I am having a problem with a custom struct and overloading linq's except method to remove duplicates.
My struct is as follows:
public struct hashedFile
{
string _fileString;
byte[] _fileHash;
public hashedFile(string fileString, byte[] fileHash)
{
this._fileString = fileString;
this._fileHash = fileHash;
}
public string FileString { get { return _fileString; } }
public byte[] FileHash { get { return _fileHash; } }
}
Now, the following code works fine:
public static void test2()
{
List<hashedFile> list1 = new List<hashedFile>();
List<hashedFile> list2 = new List<hashedFile>();
hashedFile one = new hashedFile("test1", BitConverter.GetBytes(1));
hashedFile two = new hashedFile("test2", BitConverter.GetBytes(2));
hashedFile three = new hashedFile("test3", BitConverter.GetBytes(3));
hashedFile threeA = new hashedFile("test3", BitConverter.GetBytes(4));
hashedFile four = new hashedFile("test4", BitConverter.GetBytes(4));
list1.Add(one);
list1.Add(two);
list1.Add(threeA);
list1.Add(four);
list2.Add(one);
list2.Add(two);
list2.Add(three);
List<hashedFile> diff = list1.Except(list2).ToList();
foreach (hashedFile h in diff)
{
MessageBox.Show(h.FileString + Environment.NewLine + h.FileHash[0].ToString("x2"));
}
}
This code shows "threeA" and "four" just fine. But if I do the following.
public static List<hashedFile> list1(var stuff1)
{
//Generate a List here and return it
}
public static List<hashedFile> list2(var stuff2)
{
//Generate a List here and return it
}
List<hashedFile> diff = list1.except(list2);
"diff" becomes an exact copy of "list1". I should also mention that I am sending a byte array from ComputeHash from System.Security.Cryptography.MD5 to the byte fileHash in the list generations.
Any ideas on how to overload either the Except or GetHashCode method for linq to successfully exclude the duplicate values from list2?
I'd really appreciate it! Thanks!
~MrFreeman
EDIT: Here was how I was originally trying to use List<hashedFile> diff = newList.Except(oldList, new hashedFileComparer()).ToList();
class hashedFileComparer : IEqualityComparer<hashedFile>
{
public bool Equals(hashedFile x, hashedFile y)
{
if (Object.ReferenceEquals(x, y)) return true;
if (Object.ReferenceEquals(x, null) || Object.ReferenceEquals(y, null))
return false;
return x.FileString == y.FileString && x.FileHash == y.FileHash;
}
public int GetHashCode(hashedFile Hashedfile)
{
if (Object.ReferenceEquals(Hashedfile, null)) return 0;
int hashFileString = Hashedfile.FileString == null ? 0 : Hashedfile.FileString.GetHashCode();
int hashFileHash = Hashedfile.FileHash.GetHashCode();
int returnVal = hashFileString ^ hashFileHash;
if (Hashedfile.FileString.Contains("blankmusic") == true)
{
Console.WriteLine(returnVal.ToString());
}
return returnVal;
}
}
If you want the type to handle its own comparisons in Except the interface you need is IEquatable. The IEqualityComparer interface is to have another type handle the comparisons so it can be passed into Except as an overload.
This achieves what you want (assuming you wanted both file string and hash compared).
public struct hashedFile : IEquatable<hashedFile>
{
string _fileString;
byte[] _fileHash;
public hashedFile(string fileString, byte[] fileHash)
{
this._fileString = fileString;
this._fileHash = fileHash;
}
public string FileString { get { return _fileString; } }
public byte[] FileHash { get { return _fileHash; } }
public bool Equals(hashedFile other)
{
return _fileString == other._fileString && _fileHash.SequenceEqual(other._fileHash);
}
}
Here is an example in a working console application.
public class Program
{
public struct hashedFile : IEquatable<hashedFile>
{
string _fileString;
byte[] _fileHash;
public hashedFile(string fileString, byte[] fileHash)
{
this._fileString = fileString;
this._fileHash = fileHash;
}
public string FileString { get { return _fileString; } }
public byte[] FileHash { get { return _fileHash; } }
public bool Equals(hashedFile other)
{
return _fileString == other._fileString && _fileHash.SequenceEqual(other._fileHash);
}
}
public static void Main(string[] args)
{
List<hashedFile> list1 = GetList1();
List<hashedFile> list2 = GetList2();
List<hashedFile> diff = list1.Except(list2).ToList();
foreach (hashedFile h in diff)
{
Console.WriteLine(h.FileString + Environment.NewLine + h.FileHash[0].ToString("x2"));
}
Console.ReadLine();
}
private static List<hashedFile> GetList1()
{
hashedFile one = new hashedFile("test1", BitConverter.GetBytes(1));
hashedFile two = new hashedFile("test2", BitConverter.GetBytes(2));
hashedFile threeA = new hashedFile("test3", BitConverter.GetBytes(4));
hashedFile four = new hashedFile("test4", BitConverter.GetBytes(4));
var list1 = new List<hashedFile>();
list1.Add(one);
list1.Add(two);
list1.Add(threeA);
list1.Add(four);
return list1;
}
private static List<hashedFile> GetList2()
{
hashedFile one = new hashedFile("test1", BitConverter.GetBytes(1));
hashedFile two = new hashedFile("test2", BitConverter.GetBytes(2));
hashedFile three = new hashedFile("test3", BitConverter.GetBytes(3));
var list1 = new List<hashedFile>();
list1.Add(one);
list1.Add(two);
list1.Add(three);
return list1;
}
}
This is becoming quite large but I will continue there is an issue with above implementation if hashedFile is a class not a struct (and sometimes when a stuct maybe version depdendant). Except uses an internal Set class the relevant part of that which is problematic is that it compares the hash codes and only if they are equal does it then use the comparer to check equality.
int hashCode = this.InternalGetHashCode(value);
for (int i = this.buckets[hashCode % this.buckets.Length] - 1; i >= 0; i = this.slots[i].next)
{
if ((this.slots[i].hashCode == hashCode) && this.comparer.Equals(this.slots[i].value, value))
{
return true;
}
}
The fix for this depending on performance requirements is you can just return a 0 hash code. This means the comparer will always be used.
public override int GetHashCode()
{
return 0;
}
The other option is to generate a proper hash code this matters sooner than I expected the difference for 500 items is 7ms vs 1ms and for 5000 items is 650ms vs 13ms. So probably best to go with a proper hash code. byte array hash code function taken from https://stackoverflow.com/a/7244316/1002621
public override int GetHashCode()
{
var hashCode = 0;
var bytes = _fileHash.Union(Encoding.UTF8.GetBytes(_fileString)).ToArray();
for (var i = 0; i < bytes.Length; i++)
hashCode = (hashCode << 3) | (hashCode >> (29)) ^ bytes[i]; // Rotate by 3 bits and XOR the new value.
return hashCode;
}
Related
I've this class:
public class Pair<T, V>
{
public T A = default;
public V B = default;
public Pair()
{
A = default;
B = default;
}
public Pair(T a, V b)
{
A = a;
B = b;
}
public override bool Equals(object obj)
{
Pair<T, V> other = obj as Pair<T, V>;
return A.Equals(other.A) && B.Equals(other.B);
}
public override int GetHashCode()
{
return base.GetHashCode();
}
public override string ToString()
{
return "Pair: (" + A.ToString() + " , " + B.ToString() + ")";
}
}
And I have a class with two Pair variables:
public class FakeClass<T>
{
public T LastValue { get; protected set; } = default;
public T CurrentValue = default;
public void Execute()
{
LastValue = CurrentValue
}
}
public class FakeClassWithPair : FakeClass<Pair<int, int>> { }
Now if I execute this code:
FakeClassWithPair fake = new FakeClassWithPair();
fake.CurrentValue.A = 2;
fake.CurrentValue.B = 5;
fake.Execute();
fake.CurrentValue.A = 32;
fake.CurrentValue.B = 53;
In debugging Current Value and Last Value have the same value "32" and "53".
How can I avoid this?
Classes are reference types, so when you set LastValue = CurrentValue, that means both LastValue and CurrentValue refer to the same object.
If you want Value semantics you should declare your Pair as a struct. This means that an assignment does a copy of the value. Except ofc there already are a built in type for this: ValueTuple, with some special syntax that lets you declare types like (int A, int B). There is also a regular Tuple<T1, T2> if you do want a reference type.
Also note that I see no way for your example to run, fake.CurrentValue should be initialized to null and crash when accessed. Using a value type would also solve this, since they cannot be null.
So just change your example to FakeClassWithPair:FakeClass<(int A, int B)> and everything should work as you expect it to.
Definitely do not roll your own class for a pair if you want value semantics. Use the built-in value tuple, defined as (T a, V b).
Also if your content of FakeClass is cloneable then you should take advantage of that (for example arrays are cloneable). So the assignment in Execute() would check if the current value implements ICloneable and proceeds accordingly.
See this example code with output. The first example with fk variable is defined by FakeClass<(int,int)> and the second example with fa variable is defined by FakeClass<int[]>. Some fun code is added to display arrays as list of vales in ToString() in order to mimic the behavior of tuples with arrays.
public class FakeClass<T>
{
public T LastValue { get; protected set; } = default(T);
public T CurrentValue = default(T);
public void Execute()
{
if (CurrentValue is ICloneable cloneable)
{
LastValue = (T)cloneable.Clone();
}
else
{
LastValue = CurrentValue;
}
}
public override string ToString()
{
if (typeof(T).IsArray)
{
object[] last, current;
Array cv = CurrentValue as Array;
if (cv != null)
{
current = new object[cv.Length];
cv.CopyTo(current, 0);
}
else
{
current = new object[0];
}
Array lv = LastValue as Array;
if (lv != null)
{
last = new object[lv.Length];
lv.CopyTo(last, 0);
}
else
{
last = new object[0];
}
return $"Current=[{string.Join(",",current)}], Last=[{string.Join(",",last)}]";
}
return $"Current={CurrentValue}, Last={LastValue}";
}
}
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var fk = new FakeClass<(int a, int b)>();
fk.CurrentValue = (1, 2);
Console.WriteLine(fk);
// Current=(1, 2), Last=(0, 0)
fk.Execute();
fk.CurrentValue = (3, 4);
Console.WriteLine(fk);
// Current=(3, 4), Last=(1, 2)
var fa = new FakeClass<int[]>();
fa.CurrentValue = new int[] { 1, 2 };
Console.WriteLine(fa);
//Current=[1,2], Last=[]
fa.Execute();
fa.CurrentValue = new int[] { 3, 4 };
Console.WriteLine(fa);
//Current=[3,4], Last=[1,2]
}
}
I have two classes
class CSparseMatrix:
{
public int NumberOfDimensions { get; set;}
public int DefaultNumber { get; set; }
List<int> dimensionsRanges = new List<int>(); // that's specify dimension of ranges, f.e. {100, 100, 100, 120..}
List<CSparseCell> cells = new List<CSparseCell>(); // contains only values different from default for this matrix
}
class CSparseCell {
public int Value { get; set; }
public List<int> coordinates = new List<int>();
}
And the problem is: how to loop through this CSparseMatrix and output all ranges with values in format like: [0, 0, 0, 0] - *value*, [0, 0, 0, 1] - *value*, [0, 0, 0, 2] - *value*, ...[dimensionsRanges[0]-1, dimensionsRanges[1]-1, dimensionsRanges[2]-1, dimensionsRanges[3]-1] - *value* so through all ranges and output all values (we can have any number of this dimensions).
That means that in program we had to to output all values of matrix, which can have any number of dimensions and ranges could be different. But we don't know what this number of dimensions will be so can't use n-nested loops, and actually I have no idea of algorithm or method how to iterate through all values from List<int> dimensionsRanges
The way, we get the specific value from this "matrix" is
public int GetValueFromCell(List<int> coordinate)
{
foreach(CSparseCell cell in cells)
{
if(cell.coordinates.All(coordinate.Contains)) {
return cell.Value;
}
}
return DefaultNumber;
}
Since you say your matrix is large, avoid returning CSparseCell by pushing the Value lookup to the answer computation.
You create a method to return all the coordinates in the sparse matrix, using a helper method to increment coordinates. NOTE: I changed the coordinate increment method to use a for loop instead of do which might be easier to understand (?).
void IncCoord(ref List<int> aCoord) { // ref not needed, just for documentation
for (var curDim = NumberOfDimensions - 1; curDim >= 0; --curDim) {
if (aCoord[curDim] == dimensionsRanges[curDim] - 1) // handle carry
aCoord[curDim] = 0;
else {
++aCoord[curDim];
break;
}
}
}
public IEnumerable<List<int>> AllCoords() {
var curCellCoord = Enumerable.Repeat(0, NumberOfDimensions).ToList();
var numCells = dimensionsRanges.Product();
for (int j1 = 0; j1 < numCells; ++j1) {
yield return curCellCoord.ToList();
IncCoord(ref curCellCoord);
}
}
Now you can use this method to get all Values and you can format the output however you like. Assuming t is a CSparseMatrix:
var ans = t.AllCoords().Select(c => $"[{c.Join(",")}] - {t.GetValueFromCell(c)}");
A couple of helper extension methods are used:
public static class IEnumerableExt {
public static int Product(this IEnumerable<int> src) => src.Aggregate(1, (a,n) => a * n);
}
public static class StringExt {
public static string Join<T>(this IEnumerable<T> items, string sep) => String.Join(sep, items);
}
I'd make a couple suggestions. First tying the coordinate and the value together complicate things. It'd be much better to separate those two.
Secondly, having to search the entire array to find a single cell makes it very inefficient. You can create a simple sparse matrix out of a dictionary. This not at all the best way but with the unknown key requirements you have given it's at least better than the array. (is it really a matrix if the key is 1..n ?)
Here's an example. First we make the coordinates their own type.
readonly struct SparseCoord : IEquatable<SparseCoord>
{
public static SparseCoord ToCoordinate(params int[] coords)
{
return new SparseCoord(coords);
}
public SparseCoord(int[] c)
{
this.Coordinate = new int[c?.Length ?? 0];
if (null != c)
c.CopyTo(this.Coordinate, 0);
}
public int[] Coordinate { get; }
public bool Equals([AllowNull] SparseCoord other)
{
return Enumerable.SequenceEqual(this.Coordinate, other.Coordinate);
}
public override bool Equals(object obj)
{
if (obj is SparseCoord c)
return this.Equals(c);
return false;
}
public override int GetHashCode()
{
var hash = new HashCode();
foreach (var i in this.Coordinate)
hash.Add(i);
return hash.ToHashCode();
}
public override string ToString()
{
StringBuilder sb = new StringBuilder();
sb.Append('(');
foreach (var i in this.Coordinate)
{
sb.Append(i);
sb.Append(',');
}
sb.Length = sb.Length - 1;
sb.Append(')');
return sb.ToString();
}
}
Then we create a sparse matrix using a dictionary as the storage. Note this is incomplete obviously as there's no way to clear it partially or completely but again it's just an example.
class SparseMatrix : IEnumerable<KeyValuePair<SparseCoord, int>>
{
Dictionary<SparseCoord, int> cells = new Dictionary<SparseCoord, int>();
public int this[SparseCoord coord]
{
get
{
if (this.cells.TryGetValue(coord, out var ret))
return ret;
return 0;
}
set
{
this.cells[coord] = value;
}
}
public IEnumerator<KeyValuePair<SparseCoord, int>> GetEnumerator()
{
return this.cells.GetEnumerator();
}
IEnumerator IEnumerable.GetEnumerator()
{
return this.GetEnumerator();
}
}
Then you can add values and iterate over the contents:
static void Main(string[] _)
{
SparseMatrix matrix = new SparseMatrix();
matrix[SparseCoord.ToCoordinate(1, 2, 3)] = 1;
matrix[SparseCoord.ToCoordinate(5, 6, 7)] = 2;
foreach (var value in matrix)
Console.WriteLine(value);
}
Finally I would reiterate that if your matrix really is going to get "big" as you said in a comment then you should invest some time in looking at some well known implementations of sparse matrix.
I have created a dropdown in Android Xamarin from which I would like to auto select a dropdown value on page load. When the page is launched, it is passed a MyClass object with a Num value of 52. My dropdown has been passed an ArrayAdapter which has a list of MyClass objects, one of which has a Num value of 52. When I try to mySpinner.SetSelection(recommendedPosition); it is not working because myClassAdapter.GetPosition(recommendedValue) returns -1
I thought that the example in the following article (which shows me how to override the Equals and Hash functions of MyClass) would help me, but it still results in -1 being returned. It seems that these overridden functions are not being hit when I place a breakpoint on them.. but I understood that the GetPosition method calls IndexOf which should result in my overriden functions being called.
https://www.javaworld.com/article/3305792/comparing-java-objects-with-equals-and-hashcode.html
In this example, MyClass has one field of Num.. but my code has many more properties in MyClass, all of which are equal between recommendedValue and one of the items in listMyClass.
In InstantiateItem of my ViewPager I call:
var recommendedValue = new MyClass("52");
var List<MyClass> listMyClass = new List<MyClass> { new MyClass("52"), new MyClass("46") };
mySpinner = view.FindViewById<Spinner>(Resource.Id.mySpinner);
var myClassAdapter = new MyClassAdapter(view.Context, listMyClass);
mySpinner.Adapter = myClassAdapter;
//*
// I need the following to not return -1
//*
var recommendedPosition = myClassAdapter.GetPosition((MyClass)recommendedValue);
MyClass.cs
public class MyClass: Java.Lang.Object
{
private string Num { get; set; } = "";
public MyClass() {}
public MyClass(int? num)
{
Num = String.IsNullOrEmpty(num) ? "" : num;
}
public string GetNum()
{
return Num;
}
public override bool Equals(object other)
{
return Equals(other as MyClass);
}
public bool Equals(MyClass otherItem)
{
if (otherItem == null)
{
return false;
}
return otherItem.Num == Num;
}
public override int GetHashCode()
{
int hash = 19;
hash = hash * 31 + (Num == null ? 0 : Num.GetHashCode());
return hash;
}
}
Maybe you could consider not using GetPosition method,you could directly get the position like this :
var recommendedValue = new MyClass("52");
var List<MyClass> listMyClass = new List<MyClass> { new MyClass("52"), new MyClass("46") };
var recommendedPosition = listMyClass.IndexOf(recommendedValue);
or you could define a GetSelectPosition(MyClass myClass) in your MyClassAdapter :
class MyClassAdapter: ArrayAdapter<MyClass >
{
public Context context;
public List<MyClass> list;
...
public int GetSelectPosition(MyClass myClass)
{
return list.IndexOf(myClass);
}
}
then you could call like :
var recommendedPosition = myClassAdapter.GetSelectPosition(recommendedValue);
I have two arrays in my Base class, and I want to create Indexers that can be used in both of them, attached below is an MVCE of what I am trying to do.
class Indexer
{
private string[] namelist = new string[size];
private char[] grades = new string[size];
static public int size = 10;
public IndexedNames() {
for (int i = 0; i < size; i++){
namelist[i] = "N. A.";
grades[i] = 'F';
}
}
public string this[int index] {
get {
string tmp;
if( index >= 0 && index <= size-1 ) {
tmp = namelist[index];
} else {
tmp = "";
}
return ( tmp );
}
set {
if( index >= 0 && index <= size-1 ) {
namelist[index] = value;
}
}
}
In the above coed if you comment out the lines private char[] grades = new string[size]; and grades[i] = 'F'; then you can use the indexers as object_name[i] but I want to be able to access both namelist and grades by indexers.
Note : I cannot use structures to wrap them together as in my application, there size may not always be same.
Is this possible or I would need to go around with some hack.
Edit
I am looking for something like names.namelist[i] and names.grades[i], or some statements that I can access them separately. Also Indexer logic is not consistent, and even size varies in some arrays, that was skipped here to aid simplicity in MVCE.
Sorry, no-can-do.
Although Indexers can be Overloaded and can have more than one formal parameter, you can't make two variations based on the same Parameter in the same class. This is a Language Limitation (or blessing).
Indexers (C# Programming Guide)
However, this should lead you to several options.
You can just make use of C#7. Ref returns
Starting with C# 7.0, C# supports reference return values (ref
returns). A reference return value allows a method to return a
reference to a variable, rather than a value, back to a caller. The
caller can then choose to treat the returned variable as if it were
returned by value or by reference. The caller can create a new
variable that is itself a reference to the returned value, called a
ref local.
public ref string Namelist(int position)
{
if (array == null)
throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(array));
if (position < 0 || position >= array.Length)
throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException(nameof(position));
return ref array[position];
}
...
// Which allows you to do funky things like this, etc.
object.NameList(1) = "bob";
You could make sub/nested classes with indexers
That's to say, you could create a class that has the features you need with indexers, and make them properties of the main class. So you get something like you envisaged object.Namelist[0] and object.Grades[0].
Note : in this situation you could pass the arrays down as references and still access them in the main array like you do.
Example which includes both:
Given
public class GenericIndexer<T>
{
private T[] _array;
public GenericIndexer(T[] array)
{
_array = array;
}
public T this[int i]
{
get => _array[i];
set => _array[i] = value;
}
}
Class
public class Bobo
{
private int[] _ints = { 2, 3, 4, 5, 5 };
private string[] _strings = { "asd","asdd","sdf" };
public Bobo()
{
Strings = new GenericIndexer<string>(_strings);
Ints = new GenericIndexer<int>(_ints);
}
public GenericIndexer<string> Strings ;
public GenericIndexer<int> Ints ;
public void Test()
{
_ints[0] = 234;
}
public ref int DoInts(int pos) => ref _ints[pos];
public ref string DoStrings(int pos) => ref _strings[pos];
}
Usage:
var bobo = new Bobo();
bobo.Ints[1] = 234;
bobo.DoInts(1) = 42;
I think only a two parameter indexer can achieve what you want.
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Linq;
using System.Reflection;
namespace ConsoleApp1
{
class MyClass
{
protected static Dictionary<string, FieldInfo[]> table = new Dictionary<string, FieldInfo[]>();
static public int size = 10;
protected char[] grades = new char[size];
public object this[string name, int index]
{
get
{
var fieldInfos = table[this.GetType().FullName];
return ((Array)fieldInfos.First((x) => x.Name == name).GetValue(this)).GetValue(index);
}
set
{
var fieldInfos = table[this.GetType().FullName];
((Array)fieldInfos.First((x) => x.Name == name).GetValue(this)).SetValue(value, index);
}
}
static void Main()
{
var names = new MyChildClass();
names[DataColumns.Grades, 1] = 'S';
names[DataColumns.NameList, 9] = "W.S";
}
}
class MyChildClass : MyClass
{
private string[] namelist = new string[size];
static MyChildClass()
{
var t = typeof(MyChildClass);
table.Add(t.FullName, t.GetFields(BindingFlags.NonPublic | BindingFlags.Instance));
}
public MyChildClass()
{
for (int i = 0; i < size; i++)
{
namelist[i] = "N. A.";
grades[i] = 'F';
}
}
}
static class DataColumns
{
public static string NameList = "namelist";
public static string Grades = "grades";
}
}
Maybe something like this:
class Indexer
{
private string[] namelist = new string[size];
private string[] grades = new string[size + 1]; // size +1 to indicate different
// size
static public int size = 10;
public void IndexedNames()
{
for (int i = 0; i < size; i++)
{
namelist[i] = "N. A.";
grades[i] = "F";
}
}
public string this[int i, int j]
{
get
{
string tmp;
// we need to return first array
if (i > 0)
{
tmp = namelist[i];
}
else
{
tmp = grades[i];
}
return (tmp);
}
set
{
if (i > 0)
{
namelist[i] = value;
}
else grades[i] = value;
}
}
}
Suppose I have a list of multi-part questions and each question has a QuestionNumber like 1, 1a,1b,2,2a and so on. I want to fetch a list of questions from the database using linq-to-entities, but ordered by QuestionNumber. The problem is that rather than using the correct order, it will use lexicographic ordering like
1
11
11a
11b
1a
1b
2
22
What I have so far is a custom comparer:
public class QuestionCompare : IComparer<Question>
{
public int Compare(Question x, Question y)
{
string a = x.QuestionNumber;
string b = y.QuestionNumber;
if (a == b)
{
return 0;
}
int aInt;
bool aBool = Int32.TryParse(new String(a.Where(Char.IsDigit).ToArray()), out aInt);
int bInt;
bool bBool = Int32.TryParse(new String(b.Where(Char.IsDigit).ToArray()), out bInt);
if (aBool)
{
if (bBool)
{
if (aInt > bInt)
{
return 1;
}
else if (aInt < bInt)
{
return -1;
}
else
{
string aLetter = new String(a.Where(Char.IsLetter).ToArray());
string bLetter = new String(a.Where(Char.IsLetter).ToArray());
return StringComparer.CurrentCulture.Compare(aLetter, bLetter);
}
}
else
{
return 1;
}
}
else
{
if (bBool)
{
return -1;
}
else
{
return StringComparer.CurrentCulture.Compare(a, b);
}
}
return 0;
}
}
And you can call Array.Sort(questionArray,new QuestionCompare()) to put the questions in the correct order.
However, I feel like this is a common and well defined order so I'm wondering if there are better implementations, perhaps even something built in to the .Net framework.
This comparer works fine and is a fair bit shorter.
public class QuestionCompare : IComparer<Question>
{
public int Compare(Question x, Question y)
{
string a = x.QuestionNumber;
string b = y.QuestionNumber;
var aDigits = new string(a.TakeWhile(c => char.IsDigit(c)).ToArray());
var bDigits = new string(b.TakeWhile(c => char.IsDigit(c)).ToArray());
int aInt = String.IsNullOrEmpty(aDigits) ? 0 : int.Parse(aDigits);
int bInt = String.IsNullOrEmpty(bDigits) ? 0 : int.Parse(bDigits);
return aInt != bInt ? aInt.CompareTo(bInt) : a.CompareTo(b);
}
}