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);
Consider a n*m matrix. Suppose each cell in the matrix has a value assigned. We can start from each cell in first row in matrix. The allowed moves are diagonally left, downwards or diagonally right, i.e, from location (i, j) next move can be (i+1, j), or, (i+1, j+1), or (i+1, j-1). (If index is not outside the bounds of the array of course)
Let an additional restriction be added: only paths are allowed that pass (at least once) through all the columns.
Find the maximum sum of elements satisfying the allowed moves.
For example for matrix:
1 15 2
9 7 5
9 2 4
6 9 -1
The sum is equal:
28
Because the path is 15+5+2+6=28.
The main feature is that I need to use a dynamic approach. For a task without restriction about all the columns I could do:
var matrix = new int[,]{ { 1, 15, 2 }, //start matrix
{ 9, 7, 5 },
{ 9, 2, 4},
{ 6, 9, -1 } };
long n = matrix.GetLength(0);
long m = matrix.GetLength(1);
var sum = new List<long[]>(); // list [n][m] of maxsums
for (int i = 0; i < n; i++)
{
sum.Add(new long[m].Select(e => e = long.MinValue).ToArray());
}
for (int i = 0; i < m; i++)
{
sum[0][i] = matrix[0, i]; //sums at first line equal first line in matrix
}
for (int i = 0; i < n - 1; i++)
{
for (int j = 0; j < m; j++)
{
if (j > 0) sum[i + 1][j - 1] = Math.Max(sum[i][j] + matrix[i + 1, j - 1], sum[i + 1][j - 1]); // diagonally left
sum[i + 1][j] = Math.Max(sum[i][j] + matrix[i + 1, j], sum[i + 1][j]); // downwards
if (j < m - 1) sum[i + 1][j + 1] = Math.Max(sum[i][j] + matrix[i + 1, j + 1], sum[i + 1][j + 1]); //diagonally right
}
}
long max = sum[(int)n - 1].Max(); //maximum sum among all paths (answer)
And for the same matrix the maximum sum will equal:
42
Because the path is 15+9+9+9=42
Нow I can calculate a dynamics matrix for all paths and sums with restriction?
An easy way to do this is with a Queue.
Add the first row
for every item in the queue, add any other valid moves
when finished, check if it's a valid combination
check against the last highest
It uses an and Iterator method, Linq, and queues to return current best finds. What I suggest you do, is research the parts involved, step through it and inspect variables, use Console.WriteLine to look at what is happening. If you are really stuck you can always ask further questions about this code and what it's doing.
The idea of the queue is, we add each element in the first row as initial items in the queue (that is our precondition by the rules you have given), then we go and look at the first element in the queue, then from that position (x,y) we go through all the next positions in the next row that we can legitimately visit. The queue also hold a list of columns visited and a value at that position. It could be done differently. I.e we really only need to to know the sum of all elements visited and a list of columns etc so we can validate the path afterwards.
Note : This is not the most optimal solution and it could be done a lot more efficiently and in less code in many other ways (and more elegantly). However, it touches on a lot of common concepts that are worth understanding
Given
private static Random _rand = new Random();
// this could be done with linq, however it's easy to see how it works
private static bool IsPathValid(int length, List<int> path)
{
for (var i = 0; i < length; i++)
if (!path.Contains(i))
return false;
return true;
}
Iterator
public static IEnumerable<IEnumerable<(int col, int value)>> FindPath(int[, ] matrix)
{
var queue = new Queue<(int x, int y, List<(int col, int value)> path)>();
// add the first row to the queue
for (var i = 0; i < matrix.GetLength(1); i++)
queue.Enqueue((i, 0, new List<(int col, int value)>()));
// lets keep the higest found
var highest = int.MinValue;
// loop all queue items until none left
while (queue.Any())
{
// get the next item out of the queue
var(x, y, path) = queue.Dequeue();
// add the path we are visiting
path.Add((x, matrix[y, x]));
// if we have looked at all the rows, then time to return
if (y + 1 == matrix.GetLength(0))
{
// get a list of columns visited
var cols = path.Select(x => x.col).ToList();
// check to see if all columns are visited
if (IsPathValid(matrix.GetLength(1), cols))
{
var sum = path.Sum(x => x.value);
// sum the path, if it's not the highest we don't care
if (sum > highest)
{
// we are the highest path so far so let's return it
yield return path;
highest = sum;
}
}
continue;
}
// where ever we are, lets look at all the valid x's in the next row
var start = Math.Max(0, x - 1);
var finish = Math.Min(matrix.GetLength(1) - 1, x + 1);
// add them to the queue
// we inefficiently create a new path, as list is a reference type and we don't want to reuse it
for (var newX = start; newX <= finish; newX++)
queue.Enqueue((newX, y + 1, new List<(int col, int value)>(path)));
}
}
Usage
// create a random matrix, make sure there the dimensions are going to produce a result
var y = _rand.Next(2, 5);
var matrix = new int[_rand.Next(y, y + 3), y];
// fill and print the matrix
Console.WriteLine("Matrix");
Console.WriteLine();
for (var i = 0; i < matrix.GetLength(0); i++)
{
for (var j = 0; j < matrix.GetLength(1); j++)
{
matrix[i, j] = _rand.Next(0, 20);
Console.Write(matrix[i, j].ToString().PadLeft(3));
}
Console.WriteLine();
}
Console.WriteLine();
Console.WriteLine("Best Path (column,Value)");
Console.WriteLine();
// get the best, which be the last
var best = FindPath(matrix).Last();
foreach (var item in best)
{
Console.WriteLine(item);
}
// show the result
Console.WriteLine();
Console.WriteLine("= " + best.Sum(x => x.value));
Output
Matrix
14 9 17 0
19 5 11 10
17 12 9 13
3 11 2 5
0 0 12 15
Best Path (column,Value)
(0, 14)
(0, 19)
(1, 12)
(2, 2)
(3, 15)
= 62
Full Demo Here
Additional Resources
Iterators
Tuple types (C# reference)
Array.GetLength(Int32) Method
Multidimensional Arrays (C# Programming Guide)
Random.Next Method
Queue Class
List.Contains(T) Method
Enumerable.Any Method
Enumerable.Sum Method
Enumerable.Last Method
Math.Min Method
Math.Max Method
continue (C# Reference)
Enumerable.Select Method
Enumerable.ToList methd
Hi, I have an array : int [] num = new int[6]{1,2,2,1,1,2};
I want to multiply the value at element 0 with every other value, I then want to multiply the value at element 1 with the values at elements 2 through to the last element. Then multiply the value at element 2 with the values from 3 through to the end, and so on until I have iterated through the whole array.
My efforts thus far seem clumsy and verbose, so I was wondering if anyone could show me an elegant way of achieving my aim.
Many thanks.
You can go through the array backwards and do it in one pass and not repeat operations.
for (int i = num.Length - 2; i >= 0; i--)
{
num[i] *= num[i + 1];
}
Gives 8,8,4,2,2,2
Enumerable.Range(0,num.Length)
.Select(i => num.Skip(i).Aggregate(1, (a, b) => a * b))
Gives a sequence 8, 8, 4, 2, 2, 2. Is this what you meant?
This should do the job:
for (int i = 0; i < num.Length; i++)
{
// Multiply element i
for (int j = i+1; j < num.Length; j++)
{
num[i] *= num[j];
}
}
int[] num = new int[6] { 1, 2, 2, 1, 1, 2 };
int i = 0;
while (i < num.Length)
{
for (int j = i; j < num.Length;j++)
{
if((j+1)<num.Length)
num[i] = num[i] + num[j + 1];
}
Console.WriteLine(num[i]);
i++;
}
I want to create an n-dimensional array of doubles. At compile-time, the number of dimensions n is not known.
I ended up defining the array as a dictionary, with the key being an array of ints corresponding to the different axes (so in a 3-dimensional array, I'd supply [5, 2, 3] to get the double at (5, 2, 3) in the array.
However, I also need to populate the dictionary with doubles from (0, 0, ... 0) to (m1, m2, ... mn), where m1 to mn is the length of each axis.
My initial idea was to create nested for-loops, but as I still don't know how many I'd need (1 for each dimension), I can't do this at compile-time.
I hope I've formulated the question in an understandable manner, but feel free to ask me to elaborate parts.
To create a n-dimensional array, you can use the Array.CreateInstance method:
Array array = Array.CreateInstance(typeof(double), 5, 3, 2, 8, 7, 32));
array.SetValue(0.5d, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0);
double val1 = (double)array.GetValue(0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0);
array.SetValue(1.5d, 1, 2, 1, 6, 0, 30);
double val2 = (double)array.GetValue(1, 2, 1, 6, 0, 30);
To populate the arrays, you can use the Rank property and GetLength method to return the length of the current dimension, using a couple of nested for loops to do a O(n^m) algo (warning - untested):
private bool Increment(Array array, int[] idxs, int dim) {
if (dim >= array.Rank) return false;
if (++idxs[idxs.Length-dim-1] == array.GetLength(dim)) {
idxs[idxs.Length-dim-1] = 0;
return Increment(array, idxs, dim+1);
}
return true;
}
Array array = Array.CreateInstance(typeof(double), ...);
int[] idxs = new int[array.Rank];
while (Increment(array, idxs, 0)) {
array.SetValue(1d, idxs);
}
A quick followup on this matter:
We used the Array.CreateInstance method with success, but as someone predicted, it was fairly inefficient, and additionally created readability problems.
Instead, we have developed a method, where the n-dimensional array is converted into a 1-dimensional (normal) array.
public static int NDToOneD(int[] indices, int[] lengths)
{
int ID = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < indices.Length; i++)
{
int offset = 1;
for (int j = 0; j < i; j++)
{
offset *= lengths[j];
}
ID += indices[i] * offset;
}
return ID;
}
1DtoND(int[] indices, int[] arrayLengths)
{
int[] indices = new int[lengths.Length];
for (int i = lengths.Length - 1; i >= 0; i--)
{
int offset = 1;
for (int j = 0; j < i; j++)
{
offset *= lengths[j];
}
int remainder = ID % offset;
indices[i] = (ID - remainder) / offset;
ID = remainder;
}
return indices;
}
This is essentially a generalisation on the conversion of cartesian coordinates to a single integer and back again.
Our testing is not formalized, so any speedup we have gained is entirely anecdotal, but for my machine, it has given about a 30-50% speedup, depending on the sample size, and the readability of the code has improved by a wide margin.
Hope this helps anyone who stumbles upon this question.
Why don't you just use a multidimensional array: double[,,] array = new double[a,b,c]? All the array elements are automatically initialized to 0.0 for you.
Alternatively, you could use a jagged array double[][][], but each sub-array will need to be initialized in a for loop:
int a, b, c;
double[][][] array = new double[a][][];
for (int i=0; i<a; i++) {
double[i] = new double[b][];
for (int j=0; j<b; j++) {
double[i][j] = new double[c];
}
}
EDIT: didn't realise number of dimensions was run-time. Added another answer above.
With this method, you can create n-dimensional jagged arrays of any type.
public static Array CreateJaggedArray<T>(params int[] lengths)
{
if(lengths.Length < 1)
throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException(nameof(lengths));
void Populate(Array array, int index)
{
for (int i = 0; i < array.Length; i++)
{
Array element = (Array)Activator.CreateInstance(array.GetType().GetElementType(), lengths[index]);
array.SetValue(element, i);
if (index + 1 < lengths.Length)
Populate(element, index + 1);
}
}
Type retType = typeof(T);
for (var i = 0; i < lengths.Length; i++)
retType = retType.MakeArrayType();
Array ret = (Array)Activator.CreateInstance(retType, lengths[0]);
if (lengths.Length > 1)
Populate(ret, 1);
return ret;
}