I have a simple static inventory class which is a list of custom class Item. I am working on a crafting system and when I craft something I need to remove the required Items from my inventory list.
I tried to create a method that I can call which takes an array of the items to remove as a parameter, but its not working.
I think its because the foreach loop doesn't know which items to remove? I am not getting an error messages, it just doesn't work. How can I accomplish this?
public class PlayerInventory: MonoBehaviour
{
public Texture2D tempIcon;
private static List<Item> _inventory=new List<Item>();
public static List<Item> Inventory
{
get { return _inventory; }
}
public static void RemoveCraftedMaterialsFromInventory(Item[] items)
{
foreach(Item item in items)
{
PlayerInventory._inventory.Remove(item);
}
}
}
Here is the function that shows what items will be removed:
public static Item[] BowAndArrowReqs()
{
Item requiredItem1 = ObjectGenerator.CreateItem(CraftingMatType.BasicWood);
Item requiredItem2 = ObjectGenerator.CreateItem(CraftingMatType.BasicWood);
Item requiredItem3 = ObjectGenerator.CreateItem(CraftingMatType.String);
Item[] arrowRequiredItems = new Item[]{requiredItem1, requiredItem2, requiredItem3};
return arrowRequiredItems;
}
And here is where that is called:
THis is within the RecipeCheck static class:
PlayerInventory.RemoveCraftedMaterialsFromInventory(RecipeCheck.BowAndArrowReqs());
While I like Jame's answer (and it sufficiently covers the contracts), I will talk on how one might implement this equality and make several observations.
For starts, in the list returned there may be multiple objects of the same type - e.g. BasicWood, String. Then there needs to be a discriminator used for each new object.
It would be bad if RemoveCraftedMaterialsFromInventory(new [] { aWoodBlock }) to remove a Wood piece in the same way that two wood pieces were checked ("equals") to each other. This is because being "compatible for crafting" isn't necessarily the same as "being equals".
One simple approach is to assign a unique ID (see Guid.NewGuid) for each specific object. This field would be used (and it could be used exclusively) in the Equals method - however, now we're back at the initial problem, where each new object is different from any other!
So, what's the solution? Make sure to use equivalent (or identical objects) when removing them!
List<Item> items = new List<Item> {
new Wood { Condition = Wood.Rotten },
new Wood { Condition = Wood.Epic },
};
// We find the EXISTING objects that we already have ..
var woodToBurn = items.OfType<Wood>
.Where(w => w.Condition == Wood.Rotten);
// .. so we can remove them
foreach (var wood in woodToBurn) {
items.Remove(wood);
}
Well, okay, that's out of the way, but then we say: "How can we do this with a Recipe such that Equals isn't butchered and yet it will remove any items of the given type?"
Well, we can either do this by using LINQ or a List method that supports predicates (i.e. List.FindIndex) or we can implement a special Equatable to only be used in this case.
An implementation that uses a predicate might look like:
foreach (var recipeItem in recipeItems) {
// List sort of sucks; this implementation also has bad bounds
var index = items.FindIndex((item) => {
return recipeItem.MaterialType == item.MaterialType;
});
if (index >= 0) {
items.RemoveAt(index);
} else {
// Missing material :(
}
}
If class Item doesn't implement IEquatable<Item> and the bool Equals(Item other) method, then by default it will use Object.Equals which checks if they are the same object. (not two objects with the same value --- the same object).
Since you don't say how Item is implemented, I can't suggest how to write it's Equals(), however, you should also override GetHashCode() so that two Items that are Equal return the same hash code.
UPDATE (based on comments):
Essentially, List.Remove works like this:
foreach(var t in theList)
{
if (t.Equals(itemToBeRemove))
PerformSomeMagicToRemove(t);
}
So, you don't have to do anything to the code you've given in your question. Just add the Equals() method to Item.
Related
I am attempting to iterate through the members of a list which implement a particular interface, called ImplementsGraphics and then call the method GetModels and add the return result to a list.
However, whenever I attempt to iterate through my objects, and perform the casting operation, I appear to be overwriting the same reference during my iteration. I have deduced that my problem is something to do with where, when and how I am instantiating my variables, but I can not decipher exactly what the intended behavior is.
I've tried numerous permutations of the following code:
public List<Model> GetModels()
{
var models = new List<Model>();
foreach (Actor actor in registeredActors.Where(n=>n is ImplementsGraphics))
{
var graphicActor = (ImplementsGraphics)actor;
models.AddRange(graphicActor.GetModels());
}
return models;
}
The problem line is var graphicActor = (ImplementsGraphics)actor; but I don't know how to write it such that declaring graphicsActor does not overwrite the existing instances of it stored in models.
Before my first several rounds of troubleshooting, I had
public List<Model> GetModels()
{
var models = new List<Model>();
foreach (Actor actor in registeredActors)
{
if((ImplementsGraphics)actor != null)
models.AddRange(((ImplementsGraphics)actor).GetModels());
}
return models;
}
Which I expected to work, as I had thought actor was safe across iteration, but apparently not.
Desired Behavior:
Return a list, which is all the return results of GetModels() for ever Actor in RegisteredActors which implements ImplementsGraphics
Actual Behavior:
Returns a list, which is the same return value repeated for each Actor in Registered Actor, which implements ImplementsGraphics.
EDIT:
In the class StaticActor which is a child of Actor and implements ImplementsGraphics its defined as follows:
public List<Model> GetModels()
{
foreach (ModelMesh mesh in model.Meshes)
{
foreach (BasicEffect effect in mesh.Effects)
{
effect.World = this.Transform.WorldMatrix;
}
}
return new List<Model> { Model };
}
Additonally, I have tried two other approaches which also failed. A for loop, which itereated through all of RegisteredActors, and checked if they implemented ImplementsGraphics, explicitly calling them by their index within RegisteredActors
And a LINQ query, which went
var models = RegisteredActors.Where(n=>n is ImplementsGraphics).SelectMany(n=>((ImplementsGraphics)n).GetModels())
EDIT 2:
The deinfitions of my classes are largely irrelevant, if you want a reproducable example of the behaviour I'm having trouble with, here is a far simpler example.
class MyClass
{
MyOtherClass foo = new MyOtherClass();
int bar = 0;
MyOtherClass GetOtherClass()
{
foo.bar = bar;
return foo;
}
}
class MyOtherClass
{
int bar = 0;
}
List<MyClass> MyCollection = new List<MyClass> {new MyClass(bar = 1), new MyClass(bar = 2), new Myclass(bar = 3)};
List<MyOtherClass> MyOtherCollection = new List<MyOtherClass>();
foreach(MyClass member in MyCollection)
{
MyOtherCollection.Add(member.GetOtherClass());
}
If you were to execute the above code, I expect that the value of MyOtherCollection's bar properties would be: 1, 2, 3
However, the actual result is that:
During the first iteration the values are 1
During the second iteration the values are 2, 2
During the third iteration the values are 3, 3, 3
I would appear, since none of the provided code states, only implies, that you are attempting to reuse a reference to single Model instance to draw multiple objects. Then you are adding multiple references of the same instance to the List.
The solution may be as simple as removing the static modifier from all Model variables and/or container objects.
Normally, the solution would be to create a Deep Copy of the object when it is added to the List, however, it is not directly possible to do this in XNA *1. (not that you would want to)
It would be better to allow each Actor, or StaticActor, object to directly pass its own Model(s) through the GetModels() method in the interface implementation, instead of using the additional class MyOtherClass.
*1. XNA does not expose a public constructor for the Model class. It is possible to do this using reflection. In MonoGame, there is a public Constructor available.
I tend to split my derived Classes and subsequent Lists based on properties like "StaticCollidables","DrawableStaticCollidables" and "DrawableMovingCollidables"...
This technique may require more upfront coding(and therefore is not as "elegant"), but, it is more efficient in terms of memory overhead(8 bytes + (4(32 bit) or 8(64 bit) bytes depending on sizeof(Object)) per List) and CPU overhead(no casting or is).
If you are attempting to reuse the same model, but place it in different locations, use the DrawInstancedPrimitives method using the VertexBuffers contained within each Mesh of the model.
Please comment on which of the above solutions worked for you(if any). If I have missed something please let me know, so I can correct the answer.
I have a complex type as:
class Row : IEquatable<Row>
{
public Type Type1 { get; }
public Type Type2 { get; }
public int dummy;
public override int GetHashCode()
{
var type1HashCode = Type1.GetHashCode();
//djb2 hash
unchecked
{
return ((type1HashCode << 5) + type1HashCode) ^ Type2.GetHashCode();
}
}
// Equals method also overrided
}
I have a HashSet<Row> and I want to merge it with another HashSet with two different strategies; first I want to merge and keep duplicates from main HashSet, I tried main.UnionWith(second) now I want to merge main with second (result being in main) and keep duplicates from second one; How can I do that? (it's a performance critical code)
My code:
var main = new HashSet<Row>()
{
new Row(typeof(int), typeof(long))
{
dummy = 10
}
};
var second = new HashSet<Row>()
{
new Row(typeof(int), typeof(long))
{
dummy = 20
}
};
// Merge here.
Trace.Write(main.First().dummy) //I want 20
I expect main.First().dummy to be 20.
The second strategy can be implemented by calling main.ExceptWith(second); first and then main.UnionWith(second) like the first strategy.
Since the UnionWith is basically a shortcut for
foreach (var element in second)
main.Add(element);
and ExceptWith - a shortcut for
foreach (var element in second)
main.Remove(element);
the second strategy can also be implemented with a single loop:
foreach (var element in second)
{
main.Remove(element);
main.Add(element);
}
But I think the performance gain would be negligible compared to ExceptWith + UnionWith approach.
If I'm reading this correctly, you want to keep duplicated values after merging. In this scenario, HashSet is the wrong data structure for your objective.
From the MSDN documentation for HashSet(T):
A HashSet collection is not sorted and cannot contain duplicate elements. If order or element duplication is more important than performance for your application, consider using the List class together with the Sort method.
I have an array of Items:
Item[] ItemsOut;
The problem is I have some derived types Item, like EquipItem. They are in this array too.
I have an AddItem function for both of the Item and EquipItem classes.
Inventory.AddItem(AllRecipes.Recipes[curPage].ItemsOut[i]......);
The idea is that in case my array is of type Item[] so it is always adding Items like normal Item.
My current solution is working and it's:
if (AllRecipes.Recipes[curPage].ItemsOut[i].GetType() == typeof(EquipItem))
{
Inventory.AddItem((EquipItem)AllRecipes.Recipes[curPage].ItemsOut[i], AllRecipes.Recipes[curPage].ItemsOut[i].number);
}
else
{
Inventory.AddItem(AllRecipes.Recipes[curPage].ItemsOut[i], AllRecipes.Recipes[curPage].ItemsOut[i].number);
}
But if I have 100500 child classes I will be forced to do 100500 if statements.
How to make this automatic? Something like:
Inventory.AddItem((AllRecipes.Recipes[curPage].ItemsOut[i].GetType())AllRecipes.Recipes[curPage].ItemsOut[i], AllRecipes.Recipes[curPage].ItemsOut[i].number);
or
Inventory.AddItem(AllRecipes.Recipes[curPage].ItemsOut[i] as AllRecipes.Recipes[curPage].ItemsOut[i].GetType(), AllRecipes.Recipes[curPage].ItemsOut[i].number);
I would like to be able to do something like:
Type t = AllRecipes.Recipes[curPage].ItemsOut[i].GetType();
Inventory.AddItem((t)AllRecipes.Recipes[curPage].ItemsOut[i].number);
But it causes a "variable used as a type" error, when I DO NEED to use it as a type. Not variable of course, but its value.
First off, unless you have two methods named AddItem (one for Item and another for EquipItem) you don't need to cast your ItemsOut, just use
Inventory.AddItem(AllRecipes.Recipes[curPage].ItemsOut[i], AllRecipes.Recipes[curPage].ItemsOut[i].number);
Second, you can't do this:
Type t = AllRecipes.Recipes[curPage].ItemsOut[i].GetType();
addItem((t)AllRecipes.Recipes[curPage].ItemsOut[i]
because t is an instance of the class Type, you can only cast using the type name like (EquipItem) AllRecipes.Recipes[curPage].ItemsOut[i]
And finally, unless you are having performance issues, don't ever try to optimize your code. Doing so is what we call Premature Optimization
So, check if you have a method AddItem(EquipItem equipItem). If you don't, you don't need to check it's type and cast the Item to EquipItem. Hope I could help you.
EDIT the best thing I can think that can improve your code is clearing it a bit, like this:
var item = AllRecipes.Recipes[curPage].ItemsOut[i];
if (item is EquipItem)
{
Inventory.AddItem((EquipItem) item, item.number);
}
else
{
Inventory.AddItem(item, item.number);
}
The idea here should be not to make anything know the difference between an Item, an EquipItem (or for that matter any old FooItem).
If they all derive from Item and the array is typed as Item[] then those subclasses can be added to the array without issue
var item = new Item();
var equip = new EquipItem(); // where EquipItem inherits from Item;
var array = new Item[]{ item,equipItem}; // no error here
If you have a single AddItem method, which adds to this array and performs some action based on the type, again the calling code should not know anything about the type - perhaps some virtual method which does some action when added to the list
public class Item
{
public virtual void AddedToList(){}
}
public class EquipItem
{
public override void AddedToList()
{
// behaviour specific to EquipItem
}
}
I try to write a program where Dictionary is indexed by List. (trust me i do, and yes there are option, but i like indexing by list). There is a minimal working (actually not working, only one last line which is a problem) example:
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
namespace test
{
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Dictionary<List<String>, int> h = new Dictionary<List<string>,int>();
List<String> w = new List<string> {"a"};
h.Add(w, 1);
w = new List<string>{"b"};
h.Add(w,2);
w = new List<string>{"a"};
int value = 0;
h.TryGetValue(w, out value);
Console.WriteLine(value+" "+h[w]);
}
}
if one debugs this program, he will clearly see that there two elements in h, but still these elements are not accessible via correct indexes --- h[w]. Am I wrong or is there something weird going on?
The problem with your app extends from the fact that:
new List<String> { "a" } != new List<String> { "a" }
Equality for lists checks to see if the two references refer to the same instance. In this case, they don't. You've instead created two Lists with the same elements...which doesn't make them equal.
You can fix the problem by creating a custom Equality Comparer:
public class ListEqualityComparer<T> : IEqualityComparer<List<T>>
{
public bool Equals(List<T> list1, List<T> list2)
{
return list1.SequenceEquals(list2);
}
public int GetHashCode(List<T> list)
{
if(list != null && list.Length > 0)
{
var hashcode = list[0].GetHashCode();
for(var i = 1; i <= list.Length; i++)
hashcode ^= list[i].GetHashCode();
return hashcode;
}
return 0;
}
}
And then passing that to the Dictionary constructor:
Dictionary<List<String>, int> h =
new Dictionary<List<string>,int>(new ListEqualityComparer<String>());
The problem is the index by List, what you are indexing by isn't the data in the list but you are essentially indexing by the memory pointer to the List (i.e the memory address of where this List is located).
You Created one list at one memory location, you then created a totally different list at a different memory location (ie when you create a new instance). The two lists are different even though they contain the same data, and this means you can add as many as you want to the dictionary.
One solution is Rather than indexing by List would be to index by String and use a comma separated List containing all the data in your list as an index.
This won't ever work for you, because List<T>'s Equals and GetHashCode methods don't consider the contents of the list. If you want to use a collection of objects as a key, you'll need to implement your own collection type that overrides Equals in such a way as to check the equality of the objects in the collection (perhaps using Enumerable.SequenceEqual.)
The Dictionary class uses reference comparison to look for the specified key, that's why even if the lists contain the same items, they are different.
Let's say I have a class
public class MyObject
{
public int SimpleInt{get;set;}
}
And I have a List<MyObject>, and I ToList() it and then change one of the SimpleInt, will my change be propagated back to the original list. In other words, what would be the output of the following method?
public void RunChangeList()
{
var objs = new List<MyObject>(){new MyObject(){SimpleInt=0}};
var whatInt = ChangeToList(objs );
}
public int ChangeToList(List<MyObject> objects)
{
var objectList = objects.ToList();
objectList[0].SimpleInt=5;
return objects[0].SimpleInt;
}
Why?
P/S: I'm sorry if it seems obvious to find out. But I don't have compiler with me now...
Yes, ToList will create a new list, but because in this case MyObject is a reference type then the new list will contain references to the same objects as the original list.
Updating the SimpleInt property of an object referenced in the new list will also affect the equivalent object in the original list.
(If MyObject was declared as a struct rather than a class then the new list would contain copies of the elements in the original list, and updating a property of an element in the new list would not affect the equivalent element in the original list.)
From the Reflector'd source:
public static List<TSource> ToList<TSource>(this IEnumerable<TSource> source)
{
if (source == null)
{
throw Error.ArgumentNull("source");
}
return new List<TSource>(source);
}
So yes, your original list won't be updated (i.e. additions or removals) however the referenced objects will.
ToList will always create a new list, which will not reflect any subsequent changes to the collection.
However, it will reflect changes to the objects themselves (Unless they're mutable structs).
In other words, if you replace an object in the original list with a different object, the ToList will still contain the first object.
However, if you modify one of the objects in the original list, the ToList will still contain the same (modified) object.
Yes, it creates a new list. This is by design.
The list will contain the same results as the original enumerable sequence, but materialized into a persistent (in-memory) collection. This allows you to consume the results multiple times without incurring the cost of recomputing the sequence.
The beauty of LINQ sequences is that they are composable. Often, the IEnumerable<T> you get is the result of combining multiple filtering, ordering, and/or projection operations. Extension methods like ToList() and ToArray() allow you to convert the computed sequence into a standard collection.
The accepted answer correctly addresses the OP's question based on his example. However, it only applies when ToList is applied to a concrete collection; it does not hold when the elements of the source sequence have yet to be instantiated (due to deferred execution). In case of the latter, you might get a new set of items each time you call ToList (or enumerate the sequence).
Here is an adaptation of the OP's code to demonstrate this behaviour:
public static void RunChangeList()
{
var objs = Enumerable.Range(0, 10).Select(_ => new MyObject() { SimpleInt = 0 });
var whatInt = ChangeToList(objs); // whatInt gets 0
}
public static int ChangeToList(IEnumerable<MyObject> objects)
{
var objectList = objects.ToList();
objectList.First().SimpleInt = 5;
return objects.First().SimpleInt;
}
Whilst the above code may appear contrived, this behaviour can appear as a subtle bug in other scenarios. See my other example for a situation where it causes tasks to get spawned repeatedly.
A new list is created but the items in it are references to the orginal items (just like in the original list). Changes to the list itself are independent, but to the items will find the change in both lists.
Just stumble upon this old post and thought of adding my two cents. Generally, if I am in doubt, I quickly use the GetHashCode() method on any object to check the identities. So for above -
public class MyObject
{
public int SimpleInt { get; set; }
}
class Program
{
public static void RunChangeList()
{
var objs = new List<MyObject>() { new MyObject() { SimpleInt = 0 } };
Console.WriteLine("objs: {0}", objs.GetHashCode());
Console.WriteLine("objs[0]: {0}", objs[0].GetHashCode());
var whatInt = ChangeToList(objs);
Console.WriteLine("whatInt: {0}", whatInt.GetHashCode());
}
public static int ChangeToList(List<MyObject> objects)
{
Console.WriteLine("objects: {0}", objects.GetHashCode());
Console.WriteLine("objects[0]: {0}", objects[0].GetHashCode());
var objectList = objects.ToList();
Console.WriteLine("objectList: {0}", objectList.GetHashCode());
Console.WriteLine("objectList[0]: {0}", objectList[0].GetHashCode());
objectList[0].SimpleInt = 5;
return objects[0].SimpleInt;
}
private static void Main(string[] args)
{
RunChangeList();
Console.ReadLine();
}
And answer on my machine -
objs: 45653674
objs[0]: 41149443
objects: 45653674
objects[0]: 41149443
objectList: 39785641
objectList[0]: 41149443
whatInt: 5
So essentially the object that list carries remain the same in above code. Hope the approach helps.
I think that this is equivalent to asking if ToList does a deep or shallow copy. As ToList has no way to clone MyObject, it must do a shallow copy, so the created list contains the same references as the original one, so the code returns 5.
ToList will create a brand new list.
If the items in the list are value types, they will be directly updated, if they are reference types, any changes will be reflected back in the referenced objects.
In the case where the source object is a true IEnumerable (i.e. not just a collection packaged an as enumerable), ToList() may NOT return the same object references as in the original IEnumerable. It will return a new List of objects, but those objects may not be the same or even Equal to the objects yielded by the IEnumerable when it is enumerated again
var objectList = objects.ToList();
objectList[0].SimpleInt=5;
This will update the original object as well. The new list will contain references to the objects contained within it, just like the original list. You can change the elements either and the update will be reflected in the other.
Now if you update a list (adding or deleting an item) that will not be reflected in the other list.
I don't see anywhere in the documentation that ToList() is always guaranteed to return a new list. If an IEnumerable is a List, it may be more efficient to check for this and simply return the same List.
The worry is that sometimes you may want to be absolutely sure that the returned List is != to the original List. Because Microsoft doesn't document that ToList will return a new List, we can't be sure (unless someone found that documentation). It could also change in the future, even if it works now.
new List(IEnumerable enumerablestuff) is guaranteed to return a new List. I would use this instead.