Let's say I have the following object:
public class MyObject
{
public string MyValue { get; set; }
}
And in another class I have a list of these objects:
public class MyClass
{
private List<MyObject> _list;
public MyClass(List<MyObject> myObjects)
{
_list = myObjects;
}
public bool AllUniqueValues()
{
...
}
}
I want to check if all MyObjects in the list have an unique (non-duplicated) Value. When I use the following it works:
public bool AllUnique()
{
return _list.All(x => _list.Count(y => String.Equals(y.Value, x.Value)) == 1);
}
But I have the feeling this can be done easier / more elegant. So, my question, is there a better / more elegant approach to check if all MyObjects have a non-duplicated Value, and if so, how?
I find this quite elegant:
public static class EnumerableExtensions
{
public static bool AllUnique<TSource, TResult>(this IEnumerable<TSource> enumerable,
Func<TSource, TResult> selector)
{
var uniques = new HashSet<TResult>();
return enumerable.All(item => uniques.Add(selector(item)));
}
}
And now your code becomes:
var allUnique = _list.AllUnique(i => i.MyValue);
One of many way to do it:
return !_list.GroupBy(c=>c.MyValue).Any(c=>c.Count() > 1);
At least it is a little bit more clear.
The most elegant way of solving this is using a set data structure. An unordered collection of unique elements. In .NET, you need to use HashSet<T>.
You can either override Equals and GetHashCode of MyObject to provide what equality means in your case, or implement an IEqualityComparer<T>.
If you instantiate HashSet<T> and you don't provide an IEqualityComparer<T> implementation, then it will use your overrides, otherwise it will use the whole implementation. Usually you implement equality comparers if there're more than a meaning of equality for the same object.
I might still need an ordered collection of elements
If you still need to store your objects in order, you can both store the elements in both the HashSet<T> and List<T> in parallel. What you get with HashSet<T> is a practically O(1) access to your items when you need check if an item exists, get one or perform some supported operations in the collection, since it's a hashed collection, it won't need to iterate it entirely to find the element.
There are many ways to do it, but personally, I'd do the following:
public bool AllUnique()
{
return _list.GroupBy(x => x.MyValue).Count() == _list.Count();
}
Related
Is there something inherently wrong with replacing
IDictionary<int, IEnumerable<string>>
with
ILookup<int, string>
I much prefer ILookup over IDictionary because of its more 'honest' interface and immutability.
However, I discovered that ILookup is unable to hold empty collections, so keys containing empty collections are simply do not exist in it. This is problem, because I also would like ILookup to convey information about all possible keys (even though some of them might be empty), so I can go like this:
var statistics = from grouping in myLookup
select new {grouping.Key, grouping.Count()};
which works with dictionary of enumerables, but unfortunately does not work with ILookup. It is just impossible to have entries where grouping.Count()==0, as with IDictionary.
As John Skeet states,
There’s one other important difference between a lookup and a dictionary: if you ask a lookup for the sequence corresponding to a key which it doesn’t know about, it will return an empty sequence, rather than throwing an exception. (A key which the lookup does know about will never yield an empty sequence.)
Now, what is wrong if ILookup allowed empty groupings? In order to have the best of both worlds I am about to add Filter() extension method for ILookup that does just this, but need to resolve a problem that Linq does not allow to create empty IGroupings (so I have to implement my own class), but I feel that maybe I am doing something against design principles of Linq.
Example
Two options:
1) you could create a nice, straightforward singleton-esque EmptyLookup class as follows:
var empty = EmptyLookup<int, string>.Instance;
// ...
public static class EmptyLookup<TKey, TElement>
{
private static readonly ILookup<TKey, TElement> _instance
= Enumerable.Empty<TElement>().ToLookup(x => default(TKey));
public static ILookup<TKey, TElement> Instance
{
get { return _instance; }
}
}
2) You can create a singleton class for empty lookups.
public sealed class EmptyLookup<T, K> : ILookup<T, K>
{
private static readonly EmptyLookup<T, K> _instance
= new EmptyLookup<T, K>();
public static EmptyLookup<T, K> Instance
{
get { return _instance; }
}
private EmptyLookup() { }
public bool Contains(T key)
{
return false;
}
public int Count
{
get { return 0; }
}
public IEnumerable<K> this[T key]
{
get { return Enumerable.Empty<K>(); }
}
public IEnumerator<IGrouping<T, K>> GetEnumerator()
{
yield break;
}
System.Collections.IEnumerator System.Collections.IEnumerable.GetEnumerator()
{
yield break;
}
}
then you can write code like this:
var x = EmptyLookup<int, int>.Instance;
/*The benefit of creating a new class is that you can use the "is" operator and check for type equality:*/
if (x is EmptyLookup<,>) {
// ....
}
There is no wrong in keeping empty groupings is lookup, it's just that lookup does not support it because of it's nature in Linq.
You have to create an extension method by yourself.
In this thread
How to get null instead of the KeyNotFoundException accessing Dictionary value by key?
in my own answer I used explicit interface implementation to change the basic dictionary indexer behaviour not to throw KeyNotFoundException if the key was not present in the dictionary (since it was convinient for me to obtain null in such a case right inline).
Here it is:
public interface INullValueDictionary<T, U>
where U : class
{
U this[T key] { get; }
}
public class NullValueDictionary<T, U> : Dictionary<T, U>, INullValueDictionary<T, U>
where U : class
{
U INullValueDictionary<T, U>.this[T key]
{
get
{
if (ContainsKey(key))
return this[key];
else
return null;
}
}
}
Since in a real application I had a list of dictionaries, I needed a way to access the dictionaries from the collection as an interface. I used simple int indexer to acess each element of the list.
var list = new List<NullValueDictionary<string, string>>();
int index = 0;
//...
list[index]["somekey"] = "somevalue";
The easiest thing was to do something like this:
var idict = (INullValueDictionary<string, string>)list[index];
string value = idict["somekey"];
The question raised when I decided to try to use covariance feature to have a collection of interfaces to use instead. So I needed an interface with covariant type parameter for the cast to work. The 1st thing that came to my mind was IEnumerable<T>, so the code would look like this:
IEnumerable<INullValueDictionary<string, string>> ilist = list;
string value = ilist.ElementAt(index)["somekey"];
Not that nice at all, besides ElementAt instead of an indexer is way worse.
The indexer for List<T> is defined in IList<T>, and T there is not covariant.
What was I to do? I decided to write my own:
public interface IIndexedEnumerable<out T>
{
T this[int index] { get; }
}
public class ExtendedList<T> : List<T>, IIndexedEnumerable<T>
{
}
Well, few lines of code (I don't even need to write anything in ExtendedList<T>), and it works as I wanted:
var elist = new ExtendedList<NullValueDictionary<string, string>>();
IIndexedEnumerable<INullValueDictionary<string, string>> ielist = elist;
int index = 0;
//...
elist[index]["somekey"] = "somevalue";
string value = ielist[index]["somekey"];
Finally the question: can this covariant cast be somehow achieved without creating an extra collection?
You can try use IReadOnlyList<T>, which is implemented by List<T>.
Note that I've added one instance of NullValueDictionary<string, string> to List, so that you won't get ArgumentOutOfRangeException at elist[index] line.
IReadOnlyList<NullValueDictionary<string, string>> elist = new List<NullValueDictionary<string, string>>
{
new NullValueDictionary<string, string>()
};
IReadOnlyList<INullValueDictionary<string, string>> ielist = elist;
int index = 0;
//...
elist[index]["somekey"] = "somevalue";
string value = elist[index]["somekey"];
Edit: I've searched for covariant interfaces and collections with indexes prior to .NET 4.5, but found none. Still I think there are a little bit easier solution, than to create separate interface - just to cast one collection to another.
List<INullValueDictionary<string, string>> ielist = elist.Cast<INullValueDictionary<string, string>>().ToList();
Or use covariance gained from arrays
INullValueDictionary<string, string>[] ielist = elist.ToArray()
LINQ has some optimization that work on whole type compatibility, so you won't iterate over sequence if those types are compatible.
Cast implementation taken from MONO Linq
public static IEnumerable<TResult> Cast<TResult> (this IEnumerable source)
{
var actual = source as IEnumerable<TResult>;
if (actual != null)
return actual;
return CreateCastIterator<TResult> (source);
}
Note that I have changed INullValueDictionary<T, U> interface to contain set in the property so that ielist[index]["somekey"] = "somevalue"; will work.
public interface INullValueDictionary<T, U> where U : class
{
U this[T key] { get; set; }
}
But again - if creating a new Interface and class is ok for you and you don't want to mess around with casts everywhere - I think it is a good solution, if you have considered at the constraints, it gives.
In search of covariance in mscorlib
This probably won't be interesting to you, but I've just wanted to find out what Types are covariant in mscorlib assembly. By running next script I received only 17 types are covariant, 9 of which are Funcs. I have omitted IsCovariant implementation, because this answer is too long even without it
typeof(int).Assembly.GetTypes()
.Where(type => type.IsGenericType)
.Where(type=>type.GetGenericArguments().Any(IsCovariant))
.Select(type => type.Name)
.Dump();
//Converter`2
//IEnumerator`1
//IEnumerable`1
//IReadOnlyCollection`1
//IReadOnlyList`1
//IObservable`1
//Indexer_Get_Delegate`1
//GetEnumerator_Delegate`1
Note: Please re-tag and/or re-name appropriately
I have a class, FooEnumerator, that wraps a Foo and implements IEnumerable<FooEnumerator>. The Foos represent a tree-like data structure, the FooEnumerators that are enumerated are the child nodes of the current node.
Foo is a vendor supplied data object. FooEnumerator implements a bunch of custom filtering code.
class FooEnumerator : IEnumerable<FooEnumerator>
{
public Foo WrappedNode { get; private set; }
public string Name { get { return WrappedNode.Name; } }
public int Id { get{ return WrappedNode.Id; } }
public DateTime Created { get{ return WrappedNode.Created; } }
public FooEnumerator(Foo wrappedNode)
{
WrappedNode = wrappedNode;
}
public IEnumerator<FooEnumerator> GetEnumerator()
{
foreach (Foo child in this.GetChildren())
if(FilteringLogicInHere(child))
yield return new FooEnumerator(child);
}
...
}
I want to be able to sort each level of the tree with a given (arbitrary) expression, defined when the top level FooEnumerator is created, and have this expression passed down to each newly enumerated item to use.
I'd like to define the sort expression using lambda's, in the same way you would with the OrderBy function. In fact, it is my intention to pass the lambda to OrderBy.
The signiture for OrderBy is
OrderBy<TSource, TKey>(Func<TSource, TKey> keySelector)
where TKey is the return type of the given Func, but is a Type Parameter in the method signature and is figured out at compile time.
Example usage
var x = GetStartingNode();
var sort = n => n.DateTime;
var enu = new FooEnumerator(x, sort);
var sort2 = n => n.Name;
var enu2 = new FooEnumerator(x, sort2);
The sort expression would then be stored in a class variable and FooEnumerator would work like:
// pseudo-implementation
private Expression<Func<Foo, TKey>> _sortBy;
public FooEnumerator(Foo wrappedNode, Expression<Func<Foo, TKey>> sortBy)
{
WrappedNode = wrappedNode;
_sortBy = sortBy;
}
public IEnumerator<FooEnumerator> GetEnumerator()
{
foreach (Foo child in this.GetChildren().OrderBy(_sortBy))
if(FilteringLogicInHere(child))
yield return new FooEnumerator(child);
}
How can I specify the type of TKey (implicitly or explicitly) in this use case?
I don't want to hard code it as I want to be able to sort on any and all properties of the underlying Foo.
Well, you can't create a member delegate variable of type Expression<Func<Foo,TKey>> since TKey is never specified. However, you could create a member of type Expression<Func<Foo,IComparable>> which may suffice for your purposes. You could need to change your FooEnumerator constructor to accept this signature as well, of course.
EDIT: Others have suggested parameterizing your FooEnumerator so that it accepts a TKey. You can certainly do this, but you should be aware of the issues that emerge:
By parameterizing the enumerator you are then kicking the bucket down the road. Any code that wants to store a FooEnumerator<T> has to have a-priori knowledge of the type T. You could, however, implement a non-generic interface IFooEnumerator to deal with that.
Parameterizing an enumerator creates issues if you want to support ordering on multiple fields in the future. C# doesn't support generics with a variable number of type parameters, which limits the creation of generics that require multiple arbitrary types. This issue is harder to deal with, since it's awkward to start creating FooEnumerator<T>, FooEnumerator<T1,T2>, FooEnumerator<T1,T2,T3...>, and so on.
You can also parameterize your Enumerator:
class FooEnumerator<TKey> {
// ... All your 'pseudo' code would work here
}
I recommend programming against the interface using IComparable however.
I'm finding myself in need of "combining" several instances of the same type. This type has several IList properties on it. I want to take each instance and combine the values of those IList properties across the instances, so my code only needs one of those instances.
I'm thinking of creating an ICombinable interface, but I'm wonder if there's something already out there that's suited to this?
public interface ICombinable<T>
{
void CombineWith(T instance);
}
Have you tried looking at System.Collections.Generic.HashSet<T>? If you add the same thing multiple times, only 1 item exists.
Sounds like you need Concat
var configs = dbConfig.configList.Concat(fileConfig.configList);
I ended up using SelectMany and Select for this. IConfiguration is an interface for the MyConfigurationInfo class. GetMyConfigurationSources returns all the different IConfigurations (from files, DB, etc).
// accumulates an enumerable property on IConfiguration
public static IEnumerable<TValue> GetConfigurationValues<TValue>(Func<IConfiguration, IEnumerable<TValue>> selector)
{
// cast included for clarification only
return (GetMyConfigurationSources() as IEnumerable<IConfiguration>)
.Where(c => selector(c) != null)
.SelectMany(selector);
}
// accumulates a non enumerable property on IConfiguration
public static IEnumerable<TValue> GetConfigurationValues<TValue>(Func<IConfiguration, TValue> selector)
{
// cast included for clarification only
return (GetMyConfigurationSources() as IEnumerable<IConfiguration>)
.Where(c => selector(c) != null)
.Select(selector);
}
// Example usage:
static void Main()
{
string[] allEnumerableValues = GetConfigurationValues(c => c.SomeEnumerableConfigPropertyOfStrings);
string[] allNonEnumerableValues = GetConfigurationValues(c => c.SomeNonEnumerableConfigPropertyString);
}
Does dot net have an interface like IEnumerable with a count property? I know about interfaces such as IList and ICollection which do offer a Count property but it seems like these interfaces were designed for mutable data structures first and use as a read only interface seems like an afterthought - the presence of an IsReadOnly field and mutators throwing exceptions when this property is true is IMO ample evidence for this.
For the time being I am using a custom interface called IReadOnlyCollection (see my own answer to this post) but I would be glad to know of other alternative approaches.
The key difference between the ICollection family and the IEnumerable family is the absence of certainty as to the count of items present (quite often the items will be generated/loaded/hydrated as needed) - in some cases, an Enumerable may not ever finish generating results, which is why the Count is missing.
Deriving and adding a Count is possible depending on your requirements, but it goes against this spirit, which is the purpose of ICollection - a collection of stuff that's all there.
Another way might be to use the System.Linq.Enumerable.Count method, i.e.
using System.Linq;
class X
{
void Y(IEnumerable<int> collection)
{
int itemCount = collection.Count();
}
}
or use the (System.Linq.Enumerable) .ToList() to pull all the items from the enumerator into a Collection and work from there.
(Also to answer your comment before having 50 rep:- the ".Count()" bit is a call to an extension method on the extension class System.Linq.Enumerable - the extension method is available on all things that derive from IEnumerable because the code has a "using System.Linq" which brings the extension methods in all classes in that namespace into scope - in this case its in the class Enumerable. If you're in VS, pressing F12 will bring you to the definition of S.L.Enumerable. BTW C# In Depth is a fantastic book for learning LINQ properly - its a page turner thats really helps you get the whole picture compared to learning the bits of LINQ piece by piece)
As of .Net 4.5, there are two new interfaces for this: IReadOnlyCollection<T> and IReadOnlyList<T>.
IReadOnlyCollection<T> is IEnumerable<T> with a Count property added, IReadOnlyList<T> also adds indexing.
It sounds like you really just want ReadOnlyCollection<T> - expose it as IList<T>, but by wrapping the original list like this you just get a read-only wrapper with an appropriate count.
Taking into consideration some of the comments I have decided to go with a wrapper class implementing a custom interface...
interface IReadOnlyCollection<T> : IEnumerable<T>
{
int Count { get; }
}
//This can now be not misused by downcasting to List
//The wrapper can also be used with lists since IList inherits from ICollection
public class CollectionWrapper<T> : IReadOnlyCollection<T>
{
public CollectionWrapper(ICollection<T> collection)
{
_collection = collection;
}
public int Count
{
get
{
return _collection.Count;
}
}
public IEnumerator<T> GetEnumerator()
{
return (IEnumerator<T>)_collection.GetEnumerator();
}
IEnumerator IEnumerable.GetEnumerator()
{
return (IEnumerator)((IEnumerable)_collection).GetEnumerator();
}
////////Private data///////
ICollection<T> _collection;
}
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
List<int> list = new List<int>();
list.Add(1);
list.Add(2);
list.Add(3);
list.Add(4);
CollectionWrapper<int> collection = new CollectionWrapper<int>(list);
Console.WriteLine("Count:{0}", collection.Count);
foreach (var x in collection)
{
Console.WriteLine(x);
}
foreach (var x in (IEnumerable)collection)
{
Console.WriteLine(x);
}
}
}
Thanks all for your suggestions.
Edit: Now cannot be misused by downcasting to List (or whatever).
IList can return IsReadOnly as true, which marks the collection as readonly. Other than that I'm afraid I don't know of anything fitting.
Since it's an interface, you would have to implement the Count property yourself, why don't you create a new interface that inherits IEnumerator and add a Count property?
IList or ICollection would be the way to go, if you want to use the standard interfaces.
Note that you can "hide" methods required by the interface if you don't want them in your class's public interface -- for example, since it's meaningless to add things to a readonly collection you can do this:
void ICollection<DataType>.Add(DataType item)
{
throw new NotSupportedException();
}
public DataType this[int index]
{
get { return InnerList[index]; }
}
DataType IList<DataType>.this[int index]
{
get { return this[index]; }
set { throw new NotSupportedException(); }
}
etc.
An array can be cast to an IList, which makes the IList ReadOnly == true :)
You can get .Count on IEnumerable with an extension method if you add a reference to System.Linq (in 3.5 anyway).
As Jon Skeet mentions, you're much better off using System.Collections.ObjectModel.ReadOnlyCollection instead of creating your own wrapper class.
Then you can implement your sample as follows:
class Program {
static void Main(string[] args) {
List<int> list = new List<int>();
list.Add(1);
list.Add(2);
list.Add(3);
list.Add(4);
ReadOnlyCollection<int> collection = new ReadOnlyCollection<int>(list);
Console.WriteLine("Count:{0}", collection.Count);
foreach (var x in collection) {
Console.WriteLine(x);
}
foreach (var x in (IEnumerable)collection) {
Console.WriteLine(x);
}
}
}