class to solve this problem which allows use of generic IEnumerable's and whose enumerator returns all permutations of the values, one from each inner list. It can be conventiently used directly in a foreach loop.
It's a variant of Michael Liu's answer to IEnumerable and Recursion using yield return
I've modified it to return lists with the permutations instead of the single values.
using System;
using System.Collections;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Linq;
namespace Permutation
{
public class ListOfListsPermuter<TValue> : IEnumerable<IEnumerable<TValue>>
{
private int count;
private IEnumerable<TValue>[] listOfLists;
public ListOfListsPermuter(IEnumerable<IEnumerable<TValue>> listOfLists_)
{
if (object.ReferenceEquals(listOfLists_, null))
{
throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(listOfLists_));
}
listOfLists =listOfLists_.ToArray();
count = listOfLists.Count();
for (int i = 0; i < count; i++)
{
if (object.ReferenceEquals(listOfLists[i], null))
{
throw new NullReferenceException(string.Format("{0}[{1}] is null.", nameof(listOfLists_), i));
}
}
}
// A variant of Michael Liu's answer in StackOverflow
// https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2055927/ienumerable-and-recursion-using-yield-return
public IEnumerator<IEnumerable<TValue>> GetEnumerator()
{
TValue[] currentList = new TValue[count];
int level = 0;
var enumerators = new Stack<IEnumerator<TValue>>();
IEnumerator<TValue> enumerator = listOfLists[level].GetEnumerator();
try
{
while (true)
{
if (enumerator.MoveNext())
{
currentList[level] = enumerator.Current;
level++;
if (level >= count)
{
level--;
yield return currentList;
}
else
{
enumerators.Push(enumerator);
enumerator = listOfLists[level].GetEnumerator();
}
}
else
{
if (level == 0)
{
yield break;
}
else
{
enumerator.Dispose();
enumerator = enumerators.Pop();
level--;
}
}
}
}
finally
{
// Clean up in case of an exception.
enumerator?.Dispose();
while (enumerators.Count > 0)
{
enumerator = enumerators.Pop();
enumerator.Dispose();
}
}
}
IEnumerator IEnumerable.GetEnumerator()
{
return GetEnumerator();
}
}
}
You can use it directly in a foreach like this:
public static void Main(string[] args)
{
var listOfLists = new List<List<string>>()
{
{ new List<string>() { "A", "B" } },
{ new List<string>() { "C", "D" } }
};
var permuter = new ListOfListsPermuter<string>(listOfLists);
foreach (IEnumerable<string> item in permuter)
{
Console.WriteLine("{ \"" + string.Join("\", \"", item) + "\" }");
}
}
The output:
{ "A", "C" }
{ "A", "D" }
{ "B", "C" }
{ "B", "D" }
Related
Consider for example a List of objects:
List<MyClass> myList;
I have a method which passes two references to items within the list. I want to iterate all items within the given ones (note: I don't know which of the two items comes first within the list):
privat void MyFunction(MyClass listItem, MyClass anotherListItem)
{
foreach(var item in ????)
{
// do something
}
}
Currently I have solved this usecase as follows:
int listItemIdx = myList.IndexOf(listItem);
int anotherListItemIdx = myList.IndexOf(anotherListItem);
if(listItemIdx < anotherListItemIdx )
{
for(int i = listItemIdx ; i <= anotherListItemIdx ; i++)
{
// do stuff
}
}
else
{
for (int i = anotherListItemIdx ; i < listItemIdx ; i++)
{
// do stuff
}
}
I was wondering if there is a more elegant, efficient or built-in solution to this problem?
If you are looking for performance (IndexOf twice can be a bit slow) and generalization
(when myList is not necessary List<T> but IEnumerable<T> only) you can put it as
bool proceed = false;
MyClass lastItem = default;
foreach (var item in myList) {
if (!proceed) {
if (proceed = item == listItem)
lastItem = anotherListItem;
else if (proceed = item == anotherListItem)
lastItem = listItem;
}
if (proceed) {
//TODO: do staff here
if (item == lastItem)
break;
}
}
You iterate three times over the list: Two times in IndexOf, and then once again in your loop. You can make your code more efficient with this code, which iterates only once over the list.
privat void MyFunction(MyClass listItem, MyClass anotherListItem)
{
bool betweenTwoItems = false;
foreach(var item in myList)
{
if(item == listItem || item == anotherListItem)
{
betweenTwoItems = !betweenTwoItems;
if(!betweenTwoItems)
{
break;
}
}
if(betweenTwoItems )
{
// do stuff
}
}
}
We set a bool variable if we are between the two items. In the beginning, it is false. The we iterate over the list and check whether the current item is one of the two method parameters. If this is the case, we invert the value of the bool. If after the inversion of the bool the value is false, we can leave the list. After that, we check whether the bool is true. If so, we can do stuff.
Online demo: https://dotnetfiddle.net/xYcr7V
More generic version of the same idea. So this can be created as extension method for IEnumerable<,>
public static IEnumerable<T> RangeOf<T>(this IEnumerable<T> elements, T el1, T el2,
IEqualityComparer<T> comparer = null)
{
comparer ??= EqualityComparer<T>.Default;
var hasStarted = false;
var end = default;
foreach (T el in elements)
{
if (!hasStarted)
{
hasStarted = comparer.Equals(el, el1) || comparer.Equals(el, el2);
end = comparer.Equals(el, el1) ? el2 : el1;
}
if (hasStarted)
yield return el;
if (comparer.Equals(el, end))
yield break;
}
}
and version with the while loop supporting ranges from el to el. For example for [5, 0, 1, 2, 0, 6] the range [0, 0] will be [0, 1, 2, 0]:
public static IEnumerable<T> RangeOf<T>(this IEnumerable<T> elements, T el1, T el2,
IEqualityComparer<T> comparer = null)
{
comparer ??= EqualityComparer<T>.Default;
var hasStarted = false;
var end = default;
var it = elements.GetEnumerator();
while (!hasStarted && it.MoveNext())
{
T el = it.Current;
hasStarted = comparer.Equals(el , el1) || comparer.Equals(el , el2);
end = comparer.Equals(it.Current, el1) ? el2 : el1;
}
if (hasStarted)
yield return it.Current;
while (it.MoveNext())
{
yield return it.Current;
if (comparer.Equals(it.Current, end))
yield break;
}
}
both can be used like this
foreach (var el in list.RangeOf(listItem, anotherListItem))
// Do with el whatever you want to do
Is the list sorted? The you can use that fact to realize which item must be first. Nevertheless you can do with one for-loop, if you prefer:
private static void MyFunction(string item1, string item2)
{
List<string> input = new() {"A", "B", "C", "D", "E"};
int index1 = input.IndexOf(item1);
int index2 = input.IndexOf(item2);
int beginIndex = Math.Min(index1, index2);
int count = Math.Abs(index1 - index2) + 1;
foreach (string item in input.GetRange(beginIndex, count))
{
Console.Write(item);
}
}
Your existing solution can be improved:
int listItemIdx = myList.IndexOf(listItem);
int anotherListItemIdx = myList.IndexOf(anotherListItem);
int startIdx = Math.Min(listItemIdx, anotherListItemIdx);
int endIdx = Math.Max(listItemIdx, anotherListItemIdx);
for(int i = startIdx ; i <= endIdx ; i++)
{
// do stuff
}
Thus, the code duplication disappears and only a minor refactoring is required.
To create a range-loop version, you can create a subset using GetRange(), something like:
int listItemIdx = myList.IndexOf(listItem);
int anotherListItemIdx = myList.IndexOf(anotherListItem);
int startIdx = Math.Min(listItemIdx, anotherListItemIdx);
int endIdx = Math.Max(listItemIdx, anotherListItemIdx);
var subset = myList.GetRange(startIdx, endIdx - startIdx);
foreach(var item in subset)
{
// do stuff
}
Thus, filtering the list and processing the list can now be separated.
Working on a leetcode.com problem I tried the following approach with included the correct results with one duplicate. The code is supposed to find all possibilities of 3 numbers that equal zero without any duplicates.
I am looking for dupes in a list of lists using this if statement:
if(!returnList.Where(x=>x.Intersect(fullResult).Count()==3).Any())
This filters dupes in all but one case. Does anyone know why or perhaps a better way to eliminate dupes from a list of lists?
it will consistently not filter -1, -1, 2 which is a valid set but returned 2 times.
Paste into a console app to recreate.
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var output = ThreeSum(new int[] { -1, 0, 1, 2, -1, -4 });
foreach(var outie in output)
Console.WriteLine(String.Format("{0}, {1}, {2}", outie[0], outie[1], outie[2]));
Console.Read();
}
static public IList<IList<int>> ThreeSum(int[] nums)
{
List<int> lookup = new List<int>();
foreach (int i in nums)
{
lookup.Add(i);
}
IList<IList<int>> returnList = new List<IList<int>>();
for (var i = 0; i < nums.Count(); i++)
{
var result = TwoSum(i, lookup);
if (result != null)
{
var fullResult = new List<int>() { nums[i], nums[result[0]], nums[result[1]] };
if(!returnList.Where(x=>x.Intersect(fullResult).Count()==3).Any())
{
returnList.Add(fullResult);
}
}
}
return returnList;
}
static private int[] TwoSum(int thirdnumIndex, List<int> nums)
{
var target = nums[thirdnumIndex];
for (var i = 0; i < nums.Count(); i++)
{
var comp = (target + nums[i]) * -1;
if (nums.Contains(comp))
{
var indexOfComp = nums.IndexOf(comp);
if (indexOfComp == i || indexOfComp == thirdnumIndex)
{
return null;
}
return new int[] { i, indexOfComp };
}
}
return null;
}
}
Using Sort and SequenceEqual should work
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Linq;
public class Program
{
public static void Main(string[] args)
{
var output = ThreeSum(new int[] { -1, 0, 1, 2, -1, -4 });
foreach (var outie in output)
{
Console.WriteLine($"{outie[0]}, {outie[1]}, {outie[2]}");
}
Console.Read();
}
private static IList<IList<int>> ThreeSum(int[] nums)
{
var lookup = new List<int>(nums);
var returnList = new List<IList<int>>();
for (var i = 0; i < nums.Length; i++)
{
var result = TwoSum(i, lookup);
if (result != null)
{
var fullResult = new List<int> { nums[i], nums[result[0]], nums[result[1]] };
fullResult.Sort();
if (!returnList.Any(b => b.SequenceEqual(fullResult)))
{
returnList.Add(fullResult);
}
}
}
return returnList;
}
private static int[] TwoSum(int thirdnumIndex, List<int> nums)
{
var target = nums[thirdnumIndex];
for (var i = 0; i < nums.Count; i++)
{
var comp = (target + nums[i]) * -1;
if (nums.Contains(comp))
{
var indexOfComp = nums.IndexOf(comp);
if (indexOfComp == i || indexOfComp == thirdnumIndex)
{
return null;
}
return new[] { i, indexOfComp };
}
}
return null;
}
}
I Have An Array,for example
string[] stArr= new string[5] { "1#3", "19#24", "10#12", "13#18", "20#21" };
i want to sort this array on
3-1=2;
24-19=5;
12-10=2;
18-13=5;
21-20=1;
and the sorting result should be like
string[] stArr= new string[5] { "20#21", "1#3", "10#12", "13#18", "20#21" };
I have to find the solution for all possible cases.
1>length of the array is not fixed(element in the array)
2>y always greater than x e.g x#y
3> i can not use list
You can use LINQ:
var sorted = stArr.OrderBy(s => s.Split('#')
.Select(n => Int32.Parse(n))
.Reverse()
.Aggregate((first,second) => first - second));
For Your Case:
stArr = stArr.OrderBy(s => s.Split('#')
.Select(n => Int32.Parse(n))
.Reverse()
.Aggregate((first,second) => first - second)).ToArray();
try this
string[] stArr = new string[5] { "1#3", "19#24", "10#12", "13#18", "20#21" };
Array.Sort(stArr, new Comparison<string>(compare));
int compare(string z, string t)
{
var xarr = z.Split('#');
var yarr = t.Split('#');
var x1 = int.Parse(xarr[0]);
var y1 = int.Parse(xarr[1]);
var x2 = int.Parse(yarr[0]);
var y2 = int.Parse(yarr[1]);
return (y1 - x1).CompareTo(y2 - x2);
}
Solving this problem is identical to solving any other sorting problem where the order is to be specified by your code - you have to write a custom comparison method, and pass it to the built-in sorter.
In your situation, it means writing something like this:
private static int FindDiff(string s) {
// Split the string at #
// Parse both sides as int
// return rightSide-leftSide
}
private static int CompareDiff(string a, string b) {
return FindDiff(a).CompareTo(FindDiff(b));
}
public static void Main() {
... // Prepare your array
string[] stArr = ...
Array.Sort(stArr, CompareDiff);
}
This approach uses Array.Sort overload with the Comparison<T> delegate implemented in the CompareDiff method. The heart of the solution is the FindDiff method, which takes a string, and produces a numeric value which must be used for comparison.
you can try the following ( using traditional way)
public class Program
{
public static void Main()
{
string[] strArr= new string[5] { "1#3", "19#24", "10#12", "13#18", "20#21" };
var list = new List<Item>();
foreach(var item in strArr){
list.Add(new Item(item));
}
strArr = list.OrderBy(t=>t.Sort).Select(t=>t.Value).ToArray();
foreach(var item in strArr)
Console.WriteLine(item);
}
}
public class Item
{
public Item(string str)
{
var split = str.Split('#');
A = Convert.ToInt32(split[0]);
B = Convert.ToInt32(split[1]);
}
public int A{get; set;}
public int B{get; set;}
public int Sort { get { return Math.Abs(B - A);}}
public string Value { get { return string.Format("{0}#{1}",B,A); }}
}
here a working demo
hope it will help you
Without LINQ and Lists :) Old School.
static void Sort(string [] strArray)
{
try
{
string[] order = new string[strArray.Length];
string[] sortedarray = new string[strArray.Length];
for (int i = 0; i < strArray.Length; i++)
{
string[] values = strArray[i].ToString().Split('#');
int index=int.Parse(values[1].ToString()) - int.Parse(values[0].ToString());
order[i] = strArray[i].ToString() + "," + index;
}
for (int i = 0; i < order.Length; i++)
{
string[] values2 = order[i].ToString().Split(',');
if (sortedarray[int.Parse(values2[1].ToString())-1] == null)
{
sortedarray[int.Parse(values2[1].ToString())-1] = values2[0].ToString();
}
else
{
if ((int.Parse(values2[1].ToString())) >= sortedarray.Length)
{
sortedarray[(int.Parse(values2[1].ToString())-1) - 1] = values2[0].ToString();
}
else if ((int.Parse(values2[1].ToString())) < sortedarray.Length)
{
sortedarray[(int.Parse(values2[1].ToString())-1) + 1] = values2[0].ToString();
}
}
}
for (int i = 0; i < sortedarray.Length; i++)
{
Console.WriteLine(sortedarray[i]);
}
Console.Read();
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
throw;
}
finally
{
}
if I have two array
A:[A,B]
B:[1,2,3]
how can I create a string List like [A_1, A_2, A_3, B_1, B_2, B_3]
the number of array is not regular, it's maybe have 3 more
A:[A,B]
B:[1,2,3]
C:[w,x,y,z]
D:[m,n]
E:[p,q,r]
can I use recursive to solve it?
So, we define a functions Mergethat takes lists of list of stings and merges them into the string enumerable you want
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var a = new[] { "A", "B" };
var b = new[] { "1", "2", "3" };
var c = new[] { "x", "y", "z", "w" };
var result = Merge(a, b, c);
foreach (var r in result)
{
Console.WriteLine(r);
}
}
public static IList<string> Merge(params IEnumerable<string>[] lists)
{
return Merge((IEnumerable<IEnumerable<string>>) lists);
}
public static IList<string> Merge(IEnumerable<IEnumerable<string>> lists)
{
var retval = new List<string>();
var first = lists.FirstOrDefault();
if (first != null)
{
var result = Merge(lists.Skip(1));
if (result.Count > 0)
{
foreach (var x in first)
{
retval.AddRange(result.Select(y => string.Format("{0}_{1}", x, y)));
}
}
else
{
retval.AddRange(first);
}
}
return retval;
}
we can also improve this, if you use Lists as inputs
public static IList<string> Merge(params IList<string>[] lists)
{
return Merge((IList<IList<string>>) lists);
}
public static IList<string> Merge(IList<IList<string>> lists, int offset = 0)
{
if (offset >= lists.Count)
return new List<string>();
var current = lists[offset];
if (offset + 1 == lists.Count) // last entry in lists
return current;
var retval = new List<string>();
var merged = Merge(lists, offset + 1);
foreach (var x in current)
{
retval.AddRange(merged.Select(y => string.Format("{0}_{1}", x, y)));
}
return retval;
}
This is simple iterating over n-ary dimension - no need for recursion for that, just array to store indexes.
static void Iterate(int[] iterators, ArrayList[] arrays) {
for (var j = iterators.Length - 1; j >= 0; j--) {
iterators[j]++;
if (iterators[j] == arrays[j].Count) {
if (j == 0) {
break;
}
iterators[j] = 0;
} else {
break;
}
}
}
static IList<string> Merge(ArrayList[] arrays) {
List<string> result = new List<string>();
int[] iterators = new int[arrays.Length];
while (iterators[0] != arrays[0].Count) {
var builder = new StringBuilder(20);
for(var index = 0; index < arrays.Length; index++) {
if (index > 0) {
builder.Append("_");
}
builder.Append(arrays[index][iterators[index]]);
}
result.Add(builder.ToString());
Iterate(iterators, arrays);
}
return result;
}
static void Main(string[] args) {
var list1 = new ArrayList();
var list2 = new ArrayList();
var list3 = new ArrayList();
list1.Add(1);
list1.Add(2);
list2.Add("a");
list2.Add("b");
list3.Add("x");
list3.Add("y");
list3.Add("z");
var result = Merge(new[] { list1, list2, list3 });
}
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Linq;
using System.Text;
namespace arrconn {
class Program {
static string[] conn(params Array[] arrs) {
if(arrs.Length == 0) return new string[0];
if(arrs.Length == 1) {
string[] result = new string[arrs[0].Length];
for(int i = 0; i < result.Length; i++)
result[i] = arrs[0].GetValue(i).ToString();
return result; }
else {
string[] result = new string[arrs[0].Length*arrs[1].Length];
for(int i = 0; i < arrs[0].Length; i++)
for(int j = 0; j < arrs[1].Length; j++)
result[i*arrs[1].Length+j] = string.Format("{0}_{1}", arrs[0].GetValue(i), arrs[1].GetValue(j));
if(arrs.Length == 2) return result;
Array[] next = new Array[arrs.Length-1];
next[0] = result; Array.Copy(arrs, 2, next, 1, next.Length-1);
return conn(next);
}
}
static void Main(string[] args) {
foreach(string s in conn(
new string[] { "A", "B" },
new int[] { 1, 2, 3 },
new string[] { "x" },
new string[] { "$", "%", "#" }))
Console.WriteLine(s);
Console.Read();
}
}
}
I guess your input are like this:
var A = ["A","B"];
var B = [1,2,3];
var C = ["x","y","z","w"];
And what you want to obtain is:
var result = ["A_1_x", "A_1_y",...
"A_2_x", "A_2_y",...
"A_3_x", "A_3_y",...
"B_1_x", "B_1_y",...
...
..., "B_3_z", "B_3_w"];
We'll be working with IEnumerable as it will simplify the work for us and give us access to the yield keyword.
First, let's take care of the case where we only concataining two collections:
IEnumerable<string> ConcatEnumerables(IEnumerable<object> first, IEnumerable<object> second)
{
foreach (var x in first)
{
foreach (var y in second)
{
yield return x.ToString() + "_" + y.ToString();
}
}
}
Then we can recursively takle any number of collections:
IEnumerable<string> ConcatEnumerablesRec(IEnumerable<IEnumerable<object>> enums)
{
//base cases
if(!enums.Any())
{
return Enumerable.Empty<string>();
}
if (enums.Count() == 1)
{
return enums.First().Select(o => o.ToString());
}
//recursively solve the problem
return ConcatEnumerables(enums.First(), ConcatEnumerablesRec(enums.Skip(1));
}
Now you just need to call ToArray on the result if you really need an array as your output.
string[] Concatenator(params object[][] parameters)
{
return ConcatEnumerablesRec(parameters).ToArray();
}
This should do the trick. Note that the input sequences do not have to be arrays - they can be any type that implements IEnumerable<>.
Also note that we have to case sequences of value types to sequences of <object> so that they are assignable to IEnumerable<object>.
Here's the compilable Console app demo code:
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Linq;
namespace Demo
{
internal static class Program
{
static void Main()
{
string[] a = {"A", "B", "C", "D"};
var b = Enumerable.Range(1, 3); // <-- See how it doesn't need to be an array.
char[] c = {'X', 'Y', 'Z'};
double[] d = {-0.1, -0.2};
var sequences = new [] { a, b.Cast<object>(), c.Cast<object>(), d.Cast<object>() };
Console.WriteLine(string.Join("\n", Combine("", sequences)));
}
public static IEnumerable<string> Combine(string prefix, IEnumerable<IEnumerable<object>> sequences)
{
foreach (var item in sequences.First())
{
string current = (prefix == "") ? item.ToString() : prefix + "_" + item;
var remaining = sequences.Skip(1);
if (!remaining.Any())
{
yield return current;
}
else
{
foreach (var s in Combine(current, remaining))
yield return s;
}
}
}
}
}
I have done some research prior to and have found some great articles but I can't seem to tailor any of the solutions for my given problem. From the research done, I believe the best method of going about this problem would be to use recursion. I have made an example using some generic classes but essentially my problem is I have approximately 10 classes that I can have in a list. I might have only one of these classes and I might have all ten. I am ultimately finding the best combination of "items" (which all inherit from item) for a given problem. I think this would be fairly easy except for I have to deal with creating the combinations before each test.
Below is some sample code using only two classes. If recursion is not the best way to approach this problem then please correct as needed. How might I convert this to be used for any number of items that are needed to test with?
Edited: As some have pointed out my example code is the iterative solution however it is only useful if I have two items. Therefore, I need to define a recursive function to solve the problem based upon the number of for loops needed upon runtime.
-Chance
Research:
C#: N For Loops
Arbitrary number of nested-loops?
Number of nested loops at runtime
static void Main(string[] args)
{
List<Item> myItem = new List<Item>();
int numberItem1 = 0, numberItem2 = 0;
foreach (var item in myItem)
{
if (item.GetType() == typeof(Item1))
{
numberItem1++;
}
else if (item.GetType() == typeof(Item2))
{
numberItem2++;
}
}
List<Item> testingItems = new List<Item>();
//FirstItem
for (int a = 0; a < numberItem1; a++)
{
for (int b = 0; b <= a; b++)
{
testingItems.Add(new Item1 { });
}
//DoTest()
testingItems.Clear();
//Second Item
for (int c = 0; c < numberItem2; c++)
{
for (int d = 0; d <= a ; d++)
{
testingItems.Add(new Item1 { });
}
for (int e = 0; e <= c; e++)
{
testingItems.Add(new Item2 { });
}
//DoTest()
testingItems.Clear();
}
}
}
Non-recursive solution.
IEnumerable<List<Item>> TestLists(List<Item> fullList)
{
List<Type> types = fullList.Select(i => i.GetType()).Distinct().ToList();
List<Item> testList = new List<Item> { (Item)Activator.CreateInstance(types[0]) };
yield return testList;
bool finished = false;
while (!finished)
{
bool incremented = false;
int i = 0;
while (i < types.Count && !incremented)
{
if (testList.Where(t => t.GetType() == types[i]).Count() <
fullList.Where(t => t.GetType() == types[i]).Count())
{
testList.Add((Item)Activator.CreateInstance(types[i]));
incremented = true;
}
else
{
testList = testList.Where(t => t.GetType() != types[i]).ToList();
i++;
}
}
if (incremented)
{
yield return testList;
}
else
{
finished = true;
}
}
}
Usage:
foreach (var partList in TestLists(myListToTest))
{
DoTest(partList);
}
I think the following should work.
This requires you to build a stack of the item types you want to test, and a stack of the number of each present in the original list, with the two stacks in sync with each other.
The input List parameter should be an empty list.
void RecursiveTest(List<Item> testingItems, Stack<Type> itemTypes, Stack<int> itemCounts)
{
if (itemTypes.Count == 0) { return; }
Type thisType = itemTypes.Pop();
int thisCount = itemCounts.Pop();
List<Item> addedItems = new List<Item>();
for (int i = 0; i <= thisCount; i++)
{
if (i > 0)
{
Item thisItem = (Item)Activator.CreateInstance(thisType);
testingItems.Add(thisItem);
addedItems.Add(thisItem);
}
if (itemTypes.Count == 0)
{
DoTest(testingItems);
}
else
{
RecursiveTest(testingItems, itemTypes, itemCounts);
}
}
foreach(Item addedItem in addedItems)
{
testingItems.Remove(addedItem);
}
itemTypes.Push(thisType);
itemCounts.Push(thisCount);
}
Note: This code doesn't output/test lists that don't contain at least one of each item type.
Second note: This now includes the missing cases. It will, however, also test the empty list.
EDIT
This code should generate all the possible test permutations for the list of items + the maximum number of each item that should appear in each test.
EXAMPLE: myItem = Item1 Item1 Item2 Item2 Item3
tests = 1,0,0; 2,0,0; 0,1,0; 1,1,0; 2,1,0; 0,2,0; 1,2,0; 2,2,0; 0,0,1; 1,0,1; 2,0,1; 0,1,1; 1,1,1; 2,1,1; 0,2,1; 1,2,1; 2,2,1
List<Item> myItem = new List<Item>();
List<Type> myOrder = new List<Item>();
Dictionary<Type, int> myCount = new Dictionary<Type, int>();
foreach (var item in myItem)
{
if (myCount.ContainsKey(item.GetType()))
{
myCount[item.GetType()]++;
}
else
{
myOrder.Add(item.GetType());
myCount.Add(item.GetType(), 1);
}
}
List<Item> testingItems = new List<Item>();
int[] testingCounts = new int[myCount.Count];
while(IncrementCounts(testingCounts, myOrder, myCount)) {
for(int x=0; x<testingCounts.length; x++) {
AddInstances( testingItems, myOrder[x], testingCounts[x] );
}
// doTest()
testingItems.Clear();
}
// count permutations using the maxima
// EXAMPLE: maxima [2, 2, 2]
// 1,0,0; 2,0,0; 0,1,0; 1,1,0; 2,1,0; 0,2,0; 1,2,0; 2,2,0; 0,0,1; 1,0,1; 2,0,1 etc..
public static bool IncrementCounts(int[] counts, List<Type> order, Dictionary<Type, int> maxima) {
for(int x=0; x<counts.length; x++) {
if(counts[x] + 1 <= maxima[order[x]]) {
counts[x]++;
return true;
} else {
counts[x] = 0;
}
}
return false; // overflow, so we're finished
}
public static void AddIstances(List<Item> list, Type type, int count) {
for(int x=0; x<count; x++) {
list.Add( Convert.ChangeType( Activator.CreateInstance(type), type ) );
}
}
Please note the above code was written inside the browser window and is untested, so syntax errors may exist.