I have two instances of IEnumerable<T> (with the same T). I want a new instance of IEnumerable<T> which is the concatenation of both.
Is there a built-in method in .NET to do that or do I have to write it myself?
Yes, LINQ to Objects supports this with Enumerable.Concat:
var together = first.Concat(second);
NB: Should first or second be null you would receive a ArgumentNullException. To avoid this & treat nulls as you would an empty set, use the null coalescing operator like so:
var together = (first ?? Enumerable.Empty<string>()).Concat(second ?? Enumerable.Empty<string>()); //amending `<string>` to the appropriate type
The Concat method will return an object which implements IEnumerable<T> by returning an object (call it Cat) whose enumerator will attempt to use the two passed-in enumerable items (call them A and B) in sequence. If the passed-in enumerables represent sequences which will not change during the lifetime of Cat, and which can be read from without side-effects, then Cat may be used directly. Otherwise, it may be a good idea to call ToList() on Cat and use the resulting List<T> (which will represent a snapshot of the contents of A and B).
Some enumerables take a snapshot when enumeration begins, and will return data from that snapshot if the collection is modified during enumeration. If B is such an enumerable, then any change to B which occurs before Cat has reached the end of A will show up in Cat's enumeration, but changes which occur after that will not. Such semantics may likely be confusing; taking a snapshot of Cat can avoid such issues.
You can use below code for your solution:-
public void Linq94()
{
int[] numbersA = { 0, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 };
int[] numbersB = { 1, 3, 5, 7, 8 };
var allNumbers = numbersA.Concat(numbersB);
Console.WriteLine("All numbers from both arrays:");
foreach (var n in allNumbers)
{
Console.WriteLine(n);
}
}
I know this is a relatively old post, but if you wanted to concatenate multiple IEnumerable's, I use the following
var joinedSel = new[] { first, second, third }.Where(x => x != null).SelectMany(x => x);
This eliminates any null IEnumerable's and allows for multiple concatenations.
Based off of craig1231's answer, I've created some extension methods...
public static IEnumerable<T> JoinLists<T>(this IEnumerable<T> list1, IEnumerable<T> list2)
{
var joined = new[] { list1, list2 }.Where(x => x != null).SelectMany(x => x);
return joined ?? Enumerable.Empty<T>();
}
public static IEnumerable<T> JoinLists<T>(this IEnumerable<T> list1, IEnumerable<T> list2, IEnumerable<T> list3)
{
var joined = new[] { list1, list2, list3 }.Where(x => x != null).SelectMany(x => x);
return joined ?? Enumerable.Empty<T>();
}
public static IEnumerable<T> JoinMany<T>(params IEnumerable<T>[] array)
{
var final = array.Where(x => x != null).SelectMany(x => x);
return final ?? Enumerable.Empty<T>();
}
// The answer that I was looking for when searching
public void Answer()
{
IEnumerable<YourClass> first = this.GetFirstIEnumerableList();
// Assign to empty list so we can use later
IEnumerable<YourClass> second = new List<YourClass>();
if (IwantToUseSecondList)
{
second = this.GetSecondIEnumerableList();
}
IEnumerable<SchemapassgruppData> concatedList = first.Concat(second);
}
Related
I have a list of lists which I want to find the intersection for like this:
var list1 = new List<int>() { 1, 2, 3 };
var list2 = new List<int>() { 2, 3, 4 };
var list3 = new List<int>() { 3, 4, 5 };
var listOfLists = new List<List<int>>() { list1, list2, list3 };
// expected intersection is List<int>() { 3 };
Is there some way to do this with IEnumerable.Intersect()?
EDIT:
I should have been more clear on this: I really have a list of lists, I don't know how many there will be, the three lists above was just an example, what I have is actually an IEnumerable<IEnumerable<SomeClass>>
SOLUTION
Thanks for all great answers. It turned out there were four options for solving this: List+aggregate (#Marcel Gosselin), List+foreach (#JaredPar, #Gabe Moothart), HashSet+aggregate (#jesperll) and HashSet+foreach (#Tony the Pony). I did some performance testing on these solutions (varying number of lists, number of elements in each list and random number max size.
It turns out that for most situations the HashSet performs better than the List (except with large lists and small random number size, because of the nature of HashSet I guess.)
I couldn't find any real difference between the foreach method and the aggregate method (the foreach method performs slightly better.)
To me, the aggregate method is really appealing (and I'm going with that as the accepted answer) but I wouldn't say it's the most readable solution.. Thanks again all!
How about:
var intersection = listOfLists
.Skip(1)
.Aggregate(
new HashSet<T>(listOfLists.First()),
(h, e) => { h.IntersectWith(e); return h; }
);
That way it's optimized by using the same HashSet throughout and still in a single statement. Just make sure that the listOfLists always contains at least one list.
You can indeed use Intersect twice. However, I believe this will be more efficient:
HashSet<int> hashSet = new HashSet<int>(list1);
hashSet.IntersectWith(list2);
hashSet.IntersectWith(list3);
List<int> intersection = hashSet.ToList();
Not an issue with small sets of course, but if you have a lot of large sets it could be significant.
Basically Enumerable.Intersect needs to create a set on each call - if you know that you're going to be doing more set operations, you might as well keep that set around.
As ever, keep a close eye on performance vs readability - the method chaining of calling Intersect twice is very appealing.
EDIT: For the updated question:
public List<T> IntersectAll<T>(IEnumerable<IEnumerable<T>> lists)
{
HashSet<T> hashSet = null;
foreach (var list in lists)
{
if (hashSet == null)
{
hashSet = new HashSet<T>(list);
}
else
{
hashSet.IntersectWith(list);
}
}
return hashSet == null ? new List<T>() : hashSet.ToList();
}
Or if you know it won't be empty, and that Skip will be relatively cheap:
public List<T> IntersectAll<T>(IEnumerable<IEnumerable<T>> lists)
{
HashSet<T> hashSet = new HashSet<T>(lists.First());
foreach (var list in lists.Skip(1))
{
hashSet.IntersectWith(list);
}
return hashSet.ToList();
}
Try this, it works but I'd really like to get rid of the .ToList() in the aggregate.
var list1 = new List<int>() { 1, 2, 3 };
var list2 = new List<int>() { 2, 3, 4 };
var list3 = new List<int>() { 3, 4, 5 };
var listOfLists = new List<List<int>>() { list1, list2, list3 };
var intersection = listOfLists.Aggregate((previousList, nextList) => previousList.Intersect(nextList).ToList());
Update:
Following comment from #pomber, it is possible to get rid of the ToList() inside the Aggregate call and move it outside to execute it only once. I did not test for performance whether previous code is faster than the new one. The change needed is to specify the generic type parameter of the Aggregate method on the last line like below:
var intersection = listOfLists.Aggregate<IEnumerable<int>>(
(previousList, nextList) => previousList.Intersect(nextList)
).ToList();
You could do the following
var result = list1.Intersect(list2).Intersect(list3).ToList();
This is my version of the solution with an extension method that I called IntersectMany.
public static IEnumerable<TResult> IntersectMany<TSource, TResult>(this IEnumerable<TSource> source, Func<TSource, IEnumerable<TResult>> selector)
{
using (var enumerator = source.GetEnumerator())
{
if(!enumerator.MoveNext())
return new TResult[0];
var ret = selector(enumerator.Current);
while (enumerator.MoveNext())
{
ret = ret.Intersect(selector(enumerator.Current));
}
return ret;
}
}
So the usage would be something like this:
var intersection = (new[] { list1, list2, list3 }).IntersectMany(l => l).ToList();
This is my one-row solution for List of List (ListOfLists) without intersect function:
var intersect = ListOfLists.SelectMany(x=>x).Distinct().Where(w=> ListOfLists.TrueForAll(t=>t.Contains(w))).ToList()
This should work for .net 4 (or later)
After searching the 'net and not really coming up with something I liked (or that worked), I slept on it and came up with this. Mine uses a class (SearchResult) which has an EmployeeId in it and that's the thing I need to be common across lists. I return all records that have an EmployeeId in every list. It's not fancy, but it's simple and easy to understand, just what I like. For small lists (my case) it should perform just fine—and anyone can understand it!
private List<SearchResult> GetFinalSearchResults(IEnumerable<IEnumerable<SearchResult>> lists)
{
Dictionary<int, SearchResult> oldList = new Dictionary<int, SearchResult>();
Dictionary<int, SearchResult> newList = new Dictionary<int, SearchResult>();
oldList = lists.First().ToDictionary(x => x.EmployeeId, x => x);
foreach (List<SearchResult> list in lists.Skip(1))
{
foreach (SearchResult emp in list)
{
if (oldList.Keys.Contains(emp.EmployeeId))
{
newList.Add(emp.EmployeeId, emp);
}
}
oldList = new Dictionary<int, SearchResult>(newList);
newList.Clear();
}
return oldList.Values.ToList();
}
Here's an example just using a list of ints, not a class (this was my original implementation).
static List<int> FindCommon(List<List<int>> items)
{
Dictionary<int, int> oldList = new Dictionary<int, int>();
Dictionary<int, int> newList = new Dictionary<int, int>();
oldList = items[0].ToDictionary(x => x, x => x);
foreach (List<int> list in items.Skip(1))
{
foreach (int i in list)
{
if (oldList.Keys.Contains(i))
{
newList.Add(i, i);
}
}
oldList = new Dictionary<int, int>(newList);
newList.Clear();
}
return oldList.Values.ToList();
}
This is a simple solution if your lists are all small. If you have larger lists, it's not as performing as hash set:
public static IEnumerable<T> IntersectMany<T>(this IEnumerable<IEnumerable<T>> input)
{
if (!input.Any())
return new List<T>();
return input.Aggregate(Enumerable.Intersect);
}
I'm trying to track down a bug in our code. I've boiled it down to the snippet below. In the example below I have a grid of ints (a list of rows), but I want to find the indexes of the columns that have a 1. The implementation of this is to create an enumerator for each row and step through each column in turn by keeping the enumerators in step.
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var ints = new List<List<int>> {
new List<int> {0, 0, 1}, // This row has a 1 at index 2
new List<int> {0, 1, 0}, // This row has a 1 at index 1
new List<int> {0, 0, 1} // This row also has a 1 at index 2
};
var result = IndexesWhereThereIsOneInTheColumn(ints);
Console.WriteLine(string.Join(", ", result)); // Expected: "1, 2"
Console.ReadKey();
}
private static IEnumerable<int> IndexesWhereThereIsOneInTheColumn(
IEnumerable<List<int>> myIntsGrid)
{
var enumerators = myIntsGrid.Select(c => c.GetEnumerator()).ToList();
short i = 0;
while (enumerators.All(e => e.MoveNext())) {
if (enumerators.Any(e => e.Current == 1))
yield return i;
i++;
if (i > 1000)
throw new Exception("You have gone too far!!!");
}
}
}
However I have noticed that MoveNext() is not remembered each time around the while loop. MoveNext() always returns true, and Current is always 0. Is this a purposeful feature of Linq to make it more side effect free?
I noticed that this works:
private static IEnumerable<int> IndexesWhereThereIsOneInTheColumn(
IEnumerable<List<int>> myIntsGrid)
{
var enumerators = myIntsGrid.Select(c =>
c.ToArray().GetEnumerator()).ToList(); // added ToArray()
short i = 0;
while (enumerators.All(e => e.MoveNext())) {
if (enumerators.Any(e => (int)e.Current == 1)) // added cast to int
yield return i;
i++;
}
}
So is this just a problem with List?
It is because the enumerator of List<T> is a struct whereas the enumerator of Array is a class.
So when you call Enumerable.All with the struct, copy of enumerator is made and passed as a parameter to Func since structs are copied by value. So e.MoveNext is called on the copy, not the original.
Try this:
Console.WriteLine(new List<int>().GetEnumerator().GetType().IsValueType);
Console.WriteLine(new int[]{}.GetEnumerator().GetType().IsValueType);
It prints:
True
False
As Sriram Sakthivel's answer says the issue is due to lack of boxing and accidentally the list enumerator implementation being a struct, not a reference type. Usually, one would not expect the value-type behavior for an enumerator, as most are either exposed by the IEnumerator/IEnumerator<T> interfaces, or are reference types themselves. A quick way to go around this is to change this line
var enumerators = myIntsGrid.Select(c => c.GetEnumerator()).ToList();
to
var enumerators
= myIntsGrid.Select(c => (IEnumerator) c.GetEnumerator()).ToList();
instead.
The above code will construct a list of already boxed enumerators, which will be treated as reference type instances, because of the interface cast. From that moment on, they should behave as you expect them to in your later code.
If you need a generic enumerator (to avoid casts when latter using the enumerator.Current property), you can cast to the appropriate generic IEnumerator<T> interface:
c => (IEnumerator<int>) c.GetEnumerator()
or even better
c => c.GetEnumerator() as IEnumerator<int>
The as keyword is said to perform a lot better than direct casts, and in the case of a loop it could bring an essential performance benefit. Just be careful that as returns null if the cast fails As per Flater's request from comments:. In the OP's case, it is guaranteed the enumerator implements IEnumerator<int>, so it is safe to go for an as cast.
Alternatively, you could do it with a lambda extension
var ids = Enumerable.Range(0,ints.Max (row => row.Count)).
Where(col => ints.Any(row => (row.Count>col)? row[col] == (1) : false));
or
var ids = Enumerable.Range(0,ints.Max (row=> row.Count)).
Where(col => ints.Any (row => row.ElementAtOrDefault(col) == 1));
Here's a simple implementation using loops and yield:
private static IEnumerable<int> IndexesWhereThereIsOneInTheColumn(
IEnumerable<List<int>> myIntsGrid)
{
for (int i=0; myIntsGrid.Max(l=>l.Count) > i;i++)
{
foreach(var row in myIntsGrid)
{
if (row.Count > i && row[i] == 1)
{
yield return i;
break;
}
}
}
}
Alternatively, use this inside the for loop:
if (myIntsGrid.Any(row => row.Count > i && row[i] == 1)) yield return i;
Just for fun, here's a neat LINQ query that won't cause hard-to-trace side effects in your code:
IEnumerable<int> IndexesWhereThereIsOneInTheColumn(IEnumerable<IEnumerable<int>> myIntsGrid)
{
return myIntsGrid
// Collapse the rows into a single row of the maximum value of all rows
.Aggregate((acc, x) => acc.Zip(x, Math.Max))
// Enumerate the row
.Select((Value,Index) => new { Value, Index })
.Where(x => x.Value == 1)
.Select(x => x.Index);
}
Why can't you just get those indexes like this:
var result = ints.Select (i => i.IndexOf(1)).Distinct().OrderBy(i => i);
Seems to be much easier...
I want to compare two lists with the same number of elements, and find the number of differences between them. Right now, I have this code (which works):
public static int CountDifferences<T> (this IList<T> list1, IList<T> list2)
{
if (list1.Count != list2.Count)
throw new ArgumentException ("Lists must have the same number of elements", "list2");
int count = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < list1.Count; i++) {
if (!EqualityComparer<T>.Default.Equals (list1[i], list2[i]))
count++;
}
return count;
}
This feels messy to me, and it seems like there must be a more elegant way to achieve it. Is there a way, perhaps, to combine the two lists into a single list of tuples, then simple examine each element of the new list to see if both elements are equal?
Since order in the list does count this would be my approach:
public static int CountDifferences<T>(this IList<T> list1, IList<T> list2)
{
if (list1.Count != list2.Count)
throw new ArgumentException("Lists must have the same number of elements", "list2");
int count = list1.Zip(list2, (a, b) => a.Equals(b) ? 0 : 1).Sum();
return count;
}
Simply merging the lists using Enumerable.Zip() then summing up the differences, still O(n) but this just enumerates the lists once.
Also this approach would work on any two IEnumerable of the same type since we do not use the list indexer (besides obviously in your count comparison in the guard check).
I think your approach is fine, but you could use LINQ to simplify your function:
public static int CountDifferences<T>(this IList<T> list1, IList<T> list2)
{
if(list1.Count != list2.Count)
throw new ArgumentException("Lists must have same # elements", "list2");
return list1.Where((t, i) => !Equals(t, list2[i])).Count();
}
The way you have it written in the question, I don't think Intersect does what you're looking for. For example, say you have:
var list1 = new List<int> { 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8 };
var list2 = new List<int> { 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8 };
If you run list1.CountDifferences(list2), I'm assuming that you want to get back 2 since elements 2 and 3 are different. Intersect in this case will return 5 since the lists have 5 elements in common. So, if you're looking for 5 then Intersect is the way to go. If you're looking to return 2 then you could use the LINQ statement above.
Try something like this:
var result = list1.Intersect(list2);
var differences = list1.Count - result.Count();
If order counts:
var result = a.Where((x,i) => x !=b[i]);
var differences = result.Count();
You want the Intersect extension method of Enumerable.
public static int CountDifferences<T> (this IList<T> list1, IList<T> list2)
{
if (list1.Count != list2.Count)
throw new ArgumentException ("Lists must have the same number of elements", "list2");
return list1.Count - list1.Intersect(list2).Count();
}
You can use the extension method Zip of List.
List<int> lst1 = new List<int> { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 };
List<int> lst2 = new List<int> { 6, 2, 9, 4, 5 };
int cntDiff = lst1.Zip(lst2, (a, b) => a != b).Count(a => a);
// Output is 2
I have a list of objects, which has a method that has a couple of out parameters. How do i call this method on each object, get the out parameter values and use them later on in the query, perhaps for checking in a where clause?
Is this possible and if so can someone please demonostrate through sample code.
Thanks!
Maybe you should use a for each loop and then use your query?
(Actually, it's hard to say what to do best in this situation without knowing your code)
Here is one way of accessing the values of out parameters in your LINQ query. I dont think that you can use the out-values from say a where in a later select: list.Where(...).Select(...)
List<MyClass> list; // Initialize
Func<MyClass, bool> fun = f =>
{
int a, b;
f.MyMethod(out a, out b);
return a == b;
};
list.Where(fun);
Where MyClass is implemented something like this;
public class MyClass
{
public void MyMethod(out int a, out int b)
{
// Implementation
}
}
This uses Tuple<T1,T2> from .NET 4.0, but can be adapted for earlier versions:
//e.g., your method with out parameters
void YourMethod<T1,T2,T3>(T1 input, out T2 x, out T3 y) { /* assigns x & y */ }
//helper method for dealing with out params
Tuple<T2,T3> GetTupleOfTwoOutValues<T1,T2,T3>(T1 input)
{
T2 a;
T3 b;
YourMethod(input, out a, out b);
return Tuple.Create(a,b);
}
IEnumerable<Tuple<T2,T3>> LinqQuery<T1,T2,T3>(IEnumerable<T1> src, T2 comparisonObject)
{
return src.Select(GetTupleOfTwoOutValues)
.Where(tuple => tuple.Item1 == comparisonObject);
}
You can use tuples (without any helper methods):
var text = "123,456,abc";
var items = text.Split(',')
.Select(x => (long.TryParse(x, out var v), v))
.Where(x => x.Item1)
.Select(x => x.Item2);
foreach (var item in items)
{
Console.WriteLine(item);
}
Output
123
456
This article has some additional solutions: https://mydevtricks.com/linq-gems-out-parameters
You could use anonymous objects and the let keyword:
var texts = new[] { "dog", "2", "3", "cat" };
var checks = from item in texts
let check = new
{
Word = item,
IsNumber = int.TryParse(item, out var n),
Value = n,
}
where check.IsNumber
select check;
foreach(var item in checks)
{
Console.WriteLine($"'{item.Word}' is the number {item.Value}");
}
I have the following scenario:
List 1 has 20 items of type TItem, List 2 has 5 items of the same type. List 1 already contains the items from List 2 but in a different state. I want to overwrite the 5 items in List 1 with the items from List 2.
I thought a join might work, but I want to overwrite the items in List 1, not join them together and have duplicates.
There is a unique key that can be used to find which items to overwrite in List 1 the key is of type int
You could use the built in Linq .Except() but it wants an IEqualityComparer so use a fluid version of .Except() instead.
Assuming an object with an integer key as you indicated:
public class Item
{
public int Key { get; set; }
public int Value { get; set; }
public override string ToString()
{
return String.Format("{{{0}:{1}}}", Key, Value);
}
}
The original list of objects can be merged with the changed one as follows:
IEnumerable<Item> original = new[] { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 }.Select(x => new Item
{
Key = x,
Value = x
});
IEnumerable<Item> changed = new[] { 2, 3, 5 }.Select(x => new Item
{
Key = x,
Value = x * x
});
IEnumerable<Item> result = original.Except(changed, x => x.Key).Concat(changed);
result.ForEach(Console.WriteLine);
output:
{1:1}
{4:4}
{2:4}
{3:9}
{5:25}
LINQ isn't used to perform actual modifications to the underlying data sources; it's strictly a query language. You could, of course, do an outer join on List2 from List1 and select List2's entity if it's not null and List1's entity if it is, but that is going to give you an IEnumerable<> of the results; it won't actually modify the collection. You could do a ToList() on the result and assign it to List1, but that would change the reference; I don't know if that would affect the rest of your application.
Taking your question literally, in that you want to REPLACE the items in List1 with those from List2 if they exist, then you'll have to do that manually in a for loop over List1, checking for the existence of a corresponding entry in List2 and replacing the List1 entry by index with that from List2.
As Adam says, LINQ is about querying. However, you can create a new collection in the right way using Enumerable.Union. You'd need to create an appropriate IEqualityComparer though - it would be nice to have UnionBy. (Another one for MoreLINQ perhaps?)
Basically:
var list3 = list2.Union(list1, keyComparer);
Where keyComparer would be an implementation to compare the two keys. MiscUtil contains a ProjectionEqualityComparer which would make this slightly easier.
Alternatively, you could use DistinctBy from MoreLINQ after concatenation:
var list3 = list2.Concat(list1).DistinctBy(item => item.Key);
Here's a solution with GroupJoin.
List<string> source = new List<string>() { "1", "22", "333" };
List<string> modifications = new List<string>() { "4", "555"};
//alternate implementation
//List<string> result = source.GroupJoin(
// modifications,
// s => s.Length,
// m => m.Length,
// (s, g) => g.Any() ? g.First() : s
//).ToList();
List<string> result =
(
from s in source
join m in modifications
on s.Length equals m.Length into g
select g.Any() ? g.First() : s
).ToList();
foreach (string s in result)
Console.WriteLine(s);
Hmm, how about a re-usable extension method while I'm at it:
public static IEnumerable<T> UnionBy<T, U>
(
this IEnumerable<T> source,
IEnumerable<T> otherSource,
Func<T, U> selector
)
{
return source.GroupJoin(
otherSource,
selector,
selector,
(s, g) => g.Any() ? g.First() : s
);
}
Which is called by:
List<string> result = source
.UnionBy(modifications, s => s.Length)
.ToList();