Related
I am looking for a better pattern for working with a list of elements which each need processed and then depending on the outcome are removed from the list.
You can't use .Remove(element) inside a foreach (var element in X) (because it results in Collection was modified; enumeration operation may not execute. exception)... you also can't use for (int i = 0; i < elements.Count(); i++) and .RemoveAt(i) because it disrupts your current position in the collection relative to i.
Is there an elegant way to do this?
Iterate your list in reverse with a for loop:
for (int i = safePendingList.Count - 1; i >= 0; i--)
{
// some code
// safePendingList.RemoveAt(i);
}
Example:
var list = new List<int>(Enumerable.Range(1, 10));
for (int i = list.Count - 1; i >= 0; i--)
{
if (list[i] > 5)
list.RemoveAt(i);
}
list.ForEach(i => Console.WriteLine(i));
Alternately, you can use the RemoveAll method with a predicate to test against:
safePendingList.RemoveAll(item => item.Value == someValue);
Here's a simplified example to demonstrate:
var list = new List<int>(Enumerable.Range(1, 10));
Console.WriteLine("Before:");
list.ForEach(i => Console.WriteLine(i));
list.RemoveAll(i => i > 5);
Console.WriteLine("After:");
list.ForEach(i => Console.WriteLine(i));
foreach (var item in list.ToList()) {
list.Remove(item);
}
If you add ".ToList()" to your list (or the results of a LINQ query), you can remove "item" directly from "list" without the dreaded "Collection was modified; enumeration operation may not execute." error. The compiler makes a copy of "list", so that you can safely do the remove on the array.
While this pattern is not super efficient, it has a natural feel and is flexible enough for almost any situation. Such as when you want to save each "item" to a DB and remove it from the list only when the DB save succeeds.
A simple and straightforward solution:
Use a standard for-loop running backwards on your collection and RemoveAt(i) to remove elements.
Reverse iteration should be the first thing to come to mind when you want to remove elements from a Collection while iterating over it.
Luckily, there is a more elegant solution than writing a for loop which involves needless typing and can be error prone.
ICollection<int> test = new List<int>(new int[] {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10});
foreach (int myInt in test.Reverse<int>())
{
if (myInt % 2 == 0)
{
test.Remove(myInt);
}
}
Using the ToArray() on a generic list allows you to do a Remove(item) on your generic List:
List<String> strings = new List<string>() { "a", "b", "c", "d" };
foreach (string s in strings.ToArray())
{
if (s == "b")
strings.Remove(s);
}
Select the elements you do want rather than trying to remove the elements you don't want. This is so much easier (and generally more efficient too) than removing elements.
var newSequence = (from el in list
where el.Something || el.AnotherThing < 0
select el);
I wanted to post this as a comment in response to the comment left by Michael Dillon below, but it's too long and probably useful to have in my answer anyway:
Personally, I'd never remove items one-by-one, if you do need removal, then call RemoveAll which takes a predicate and only rearranges the internal array once, whereas Remove does an Array.Copy operation for every element you remove. RemoveAll is vastly more efficient.
And when you're backwards iterating over a list, you already have the index of the element you want to remove, so it would be far more efficient to call RemoveAt, because Remove first does a traversal of the list to find the index of the element you're trying to remove, but you already know that index.
So all in all, I don't see any reason to ever call Remove in a for-loop. And ideally, if it is at all possible, use the above code to stream elements from the list as needed so no second data structure has to be created at all.
Using .ToList() will make a copy of your list, as explained in this question:
ToList()-- Does it Create a New List?
By using ToList(), you can remove from your original list, because you're actually iterating over a copy.
foreach (var item in listTracked.ToList()) {
if (DetermineIfRequiresRemoval(item)) {
listTracked.Remove(item)
}
}
If the function that determines which items to delete has no side effects and doesn't mutate the item (it's a pure function), a simple and efficient (linear time) solution is:
list.RemoveAll(condition);
If there are side effects, I'd use something like:
var toRemove = new HashSet<T>();
foreach(var item in items)
{
...
if(condition)
toRemove.Add(item);
}
items.RemoveAll(toRemove.Contains);
This is still linear time, assuming the hash is good. But it has an increased memory use due to the hashset.
Finally if your list is only an IList<T> instead of a List<T> I suggest my answer to How can I do this special foreach iterator?. This will have linear runtime given typical implementations of IList<T>, compared with quadratic runtime of many other answers.
As any remove is taken on a condition you can use
list.RemoveAll(item => item.Value == someValue);
List<T> TheList = new List<T>();
TheList.FindAll(element => element.Satisfies(Condition)).ForEach(element => TheList.Remove(element));
You can't use foreach, but you could iterate forwards and manage your loop index variable when you remove an item, like so:
for (int i = 0; i < elements.Count; i++)
{
if (<condition>)
{
// Decrement the loop counter to iterate this index again, since later elements will get moved down during the remove operation.
elements.RemoveAt(i--);
}
}
Note that in general all of these techniques rely on the behaviour of the collection being iterated. The technique shown here will work with the standard List(T). (It is quite possible to write your own collection class and iterator that does allow item removal during a foreach loop.)
For loops are a bad construct for this.
Using while
var numbers = new List<int>(Enumerable.Range(1, 3));
while (numbers.Count > 0)
{
numbers.RemoveAt(0);
}
But, if you absolutely must use for
var numbers = new List<int>(Enumerable.Range(1, 3));
for (; numbers.Count > 0;)
{
numbers.RemoveAt(0);
}
Or, this:
public static class Extensions
{
public static IList<T> Remove<T>(
this IList<T> numbers,
Func<T, bool> predicate)
{
numbers.ForEachBackwards(predicate, (n, index) => numbers.RemoveAt(index));
return numbers;
}
public static void ForEachBackwards<T>(
this IList<T> numbers,
Func<T, bool> predicate,
Action<T, int> action)
{
for (var i = numbers.Count - 1; i >= 0; i--)
{
if (predicate(numbers[i]))
{
action(numbers[i], i);
}
}
}
}
Usage:
var numbers = new List<int>(Enumerable.Range(1, 10)).Remove((n) => n > 5);
However, LINQ already has RemoveAll() to do this
var numbers = new List<int>(Enumerable.Range(1, 10));
numbers.RemoveAll((n) => n > 5);
Lastly, you are probably better off using LINQ's Where() to filter and create a new list instead of mutating the existing list. Immutability is usually good.
var numbers = new List<int>(Enumerable.Range(1, 10))
.Where((n) => n <= 5)
.ToList();
Using Remove or RemoveAt on a list while iterating over that list has intentionally been made difficult, because it is almost always the wrong thing to do. You might be able to get it working with some clever trick, but it would be extremely slow. Every time you call Remove it has to scan through the entire list to find the element you want to remove. Every time you call RemoveAt it has to move subsequent elements 1 position to the left. As such, any solution using Remove or RemoveAt, would require quadratic time, O(n²).
Use RemoveAll if you can. Otherwise, the following pattern will filter the list in-place in linear time, O(n).
// Create a list to be filtered
IList<int> elements = new List<int>(new int[] {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10});
// Filter the list
int kept = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < elements.Count; i++) {
// Test whether this is an element that we want to keep.
if (elements[i] % 3 > 0) {
// Add it to the list of kept elements.
elements[kept] = elements[i];
kept++;
}
}
// Unfortunately IList has no Resize method. So instead we
// remove the last element of the list until: elements.Count == kept.
while (kept < elements.Count) elements.RemoveAt(elements.Count-1);
I would reassign the list from a LINQ query that filtered out the elements you didn't want to keep.
list = list.Where(item => ...).ToList();
Unless the list is very large there should be no significant performance problems in doing this.
The best way to remove items from a list while iterating over it is to use RemoveAll(). But the main concern written by people is that they have to do some complex things inside the loop and/or have complex compare cases.
The solution is to still use RemoveAll() but use this notation:
var list = new List<int>(Enumerable.Range(1, 10));
list.RemoveAll(item =>
{
// Do some complex operations here
// Or even some operations on the items
SomeFunction(item);
// In the end return true if the item is to be removed. False otherwise
return item > 5;
});
By assuming that predicate is a Boolean property of an element, that if it is true, then the element should be removed:
int i = 0;
while (i < list.Count())
{
if (list[i].predicate == true)
{
list.RemoveAt(i);
continue;
}
i++;
}
In C# one easy way is to mark the ones you wish to delete then create a new list to iterate over...
foreach(var item in list.ToList()){if(item.Delete) list.Remove(item);}
or even simpler use linq....
list.RemoveAll(p=>p.Delete);
but it is worth considering if other tasks or threads will have access to the same list at the same time you are busy removing, and maybe use a ConcurrentList instead.
I wish the "pattern" was something like this:
foreach( thing in thingpile )
{
if( /* condition#1 */ )
{
foreach.markfordeleting( thing );
}
elseif( /* condition#2 */ )
{
foreach.markforkeeping( thing );
}
}
foreachcompleted
{
// then the programmer's choices would be:
// delete everything that was marked for deleting
foreach.deletenow(thingpile);
// ...or... keep only things that were marked for keeping
foreach.keepnow(thingpile);
// ...or even... make a new list of the unmarked items
others = foreach.unmarked(thingpile);
}
This would align the code with the process that goes on in the programmer's brain.
foreach(var item in list.ToList())
{
if(item.Delete) list.Remove(item);
}
Simply create an entirely new list from the first one. I say "Easy" rather than "Right" as creating an entirely new list probably comes at a performance premium over the previous method (I haven't bothered with any benchmarking.) I generally prefer this pattern, it can also be useful in overcoming Linq-To-Entities limitations.
for(i = list.Count()-1;i>=0;i--)
{
item=list[i];
if (item.Delete) list.Remove(item);
}
This way cycles through the list backwards with a plain old For loop. Doing this forwards could be problematic if the size of the collection changes, but backwards should always be safe.
Just wanted to add my 2 cents to this in case this helps anyone, I had a similar problem but needed to remove multiple elements from an array list while it was being iterated over. the highest upvoted answer did it for me for the most part until I ran into errors and realized that the index was greater than the size of the array list in some instances because multiple elements were being removed but the index of the loop didn't keep track of that. I fixed this with a simple check:
ArrayList place_holder = new ArrayList();
place_holder.Add("1");
place_holder.Add("2");
place_holder.Add("3");
place_holder.Add("4");
for(int i = place_holder.Count-1; i>= 0; i--){
if(i>= place_holder.Count){
i = place_holder.Count-1;
}
// some method that removes multiple elements here
}
There is an option that hasn't been mentioned here.
If you don't mind adding a bit of code somewhere in your project, you can add and extension to List to return an instance of a class that does iterate through the list in reverse.
You would use it like this :
foreach (var elem in list.AsReverse())
{
//Do stuff with elem
//list.Remove(elem); //Delete it if you want
}
And here is what the extension looks like:
public static class ReverseListExtension
{
public static ReverseList<T> AsReverse<T>(this List<T> list) => new ReverseList<T>(list);
public class ReverseList<T> : IEnumerable
{
List<T> list;
public ReverseList(List<T> list){ this.list = list; }
public IEnumerator GetEnumerator()
{
for (int i = list.Count - 1; i >= 0; i--)
yield return list[i];
yield break;
}
}
}
This is basically list.Reverse() without the allocation.
Like some have mentioned you still get the drawback of deleting elements one by one, and if your list is massively long some of the options here are better. But I think there is a world where someone would want the simplicity of list.Reverse(), without the memory overhead.
Copy the list you are iterating. Then remove from the copy and interate the original. Going backwards is confusing and doesn't work well when looping in parallel.
var ids = new List<int> { 1, 2, 3, 4 };
var iterableIds = ids.ToList();
Parallel.ForEach(iterableIds, id =>
{
ids.Remove(id);
});
I would do like this
using System.IO;
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
class Author
{
public string Firstname;
public string Lastname;
public int no;
}
class Program
{
private static bool isEven(int i)
{
return ((i % 2) == 0);
}
static void Main()
{
var authorsList = new List<Author>()
{
new Author{ Firstname = "Bob", Lastname = "Smith", no = 2 },
new Author{ Firstname = "Fred", Lastname = "Jones", no = 3 },
new Author{ Firstname = "Brian", Lastname = "Brains", no = 4 },
new Author{ Firstname = "Billy", Lastname = "TheKid", no = 1 }
};
authorsList.RemoveAll(item => isEven(item.no));
foreach(var auth in authorsList)
{
Console.WriteLine(auth.Firstname + " " + auth.Lastname);
}
}
}
OUTPUT
Fred Jones
Billy TheKid
I found myself in a similar situation where I had to remove every nth element in a given List<T>.
for (int i = 0, j = 0, n = 3; i < list.Count; i++)
{
if ((j + 1) % n == 0) //Check current iteration is at the nth interval
{
list.RemoveAt(i);
j++; //This extra addition is necessary. Without it j will wrap
//down to zero, which will throw off our index.
}
j++; //This will always advance the j counter
}
The cost of removing an item from the list is proportional to the number of items following the one to be removed. In the case where the first half of the items qualify for removal, any approach which is based upon removing items individually will end up having to perform about N*N/4 item-copy operations, which can get very expensive if the list is large.
A faster approach is to scan through the list to find the first item to be removed (if any), and then from that point forward copy each item which should be retained to the spot where it belongs. Once this is done, if R items should be retained, the first R items in the list will be those R items, and all of the items requiring deletion will be at the end. If those items are deleted in reverse order, the system won't end up having to copy any of them, so if the list had N items of which R items, including all of the first F, were retained,
it will be necessary to copy R-F items, and shrink the list by one item N-R times. All linear time.
My approach is that I first create a list of indices, which should get deleted. Afterwards I loop over the indices and remove the items from the initial list. This looks like this:
var messageList = ...;
// Restrict your list to certain criteria
var customMessageList = messageList.FindAll(m => m.UserId == someId);
if (customMessageList != null && customMessageList.Count > 0)
{
// Create list with positions in origin list
List<int> positionList = new List<int>();
foreach (var message in customMessageList)
{
var position = messageList.FindIndex(m => m.MessageId == message.MessageId);
if (position != -1)
positionList.Add(position);
}
// To be able to remove the items in the origin list, we do it backwards
// so that the order of indices stays the same
positionList = positionList.OrderByDescending(p => p).ToList();
foreach (var position in positionList)
{
messageList.RemoveAt(position);
}
}
Trace the elements to be removed with a property, and remove them all after process.
using System.Linq;
List<MyProperty> _Group = new List<MyProperty>();
// ... add elements
bool cond = false;
foreach (MyProperty currObj in _Group)
{
// here it is supposed that you decide the "remove conditions"...
cond = true; // set true or false...
if (cond)
{
// SET - element can be deleted
currObj.REMOVE_ME = true;
}
}
// RESET
_Group.RemoveAll(r => r.REMOVE_ME);
myList.RemoveAt(i--);
simples;
I am looking for a better pattern for working with a list of elements which each need processed and then depending on the outcome are removed from the list.
You can't use .Remove(element) inside a foreach (var element in X) (because it results in Collection was modified; enumeration operation may not execute. exception)... you also can't use for (int i = 0; i < elements.Count(); i++) and .RemoveAt(i) because it disrupts your current position in the collection relative to i.
Is there an elegant way to do this?
Iterate your list in reverse with a for loop:
for (int i = safePendingList.Count - 1; i >= 0; i--)
{
// some code
// safePendingList.RemoveAt(i);
}
Example:
var list = new List<int>(Enumerable.Range(1, 10));
for (int i = list.Count - 1; i >= 0; i--)
{
if (list[i] > 5)
list.RemoveAt(i);
}
list.ForEach(i => Console.WriteLine(i));
Alternately, you can use the RemoveAll method with a predicate to test against:
safePendingList.RemoveAll(item => item.Value == someValue);
Here's a simplified example to demonstrate:
var list = new List<int>(Enumerable.Range(1, 10));
Console.WriteLine("Before:");
list.ForEach(i => Console.WriteLine(i));
list.RemoveAll(i => i > 5);
Console.WriteLine("After:");
list.ForEach(i => Console.WriteLine(i));
foreach (var item in list.ToList()) {
list.Remove(item);
}
If you add ".ToList()" to your list (or the results of a LINQ query), you can remove "item" directly from "list" without the dreaded "Collection was modified; enumeration operation may not execute." error. The compiler makes a copy of "list", so that you can safely do the remove on the array.
While this pattern is not super efficient, it has a natural feel and is flexible enough for almost any situation. Such as when you want to save each "item" to a DB and remove it from the list only when the DB save succeeds.
A simple and straightforward solution:
Use a standard for-loop running backwards on your collection and RemoveAt(i) to remove elements.
Reverse iteration should be the first thing to come to mind when you want to remove elements from a Collection while iterating over it.
Luckily, there is a more elegant solution than writing a for loop which involves needless typing and can be error prone.
ICollection<int> test = new List<int>(new int[] {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10});
foreach (int myInt in test.Reverse<int>())
{
if (myInt % 2 == 0)
{
test.Remove(myInt);
}
}
Using the ToArray() on a generic list allows you to do a Remove(item) on your generic List:
List<String> strings = new List<string>() { "a", "b", "c", "d" };
foreach (string s in strings.ToArray())
{
if (s == "b")
strings.Remove(s);
}
Select the elements you do want rather than trying to remove the elements you don't want. This is so much easier (and generally more efficient too) than removing elements.
var newSequence = (from el in list
where el.Something || el.AnotherThing < 0
select el);
I wanted to post this as a comment in response to the comment left by Michael Dillon below, but it's too long and probably useful to have in my answer anyway:
Personally, I'd never remove items one-by-one, if you do need removal, then call RemoveAll which takes a predicate and only rearranges the internal array once, whereas Remove does an Array.Copy operation for every element you remove. RemoveAll is vastly more efficient.
And when you're backwards iterating over a list, you already have the index of the element you want to remove, so it would be far more efficient to call RemoveAt, because Remove first does a traversal of the list to find the index of the element you're trying to remove, but you already know that index.
So all in all, I don't see any reason to ever call Remove in a for-loop. And ideally, if it is at all possible, use the above code to stream elements from the list as needed so no second data structure has to be created at all.
Using .ToList() will make a copy of your list, as explained in this question:
ToList()-- Does it Create a New List?
By using ToList(), you can remove from your original list, because you're actually iterating over a copy.
foreach (var item in listTracked.ToList()) {
if (DetermineIfRequiresRemoval(item)) {
listTracked.Remove(item)
}
}
If the function that determines which items to delete has no side effects and doesn't mutate the item (it's a pure function), a simple and efficient (linear time) solution is:
list.RemoveAll(condition);
If there are side effects, I'd use something like:
var toRemove = new HashSet<T>();
foreach(var item in items)
{
...
if(condition)
toRemove.Add(item);
}
items.RemoveAll(toRemove.Contains);
This is still linear time, assuming the hash is good. But it has an increased memory use due to the hashset.
Finally if your list is only an IList<T> instead of a List<T> I suggest my answer to How can I do this special foreach iterator?. This will have linear runtime given typical implementations of IList<T>, compared with quadratic runtime of many other answers.
As any remove is taken on a condition you can use
list.RemoveAll(item => item.Value == someValue);
List<T> TheList = new List<T>();
TheList.FindAll(element => element.Satisfies(Condition)).ForEach(element => TheList.Remove(element));
You can't use foreach, but you could iterate forwards and manage your loop index variable when you remove an item, like so:
for (int i = 0; i < elements.Count; i++)
{
if (<condition>)
{
// Decrement the loop counter to iterate this index again, since later elements will get moved down during the remove operation.
elements.RemoveAt(i--);
}
}
Note that in general all of these techniques rely on the behaviour of the collection being iterated. The technique shown here will work with the standard List(T). (It is quite possible to write your own collection class and iterator that does allow item removal during a foreach loop.)
For loops are a bad construct for this.
Using while
var numbers = new List<int>(Enumerable.Range(1, 3));
while (numbers.Count > 0)
{
numbers.RemoveAt(0);
}
But, if you absolutely must use for
var numbers = new List<int>(Enumerable.Range(1, 3));
for (; numbers.Count > 0;)
{
numbers.RemoveAt(0);
}
Or, this:
public static class Extensions
{
public static IList<T> Remove<T>(
this IList<T> numbers,
Func<T, bool> predicate)
{
numbers.ForEachBackwards(predicate, (n, index) => numbers.RemoveAt(index));
return numbers;
}
public static void ForEachBackwards<T>(
this IList<T> numbers,
Func<T, bool> predicate,
Action<T, int> action)
{
for (var i = numbers.Count - 1; i >= 0; i--)
{
if (predicate(numbers[i]))
{
action(numbers[i], i);
}
}
}
}
Usage:
var numbers = new List<int>(Enumerable.Range(1, 10)).Remove((n) => n > 5);
However, LINQ already has RemoveAll() to do this
var numbers = new List<int>(Enumerable.Range(1, 10));
numbers.RemoveAll((n) => n > 5);
Lastly, you are probably better off using LINQ's Where() to filter and create a new list instead of mutating the existing list. Immutability is usually good.
var numbers = new List<int>(Enumerable.Range(1, 10))
.Where((n) => n <= 5)
.ToList();
Using Remove or RemoveAt on a list while iterating over that list has intentionally been made difficult, because it is almost always the wrong thing to do. You might be able to get it working with some clever trick, but it would be extremely slow. Every time you call Remove it has to scan through the entire list to find the element you want to remove. Every time you call RemoveAt it has to move subsequent elements 1 position to the left. As such, any solution using Remove or RemoveAt, would require quadratic time, O(n²).
Use RemoveAll if you can. Otherwise, the following pattern will filter the list in-place in linear time, O(n).
// Create a list to be filtered
IList<int> elements = new List<int>(new int[] {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10});
// Filter the list
int kept = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < elements.Count; i++) {
// Test whether this is an element that we want to keep.
if (elements[i] % 3 > 0) {
// Add it to the list of kept elements.
elements[kept] = elements[i];
kept++;
}
}
// Unfortunately IList has no Resize method. So instead we
// remove the last element of the list until: elements.Count == kept.
while (kept < elements.Count) elements.RemoveAt(elements.Count-1);
I would reassign the list from a LINQ query that filtered out the elements you didn't want to keep.
list = list.Where(item => ...).ToList();
Unless the list is very large there should be no significant performance problems in doing this.
The best way to remove items from a list while iterating over it is to use RemoveAll(). But the main concern written by people is that they have to do some complex things inside the loop and/or have complex compare cases.
The solution is to still use RemoveAll() but use this notation:
var list = new List<int>(Enumerable.Range(1, 10));
list.RemoveAll(item =>
{
// Do some complex operations here
// Or even some operations on the items
SomeFunction(item);
// In the end return true if the item is to be removed. False otherwise
return item > 5;
});
By assuming that predicate is a Boolean property of an element, that if it is true, then the element should be removed:
int i = 0;
while (i < list.Count())
{
if (list[i].predicate == true)
{
list.RemoveAt(i);
continue;
}
i++;
}
In C# one easy way is to mark the ones you wish to delete then create a new list to iterate over...
foreach(var item in list.ToList()){if(item.Delete) list.Remove(item);}
or even simpler use linq....
list.RemoveAll(p=>p.Delete);
but it is worth considering if other tasks or threads will have access to the same list at the same time you are busy removing, and maybe use a ConcurrentList instead.
I wish the "pattern" was something like this:
foreach( thing in thingpile )
{
if( /* condition#1 */ )
{
foreach.markfordeleting( thing );
}
elseif( /* condition#2 */ )
{
foreach.markforkeeping( thing );
}
}
foreachcompleted
{
// then the programmer's choices would be:
// delete everything that was marked for deleting
foreach.deletenow(thingpile);
// ...or... keep only things that were marked for keeping
foreach.keepnow(thingpile);
// ...or even... make a new list of the unmarked items
others = foreach.unmarked(thingpile);
}
This would align the code with the process that goes on in the programmer's brain.
foreach(var item in list.ToList())
{
if(item.Delete) list.Remove(item);
}
Simply create an entirely new list from the first one. I say "Easy" rather than "Right" as creating an entirely new list probably comes at a performance premium over the previous method (I haven't bothered with any benchmarking.) I generally prefer this pattern, it can also be useful in overcoming Linq-To-Entities limitations.
for(i = list.Count()-1;i>=0;i--)
{
item=list[i];
if (item.Delete) list.Remove(item);
}
This way cycles through the list backwards with a plain old For loop. Doing this forwards could be problematic if the size of the collection changes, but backwards should always be safe.
Just wanted to add my 2 cents to this in case this helps anyone, I had a similar problem but needed to remove multiple elements from an array list while it was being iterated over. the highest upvoted answer did it for me for the most part until I ran into errors and realized that the index was greater than the size of the array list in some instances because multiple elements were being removed but the index of the loop didn't keep track of that. I fixed this with a simple check:
ArrayList place_holder = new ArrayList();
place_holder.Add("1");
place_holder.Add("2");
place_holder.Add("3");
place_holder.Add("4");
for(int i = place_holder.Count-1; i>= 0; i--){
if(i>= place_holder.Count){
i = place_holder.Count-1;
}
// some method that removes multiple elements here
}
There is an option that hasn't been mentioned here.
If you don't mind adding a bit of code somewhere in your project, you can add and extension to List to return an instance of a class that does iterate through the list in reverse.
You would use it like this :
foreach (var elem in list.AsReverse())
{
//Do stuff with elem
//list.Remove(elem); //Delete it if you want
}
And here is what the extension looks like:
public static class ReverseListExtension
{
public static ReverseList<T> AsReverse<T>(this List<T> list) => new ReverseList<T>(list);
public class ReverseList<T> : IEnumerable
{
List<T> list;
public ReverseList(List<T> list){ this.list = list; }
public IEnumerator GetEnumerator()
{
for (int i = list.Count - 1; i >= 0; i--)
yield return list[i];
yield break;
}
}
}
This is basically list.Reverse() without the allocation.
Like some have mentioned you still get the drawback of deleting elements one by one, and if your list is massively long some of the options here are better. But I think there is a world where someone would want the simplicity of list.Reverse(), without the memory overhead.
Copy the list you are iterating. Then remove from the copy and interate the original. Going backwards is confusing and doesn't work well when looping in parallel.
var ids = new List<int> { 1, 2, 3, 4 };
var iterableIds = ids.ToList();
Parallel.ForEach(iterableIds, id =>
{
ids.Remove(id);
});
I would do like this
using System.IO;
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
class Author
{
public string Firstname;
public string Lastname;
public int no;
}
class Program
{
private static bool isEven(int i)
{
return ((i % 2) == 0);
}
static void Main()
{
var authorsList = new List<Author>()
{
new Author{ Firstname = "Bob", Lastname = "Smith", no = 2 },
new Author{ Firstname = "Fred", Lastname = "Jones", no = 3 },
new Author{ Firstname = "Brian", Lastname = "Brains", no = 4 },
new Author{ Firstname = "Billy", Lastname = "TheKid", no = 1 }
};
authorsList.RemoveAll(item => isEven(item.no));
foreach(var auth in authorsList)
{
Console.WriteLine(auth.Firstname + " " + auth.Lastname);
}
}
}
OUTPUT
Fred Jones
Billy TheKid
I found myself in a similar situation where I had to remove every nth element in a given List<T>.
for (int i = 0, j = 0, n = 3; i < list.Count; i++)
{
if ((j + 1) % n == 0) //Check current iteration is at the nth interval
{
list.RemoveAt(i);
j++; //This extra addition is necessary. Without it j will wrap
//down to zero, which will throw off our index.
}
j++; //This will always advance the j counter
}
The cost of removing an item from the list is proportional to the number of items following the one to be removed. In the case where the first half of the items qualify for removal, any approach which is based upon removing items individually will end up having to perform about N*N/4 item-copy operations, which can get very expensive if the list is large.
A faster approach is to scan through the list to find the first item to be removed (if any), and then from that point forward copy each item which should be retained to the spot where it belongs. Once this is done, if R items should be retained, the first R items in the list will be those R items, and all of the items requiring deletion will be at the end. If those items are deleted in reverse order, the system won't end up having to copy any of them, so if the list had N items of which R items, including all of the first F, were retained,
it will be necessary to copy R-F items, and shrink the list by one item N-R times. All linear time.
My approach is that I first create a list of indices, which should get deleted. Afterwards I loop over the indices and remove the items from the initial list. This looks like this:
var messageList = ...;
// Restrict your list to certain criteria
var customMessageList = messageList.FindAll(m => m.UserId == someId);
if (customMessageList != null && customMessageList.Count > 0)
{
// Create list with positions in origin list
List<int> positionList = new List<int>();
foreach (var message in customMessageList)
{
var position = messageList.FindIndex(m => m.MessageId == message.MessageId);
if (position != -1)
positionList.Add(position);
}
// To be able to remove the items in the origin list, we do it backwards
// so that the order of indices stays the same
positionList = positionList.OrderByDescending(p => p).ToList();
foreach (var position in positionList)
{
messageList.RemoveAt(position);
}
}
Trace the elements to be removed with a property, and remove them all after process.
using System.Linq;
List<MyProperty> _Group = new List<MyProperty>();
// ... add elements
bool cond = false;
foreach (MyProperty currObj in _Group)
{
// here it is supposed that you decide the "remove conditions"...
cond = true; // set true or false...
if (cond)
{
// SET - element can be deleted
currObj.REMOVE_ME = true;
}
}
// RESET
_Group.RemoveAll(r => r.REMOVE_ME);
myList.RemoveAt(i--);
simples;
I am looking for a better pattern for working with a list of elements which each need processed and then depending on the outcome are removed from the list.
You can't use .Remove(element) inside a foreach (var element in X) (because it results in Collection was modified; enumeration operation may not execute. exception)... you also can't use for (int i = 0; i < elements.Count(); i++) and .RemoveAt(i) because it disrupts your current position in the collection relative to i.
Is there an elegant way to do this?
Iterate your list in reverse with a for loop:
for (int i = safePendingList.Count - 1; i >= 0; i--)
{
// some code
// safePendingList.RemoveAt(i);
}
Example:
var list = new List<int>(Enumerable.Range(1, 10));
for (int i = list.Count - 1; i >= 0; i--)
{
if (list[i] > 5)
list.RemoveAt(i);
}
list.ForEach(i => Console.WriteLine(i));
Alternately, you can use the RemoveAll method with a predicate to test against:
safePendingList.RemoveAll(item => item.Value == someValue);
Here's a simplified example to demonstrate:
var list = new List<int>(Enumerable.Range(1, 10));
Console.WriteLine("Before:");
list.ForEach(i => Console.WriteLine(i));
list.RemoveAll(i => i > 5);
Console.WriteLine("After:");
list.ForEach(i => Console.WriteLine(i));
foreach (var item in list.ToList()) {
list.Remove(item);
}
If you add ".ToList()" to your list (or the results of a LINQ query), you can remove "item" directly from "list" without the dreaded "Collection was modified; enumeration operation may not execute." error. The compiler makes a copy of "list", so that you can safely do the remove on the array.
While this pattern is not super efficient, it has a natural feel and is flexible enough for almost any situation. Such as when you want to save each "item" to a DB and remove it from the list only when the DB save succeeds.
A simple and straightforward solution:
Use a standard for-loop running backwards on your collection and RemoveAt(i) to remove elements.
Reverse iteration should be the first thing to come to mind when you want to remove elements from a Collection while iterating over it.
Luckily, there is a more elegant solution than writing a for loop which involves needless typing and can be error prone.
ICollection<int> test = new List<int>(new int[] {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10});
foreach (int myInt in test.Reverse<int>())
{
if (myInt % 2 == 0)
{
test.Remove(myInt);
}
}
Using the ToArray() on a generic list allows you to do a Remove(item) on your generic List:
List<String> strings = new List<string>() { "a", "b", "c", "d" };
foreach (string s in strings.ToArray())
{
if (s == "b")
strings.Remove(s);
}
Select the elements you do want rather than trying to remove the elements you don't want. This is so much easier (and generally more efficient too) than removing elements.
var newSequence = (from el in list
where el.Something || el.AnotherThing < 0
select el);
I wanted to post this as a comment in response to the comment left by Michael Dillon below, but it's too long and probably useful to have in my answer anyway:
Personally, I'd never remove items one-by-one, if you do need removal, then call RemoveAll which takes a predicate and only rearranges the internal array once, whereas Remove does an Array.Copy operation for every element you remove. RemoveAll is vastly more efficient.
And when you're backwards iterating over a list, you already have the index of the element you want to remove, so it would be far more efficient to call RemoveAt, because Remove first does a traversal of the list to find the index of the element you're trying to remove, but you already know that index.
So all in all, I don't see any reason to ever call Remove in a for-loop. And ideally, if it is at all possible, use the above code to stream elements from the list as needed so no second data structure has to be created at all.
Using .ToList() will make a copy of your list, as explained in this question:
ToList()-- Does it Create a New List?
By using ToList(), you can remove from your original list, because you're actually iterating over a copy.
foreach (var item in listTracked.ToList()) {
if (DetermineIfRequiresRemoval(item)) {
listTracked.Remove(item)
}
}
If the function that determines which items to delete has no side effects and doesn't mutate the item (it's a pure function), a simple and efficient (linear time) solution is:
list.RemoveAll(condition);
If there are side effects, I'd use something like:
var toRemove = new HashSet<T>();
foreach(var item in items)
{
...
if(condition)
toRemove.Add(item);
}
items.RemoveAll(toRemove.Contains);
This is still linear time, assuming the hash is good. But it has an increased memory use due to the hashset.
Finally if your list is only an IList<T> instead of a List<T> I suggest my answer to How can I do this special foreach iterator?. This will have linear runtime given typical implementations of IList<T>, compared with quadratic runtime of many other answers.
As any remove is taken on a condition you can use
list.RemoveAll(item => item.Value == someValue);
List<T> TheList = new List<T>();
TheList.FindAll(element => element.Satisfies(Condition)).ForEach(element => TheList.Remove(element));
You can't use foreach, but you could iterate forwards and manage your loop index variable when you remove an item, like so:
for (int i = 0; i < elements.Count; i++)
{
if (<condition>)
{
// Decrement the loop counter to iterate this index again, since later elements will get moved down during the remove operation.
elements.RemoveAt(i--);
}
}
Note that in general all of these techniques rely on the behaviour of the collection being iterated. The technique shown here will work with the standard List(T). (It is quite possible to write your own collection class and iterator that does allow item removal during a foreach loop.)
For loops are a bad construct for this.
Using while
var numbers = new List<int>(Enumerable.Range(1, 3));
while (numbers.Count > 0)
{
numbers.RemoveAt(0);
}
But, if you absolutely must use for
var numbers = new List<int>(Enumerable.Range(1, 3));
for (; numbers.Count > 0;)
{
numbers.RemoveAt(0);
}
Or, this:
public static class Extensions
{
public static IList<T> Remove<T>(
this IList<T> numbers,
Func<T, bool> predicate)
{
numbers.ForEachBackwards(predicate, (n, index) => numbers.RemoveAt(index));
return numbers;
}
public static void ForEachBackwards<T>(
this IList<T> numbers,
Func<T, bool> predicate,
Action<T, int> action)
{
for (var i = numbers.Count - 1; i >= 0; i--)
{
if (predicate(numbers[i]))
{
action(numbers[i], i);
}
}
}
}
Usage:
var numbers = new List<int>(Enumerable.Range(1, 10)).Remove((n) => n > 5);
However, LINQ already has RemoveAll() to do this
var numbers = new List<int>(Enumerable.Range(1, 10));
numbers.RemoveAll((n) => n > 5);
Lastly, you are probably better off using LINQ's Where() to filter and create a new list instead of mutating the existing list. Immutability is usually good.
var numbers = new List<int>(Enumerable.Range(1, 10))
.Where((n) => n <= 5)
.ToList();
Using Remove or RemoveAt on a list while iterating over that list has intentionally been made difficult, because it is almost always the wrong thing to do. You might be able to get it working with some clever trick, but it would be extremely slow. Every time you call Remove it has to scan through the entire list to find the element you want to remove. Every time you call RemoveAt it has to move subsequent elements 1 position to the left. As such, any solution using Remove or RemoveAt, would require quadratic time, O(n²).
Use RemoveAll if you can. Otherwise, the following pattern will filter the list in-place in linear time, O(n).
// Create a list to be filtered
IList<int> elements = new List<int>(new int[] {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10});
// Filter the list
int kept = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < elements.Count; i++) {
// Test whether this is an element that we want to keep.
if (elements[i] % 3 > 0) {
// Add it to the list of kept elements.
elements[kept] = elements[i];
kept++;
}
}
// Unfortunately IList has no Resize method. So instead we
// remove the last element of the list until: elements.Count == kept.
while (kept < elements.Count) elements.RemoveAt(elements.Count-1);
I would reassign the list from a LINQ query that filtered out the elements you didn't want to keep.
list = list.Where(item => ...).ToList();
Unless the list is very large there should be no significant performance problems in doing this.
The best way to remove items from a list while iterating over it is to use RemoveAll(). But the main concern written by people is that they have to do some complex things inside the loop and/or have complex compare cases.
The solution is to still use RemoveAll() but use this notation:
var list = new List<int>(Enumerable.Range(1, 10));
list.RemoveAll(item =>
{
// Do some complex operations here
// Or even some operations on the items
SomeFunction(item);
// In the end return true if the item is to be removed. False otherwise
return item > 5;
});
By assuming that predicate is a Boolean property of an element, that if it is true, then the element should be removed:
int i = 0;
while (i < list.Count())
{
if (list[i].predicate == true)
{
list.RemoveAt(i);
continue;
}
i++;
}
In C# one easy way is to mark the ones you wish to delete then create a new list to iterate over...
foreach(var item in list.ToList()){if(item.Delete) list.Remove(item);}
or even simpler use linq....
list.RemoveAll(p=>p.Delete);
but it is worth considering if other tasks or threads will have access to the same list at the same time you are busy removing, and maybe use a ConcurrentList instead.
I wish the "pattern" was something like this:
foreach( thing in thingpile )
{
if( /* condition#1 */ )
{
foreach.markfordeleting( thing );
}
elseif( /* condition#2 */ )
{
foreach.markforkeeping( thing );
}
}
foreachcompleted
{
// then the programmer's choices would be:
// delete everything that was marked for deleting
foreach.deletenow(thingpile);
// ...or... keep only things that were marked for keeping
foreach.keepnow(thingpile);
// ...or even... make a new list of the unmarked items
others = foreach.unmarked(thingpile);
}
This would align the code with the process that goes on in the programmer's brain.
foreach(var item in list.ToList())
{
if(item.Delete) list.Remove(item);
}
Simply create an entirely new list from the first one. I say "Easy" rather than "Right" as creating an entirely new list probably comes at a performance premium over the previous method (I haven't bothered with any benchmarking.) I generally prefer this pattern, it can also be useful in overcoming Linq-To-Entities limitations.
for(i = list.Count()-1;i>=0;i--)
{
item=list[i];
if (item.Delete) list.Remove(item);
}
This way cycles through the list backwards with a plain old For loop. Doing this forwards could be problematic if the size of the collection changes, but backwards should always be safe.
Just wanted to add my 2 cents to this in case this helps anyone, I had a similar problem but needed to remove multiple elements from an array list while it was being iterated over. the highest upvoted answer did it for me for the most part until I ran into errors and realized that the index was greater than the size of the array list in some instances because multiple elements were being removed but the index of the loop didn't keep track of that. I fixed this with a simple check:
ArrayList place_holder = new ArrayList();
place_holder.Add("1");
place_holder.Add("2");
place_holder.Add("3");
place_holder.Add("4");
for(int i = place_holder.Count-1; i>= 0; i--){
if(i>= place_holder.Count){
i = place_holder.Count-1;
}
// some method that removes multiple elements here
}
There is an option that hasn't been mentioned here.
If you don't mind adding a bit of code somewhere in your project, you can add and extension to List to return an instance of a class that does iterate through the list in reverse.
You would use it like this :
foreach (var elem in list.AsReverse())
{
//Do stuff with elem
//list.Remove(elem); //Delete it if you want
}
And here is what the extension looks like:
public static class ReverseListExtension
{
public static ReverseList<T> AsReverse<T>(this List<T> list) => new ReverseList<T>(list);
public class ReverseList<T> : IEnumerable
{
List<T> list;
public ReverseList(List<T> list){ this.list = list; }
public IEnumerator GetEnumerator()
{
for (int i = list.Count - 1; i >= 0; i--)
yield return list[i];
yield break;
}
}
}
This is basically list.Reverse() without the allocation.
Like some have mentioned you still get the drawback of deleting elements one by one, and if your list is massively long some of the options here are better. But I think there is a world where someone would want the simplicity of list.Reverse(), without the memory overhead.
Copy the list you are iterating. Then remove from the copy and interate the original. Going backwards is confusing and doesn't work well when looping in parallel.
var ids = new List<int> { 1, 2, 3, 4 };
var iterableIds = ids.ToList();
Parallel.ForEach(iterableIds, id =>
{
ids.Remove(id);
});
I would do like this
using System.IO;
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
class Author
{
public string Firstname;
public string Lastname;
public int no;
}
class Program
{
private static bool isEven(int i)
{
return ((i % 2) == 0);
}
static void Main()
{
var authorsList = new List<Author>()
{
new Author{ Firstname = "Bob", Lastname = "Smith", no = 2 },
new Author{ Firstname = "Fred", Lastname = "Jones", no = 3 },
new Author{ Firstname = "Brian", Lastname = "Brains", no = 4 },
new Author{ Firstname = "Billy", Lastname = "TheKid", no = 1 }
};
authorsList.RemoveAll(item => isEven(item.no));
foreach(var auth in authorsList)
{
Console.WriteLine(auth.Firstname + " " + auth.Lastname);
}
}
}
OUTPUT
Fred Jones
Billy TheKid
I found myself in a similar situation where I had to remove every nth element in a given List<T>.
for (int i = 0, j = 0, n = 3; i < list.Count; i++)
{
if ((j + 1) % n == 0) //Check current iteration is at the nth interval
{
list.RemoveAt(i);
j++; //This extra addition is necessary. Without it j will wrap
//down to zero, which will throw off our index.
}
j++; //This will always advance the j counter
}
The cost of removing an item from the list is proportional to the number of items following the one to be removed. In the case where the first half of the items qualify for removal, any approach which is based upon removing items individually will end up having to perform about N*N/4 item-copy operations, which can get very expensive if the list is large.
A faster approach is to scan through the list to find the first item to be removed (if any), and then from that point forward copy each item which should be retained to the spot where it belongs. Once this is done, if R items should be retained, the first R items in the list will be those R items, and all of the items requiring deletion will be at the end. If those items are deleted in reverse order, the system won't end up having to copy any of them, so if the list had N items of which R items, including all of the first F, were retained,
it will be necessary to copy R-F items, and shrink the list by one item N-R times. All linear time.
My approach is that I first create a list of indices, which should get deleted. Afterwards I loop over the indices and remove the items from the initial list. This looks like this:
var messageList = ...;
// Restrict your list to certain criteria
var customMessageList = messageList.FindAll(m => m.UserId == someId);
if (customMessageList != null && customMessageList.Count > 0)
{
// Create list with positions in origin list
List<int> positionList = new List<int>();
foreach (var message in customMessageList)
{
var position = messageList.FindIndex(m => m.MessageId == message.MessageId);
if (position != -1)
positionList.Add(position);
}
// To be able to remove the items in the origin list, we do it backwards
// so that the order of indices stays the same
positionList = positionList.OrderByDescending(p => p).ToList();
foreach (var position in positionList)
{
messageList.RemoveAt(position);
}
}
Trace the elements to be removed with a property, and remove them all after process.
using System.Linq;
List<MyProperty> _Group = new List<MyProperty>();
// ... add elements
bool cond = false;
foreach (MyProperty currObj in _Group)
{
// here it is supposed that you decide the "remove conditions"...
cond = true; // set true or false...
if (cond)
{
// SET - element can be deleted
currObj.REMOVE_ME = true;
}
}
// RESET
_Group.RemoveAll(r => r.REMOVE_ME);
myList.RemoveAt(i--);
simples;
I have an Item object with a property called generator_list (hashset of strings). I have 8000 objects, and for each object, I'd like to see how it's generator_list intersects with every other generator_list, and then I'd like to store the intersection number in a List<int>, which will have 8000 elements, logically.
The process takes about 8 minutes, but only a few minutes with parallel processing, but I don't think I'm doing the parallel part right, hence the question. Can anyone please tell me if and how I need to modify my code to take advantage of the parallel loops?
The code for my Item object is:
public class Item
{
public int index { get; set; }
public HashSet<string> generator_list = new HashSet<string>();
}
I stored all my Item objects in a List<Item> items (8000 elements). I created a method that takes in items (the list I want to compare) and 1 Item (what I want to compare to), and it's like this:
public void Relatedness2(List<Item> compare, Item compare_to)
{
int compare_to_length = compare_to.generator_list.Count;
foreach (Item block in compare)
{
int block_length = block.generator_list.Count;
int both = 0; //this counts the intersection number
if (compare_to_length < block_length) //to make sure I'm looping
//over the smaller set
{
foreach (string word in compare_to.generator_list)
{
if (block.generator_list.Contains(word))
{
both = both + 1;
}
}
}
else
{
foreach (string word in block.generator_list)
{
if (compare_to.generator_list.Contains(word))
{
both = both + 1;
}
}
}
// I'd like to store the intersection number, both,
// somewhere so I can effectively use parallel loops
}
}
And finally, my Parallel forloop is:
Parallel.ForEach(items, (kk, state, index) => Relatedness2(items, kk));
Any suggestions?
Maybe something like this
public Dictionary<int, int> Relatedness2(IList<Item> compare, Item compare_to)
{
int compare_to_length = compare_to.generator_list.Count;
var intersectionData = new Dictionary<int, int>();
foreach (Item block in compare)
{
int block_length = block.generator_list.Count;
int both = 0;
if (compare_to_length < block_length)
{
foreach (string word in compare_to.generator_list)
{
if (block.generator_list.Contains(word))
{
both = both + 1;
}
}
}
else
{
foreach (string word in block.generator_list)
{
if (compare_to.generator_list.Contains(word))
{
both = both + 1;
}
}
}
intersectionData[block.index] = both;
}
return intersectionData;
}
And
List<Item> items = new List<Item>(8000);
//add to list
var dictionary = new ConcurrentDictionary<int, Dictionary<int, int>>();//thread-safe dictionary
var readOnlyItems = items.AsReadOnly();// if you sure you wouldn't modify collection, feel free use items directly
Parallel.ForEach(readOnlyItems, item =>
{
dictionary[item.index] = Relatedness2(readOnlyItems, item);
});
I assumed that index unique.
i used a dictionaries, but you may want to use your own classes
in my example you can access data in following manner
var intesectiondata = dictionary[1]//dictionary of intersection for item with index 1
var countOfintersectionItemIndex1AndItemIndex3 = dictionary[1][3]
var countOfintersectionItemIndex3AndItemIndex7 = dictionary[3][7]
don't forget about possibility dictionary[i] == null
Thread safe collections is probably what you are looking for http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd997305(v=vs.110).aspx.
When working in multithreaded environment, you need to make sure that
you are not manipulating shared data at the same time without
synchronizing access.
the .NET Framework offers some collection classes that are created
specifically for use in concurrent environments, which is what you
have when you're using multithreading. These collections are
thread-safe, which means that they internally use synchronization to
make sure that they can be accessed by multiple threads at the same
time.
Source: Programming in C# Exam Ref 70-483, Objective 1.1: Implement multhitreading and asynchronous processing, Using Concurrent collections
Which are the following collections
BlockingCollection<T>
ConcurrentBag<T>
ConcurrentDictionary<T>
ConcurentQueue<T>
ConcurentStack<T>
If your Item's index is contiguous and starts at 0, you don't need the Item class at all. Just use a List< HashSet< < string>>, it'll take care of indexes for you. This solution finds the intersect count between 1 item and the others in a parallel LINQ. It then takes that and runs it on all items of your collection in another parallel LINQ. Like so
var items = new List<HashSet<string>>
{
new HashSet<string> {"1", "2"},
new HashSet<string> {"2", "3"},
new HashSet<string> {"3", "4"},
new HashSet<string>{"1", "4"}
};
var intersects = items.AsParallel().Select( //Outer loop to run on all items
item => items.AsParallel().Select( //Inner loop to calculate intersects
item2 => item.Intersect(item2).Count())
//This ToList will create a single List<int>
//with the intersects for that item
.ToList()
//This ToList will create the final List<List<int>>
//that contains all intersects.
).ToList();
Sorry if this is a stupid noob question. I'm doing a very small project for my girlfriend - a list of countries and she has to enter their capitals (obscure countries, mind you) . Since I'm a total beginner, I had to resort to using two arrays, one for countries and the other for capitals, with matching indexes. That way it's easy to check for the right answer and I don't have to parse any text files or use any data-bases. I'm using random numbers to make it more interesting. To stop the program from generating the same countries over and over again, I'm using a List of integers that keeps tracks of what indexes have already been used and regenerates the number if the list contains the previous one. Pretty basic stuff. Surprisingly, it all works.
But I'm having a problem. How do I check that I've run out of countries, basically? :) I can't simply check the List size against my countries array, since List probably includes more values than the array, and if (taken.Equals(Countries.Length)) doesn't seem to work. Or I can't find the right place in the code to put this check.
Sorry if this is simple, but I can't seem to find a proper solution.
EDIT
Wow, what an amazing community. During the short walk from Starbucks to my place I get dozens of quality answers which cover a huge array of design techniques. This is so great! Thank you everyone! Obviously, the question has been answered but I will post the code for you, if anyone has any additional comments.
// JUST A TEST FOR NOW, 13 COUNTRIES
string[] Countries = {"Belgium", "France", "The Netherlands", "Spain", "Monaco", "Belarus", "Germany",
"Portugal", "Ukraine", "Russia", "Sweden", "Denmark", "South Africa"};
string[] Capitals = {"Brussels", "Paris", "Amsterdam", "Madrid", "Monaco", "Minsk", "Berlin",
"Lisbon", "Kiev", "Moscow", "Stockholm", "Copenhagen", "Pretoria"};
Random number = new Random();
List<int> taken = new List<int>();
int index;
int score = 0;
private int Generate()
{
while (true) {
index = number.Next(0, Countries.Length);
if (taken.Contains(index)) continue;
// THIS IS WHAT I WAS INITIALLY TRYING TO DO
if (taken.Equals(Countries.Length)) {
MessageBox.Show("Game over!");
return -1;
}
return index;
}
}
private void Form1_Load(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
index = Generate();
taken.Add(index);
label1.Text = Countries[index];
label3.Text = "0 out of " + Countries.Length.ToString();
}
private void button1_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
if (textBox1.Text.Trim() == Capitals[index].ToString()) {
label2.Text = "You win!";
index = Generate();
taken.Add(index);
label1.Text = Countries[index];
textBox1.Clear();
label3.Text = ++score + " out of " + Countries.Length.ToString();
}
else {
label2.Text = "Wrong!";
textBox1.Clear();
}
}
}
}
To stop the program from generating the same countries over and over again, I'm using a List of integers that keeps tracks of what indexes have already been used and regenerates the number if the list contains the previous one.
...
How do I check that I've run out of countries, basically?
You might want to consider an alternative approach, as this is going to be quite expensive and overly complicated.
Instead of trying to add one country at random, checking against ones you've already added, you could just make the entire list of countries, then perform a shuffle ("random sort") on the collection. This way, you'll get all of the countries in one shot in a random order.
Instead of using two arrays, or an array and a list, let's introduce something of C# 4.0 that actually looks and is easy to use and seems to be made for this type of assignments.
Follow this code with your eyes and specifically look how these "anonymous types" are used in the end. It makes life real easy.
// initialize your array like so,
// now you can access your items as countries[1].name and countries[1].city
// and you will never have to worry about having too much cities or countries
// PLUS: they're always together!
var countries = new [] {
new { name = "The Netherlands", city = "Amsterdam"},
new { name = "Andorra", city = "Vaduz" },
new { name = "Madagascar", city = "Antananarivo"}
};
// randomize by shuffling (see http://stackoverflow.com/questions/375351/most-efficient-way-to-randomly-sort-shuffle-a-list-of-integers-in-c-sharp/375446#375446)
Random random = new Random();
for (int i = 0; i < countries.Length; i += 1)
{
int swapIndex = random.Next(i, countries.Length);
if (swapIndex != i)
{
var temp = countries[i];
countries[i] = countries[swapIndex];
countries[swapIndex] = temp;
}
}
// go through all your items in the array using foreach
// so you don't have to worry about having too much items
foreach(var item in countries)
{
// show your girlfriend the country, something like
string inputString = DisplayCountry(item.country);
if(inputString == item.city)
{
ShowMessage("we are happy, you guessed right!");
}
}
// at the end of the foreach-loop you've automatically run out of countries
DisplayScore(to-your-girlfriend);
Note: you can easily expand on this anonymous types by adding whether or not that particular country/city pair was guessed right and make a subsequent test with the ones she failed.
You could use a HashSet<int> to keep track of indexes that have been used. This won't accept duplicate values. The Add method returns a boolean that indicates whether the value was already in the list:
if (hashSet.Add(index))
DisplayValue(index);
else
//regenerate
But I would probably use your existing stragegy, but backwards: create a list pre-filled with values from 0 to Count - 1. Pick indexes from this list, removing them as you use them. This is logically similar to Reed Copsey's suggestion of sorting, but probably requires less change to your existing code.
var availableIndexes = new List<int>(Enumerable.Range(0, countryCount));
var random = new Random();
while (availableIndexes.Count > 0)
{
var index = availableIndexes[Random.Next(0, availableIndexes.Count)];
DisplayValue(index);
availableIndexes.Remove(index);
}
You can use a key/value pair, like a Dictionary<string, string> to store your countries and capitals. Then iterate through the collection using a random LINQ orderby clause:
Dictionary<string, string> Countries = new Dictionary<int, string>();
// populate your collection of countries
foreach(var country in Countries.OrderBy(c => Guid.NewGuid()))
{
Console.WriteLine("Key: {0} Value: {1}", country.Key, country.Value);
}
Create a Country class and a Capital class.
Then model your classes to use a Dictionary<TKey, TValue> Generic Collection so that you declare the generic Dictionary object as:
Dictionary<Country, Capital>
where Country is the key and Capital is its value.
For MSDN reference to Dictionary and its sample usage, you can follow below link:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/xfhwa508.aspx
As you keep using Countries and Capitals, add them to above Dictionary instance after checking for their existence in the Dictionary instance, if any of them do exist then either popup an info message or a warning.
Quick and dirty, not necessarily efficient or secure.
Dictionary<string, string> countriesAndCapitals = new Dictionary<string, string>()
{
{ "Afghanistan", "Kabul" },
{ "Albania", "Tirane" },
{ "Algeria","Algers" },
{ "Andorra", "Andorra la Vella" } //etc, etc
};
foreach (var countryCapital in countriesAndCapitals.OrderBy(f => Guid.NewGuid()))
{
Console.WriteLine(countryCapital.Key + " " + countryCapital.Value);
}
It seems like what you need is a different type of data structure, two sets of lists would work fine but it is complicated for nothing. I suggest looking into the dictionary list type.
Dictionary<string,string> countryList = new Dictionary<string,string>();
countryList.Add("Canada","Ottawa");
countryList.Add("Thailand","Bankok");
etc...
You could then iterate through the list while a boolean value sees whether or not there was a hit. More info on Dictionary list type.
Why don't you remove the items from the list that you used? Then you don't have conflicts. Then you check states.Count() > 0.
The quickest thing I can think to do is to use the Distinct() call on your list. Then your count of items in the list can be compared to your array's count to see if all have been used.
if(myUsedList.Distinct().Count() < myArray.Count) { ... }