Knowing that the non-generic ICollection doesn't offer a Contains method, what's the best way to check if a given object already is in a collection?
If I had two ICollections: A and B and wanted to check if B has all elements of A, what would be the best way to accomplish that? My first thought is adding all elements of A to a HashSet and then checking if all B's elements are in the set using Contains.
If I had two ICollections A and B and wanted to check if B has all elements of A, what would be the best way to accomplish that?
Let me rephrase your question in the languages of sets.
If I had two sets A and B and wanted to check if A is a subset of B, what would be the best way to accomplish that?
Now it becomes easy to see the answer:
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb358446%28v=vs.110%29.aspx?f=255&MSPPError=-2147217396
Construct a HashSet<T> from A and then use the IsSubsetOf method to see if A is a subset of B.
I note that if these are the sorts of operations you must perform frequently, then you should keep your data in HashSet<T> collections to begin with. The IsSubsetOf operation is possibly more efficient if both collections are hash sets.
A and B and wanted to check if B has all elements of A
I think you have it backwards. Add the B to the HashSet.
HashSet.Contains is O(1)
Overall it will be O(n + m)
Going to assume string
HashSet<string> HashSetB = new HashSet<string>(iCollecionB);
foreach (string s in iCollecionA)
{
if(HashSetB.Contains(s))
{
}
else
{
}
}
Boolean ICollectionContains(ICollection collection, Object item)
{
for (Object o in collection)
{
if (o == item)
return true;
}
return false;
}
Or in extension form:
public static class CollectionExtensions
{
public static Boolean Contains(this ICollection collection, Object item)
{
for (Object o in collection)
{
if (o == item)
return true;
}
return false;
}
}
With usage:
ICollection turboEncabulators = GetSomeTrunnions();
if (turboEncabulators.Contains(me))
Environment.FailFast(); //How did you find me!
I am coding a C# forms application, and would like to know if the following two functions achieve the same result:
public List<object> Method1(int parentId)
{
List<object> allChildren = new List<object>();
foreach (var item in list.Where(c => c.parentHtmlNodeForeignKey == parentId))
{
allChildren.Add(item);
allChildren.AddRange(Method1(item.id));
}
return allChildren;
}
public IEnumerable<object> Method2(int parentId)
{
foreach (var item in list.Where(c => c.parentHtmlNodeForeignKey == parentId))
{
yield return item;
foreach (var itemy in Method2(item.id))
{
yield return itemy;
}
}
}
Am I correct in saying that the Method1 function is more efficient than the Method2?
Also, can either of the above functions be coded to be more efficient?
EDIT
I am using the function to return some objects that are then displayed in a ListView. I am then looping through these same objects to check if a string occurs.
Thanks.
This highly depends on what you want to do. For example if you use FirstOrDefault(p => ....) the yield method can be faster because it's not required to store all the stuff into a list and if the first element is the right one the list method has some overhead ( Of course the yield method has also overhead but as i said it depends ).
If you want to iterate over and over again over the data then you should go with the list.
It depends on lot's of things.
Here are some reasons to use IEnumerable<T> over List<T>:
When you are iterating a part of a collection (e.g. using FirstOrDefault, Any, Take etc.).
When you have an large collection and you can ToList() it (e.g. Fibonacci Series).
When you shouldn't use IEnumerable<T> over List<T>:
When you are enumerating a DB query multiple times with different conditions (You may want the results in memory).
When you want to iterate the whole collection more than once - There is no need to create iterators each time.
In my project, I implemented a service class which has a function naming GetList() which is as follows:
IList<SUB_HEAD> GetList(string u)
{
var collection = (from s in context.DB.SUB_HEAD where (s.head_code.Equals(u))
select s);
return collection.ToList();
}
which can also be implemented as
Arraylist unitlist= new Arraylist();
ObjectSet<SUB_HEAD> List = subheadService.GetAll();
foreach(SUB_HEAD unit in List)
{
unitlist.Add(unit.sub_head_code);
}
Purpose of doing this is to populate dropdown menu.
My question is that "which of the above method will be more efficient with respect to processing?" because my project have lot of places where i have to use drop down menu.
Please, just use the LINQ version. You can perform optimizations later if you profile and determine this is too slow (by the way, it won't be). Also, you can use the functional-style LINQ to make a single expression that I think reads better.
IList<SUB_HEAD> GetList(string u)
{
return context.DB.SUB_HEAD.Where(s => s.head_code == u).ToList();
}
The ToList() method is going to do exactly the same thing as you're doing manually. The implementation in the .NET framework looks something like this:
public static class Enumerable
{
public static List<T> ToList<T>(this IEnumerable<T> source)
{
var list = new List<T>();
foreach (var item in source)
{
list.Add(item);
}
return list;
}
}
If you can express these 4 lines of code with the characters "ToList()" then you should do so. Code duplication is bad, even when it's for something this simple.
I have a list of items.
The problem is the returned items (which I have no control over) return the same items THREE time.
So while the actual things that should be in the list are:
A
B
C
I get
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
How can I cleanly and easily remove the duplicates? Maybe count the items, divide by three and delete anything from X to list.Count?
The quickest, simplest thing to do is to not remove the items but run a distinct query
var distinctItems = list.Distinct();
If it's a must that you have a list, you can always append .ToList() to the call. If it's a must that you continue to work with the same list, then you'd just have to iterate over it and keep track of what you already have and remove any duplicates.
Edit: "But I'm working with a class"
If you have a list of a given class, to use Distinct you need to either (a) override Equals and GetHashCode inside your class so that appropriate equality comparisons can be made. If you do not have access to the source code (or simply don't want to override these methods for whatever reason), then you can (b) provide an IEqualityComparer<YourClass> implementation as an argument to the Distinct method. This will also allow you to specify the Equals and GetHashCode implementations without having to modify the source of the actual class.
public class MyObjectComparer : IEqualityComparer<MyObject>
{
public bool Equals(MyObject a, MyObject b)
{
// code to determine equality, usually based on one or more properties
}
public int GetHashCode(MyObject a)
{
// code to generate hash code, usually based on a property
}
}
// ...
var distinctItems = myList.Distinct(new MyObjectComparer());
if you are 100% sure that you receive everything you need 3 times, then just
var newList = oldList.Take(oldList.Count / 3).ToList()
Linq has a Distinct() method which does exactly this. Or put the items in a HashSet if you want to avoid duplicated completely.
If you're using C# 3 or up:
var newList = dupList.Distinct().ToList();
If not then sort the list and do the following:
var lastItem = null;
foreach( var item in dupList )
{
if( item != lastItem )
{
newItems.Add(item);
}
lastItem = item;
}
you could simply create a new list and add items to it that are not already there.
My question as title above. For example
IEnumerable<T> items = new T[]{new T("msg")};
items.ToList().Add(new T("msg2"));
but after all it only has 1 item inside. Can we have a method like items.Add(item) like the List<T>?
You cannot, because IEnumerable<T> does not necessarily represent a collection to which items can be added. In fact, it does not necessarily represent a collection at all! For example:
IEnumerable<string> ReadLines()
{
string s;
do
{
s = Console.ReadLine();
yield return s;
} while (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(s));
}
IEnumerable<string> lines = ReadLines();
lines.Add("foo") // so what is this supposed to do??
What you can do, however, is create a new IEnumerable object (of unspecified type), which, when enumerated, will provide all items of the old one, plus some of your own. You use Enumerable.Concat for that:
items = items.Concat(new[] { "foo" });
This will not change the array object (you cannot insert items into to arrays, anyway). But it will create a new object that will list all items in the array, and then "Foo". Furthermore, that new object will keep track of changes in the array (i.e. whenever you enumerate it, you'll see the current values of items).
The type IEnumerable<T> does not support such operations. The purpose of the IEnumerable<T> interface is to allow a consumer to view the contents of a collection. Not to modify the values.
When you do operations like .ToList().Add() you are creating a new List<T> and adding a value to that list. It has no connection to the original list.
What you can do is use the Add extension method to create a new IEnumerable<T> with the added value.
items = items.Add("msg2");
Even in this case it won't modify the original IEnumerable<T> object. This can be verified by holding a reference to it. For example
var items = new string[]{"foo"};
var temp = items;
items = items.Add("bar");
After this set of operations the variable temp will still only reference an enumerable with a single element "foo" in the set of values while items will reference a different enumerable with values "foo" and "bar".
EDIT
I contstantly forget that Add is not a typical extension method on IEnumerable<T> because it's one of the first ones that I end up defining. Here it is
public static IEnumerable<T> Add<T>(this IEnumerable<T> e, T value) {
foreach ( var cur in e) {
yield return cur;
}
yield return value;
}
Have you considered using ICollection<T> or IList<T> interfaces instead, they exist for the very reason that you want to have an Add method on an IEnumerable<T>.
IEnumerable<T> is used to 'mark' a type as being...well, enumerable or just a sequence of items without necessarily making any guarantees of whether the real underlying object supports adding/removing of items. Also remember that these interfaces implement IEnumerable<T> so you get all the extensions methods that you get with IEnumerable<T> as well.
In .net Core, there is a method Enumerable.Append that does exactly that.
The source code of the method is available on GitHub..... The implementation (more sophisticated than the suggestions in other answers) is worth a look :).
A couple short, sweet extension methods on IEnumerable and IEnumerable<T> do it for me:
public static IEnumerable Append(this IEnumerable first, params object[] second)
{
return first.OfType<object>().Concat(second);
}
public static IEnumerable<T> Append<T>(this IEnumerable<T> first, params T[] second)
{
return first.Concat(second);
}
public static IEnumerable Prepend(this IEnumerable first, params object[] second)
{
return second.Concat(first.OfType<object>());
}
public static IEnumerable<T> Prepend<T>(this IEnumerable<T> first, params T[] second)
{
return second.Concat(first);
}
Elegant (well, except for the non-generic versions). Too bad these methods are not in the BCL.
No, the IEnumerable doesn't support adding items to it. The alternative solution is
var myList = new List(items);
myList.Add(otherItem);
To add second message you need to -
IEnumerable<T> items = new T[]{new T("msg")};
items = items.Concat(new[] {new T("msg2")})
I just come here to say that, aside from Enumerable.Concat extension method, there seems to be another method named Enumerable.Append in .NET Core 1.1.1. The latter allows you to concatenate a single item to an existing sequence. So Aamol's answer can also be written as
IEnumerable<T> items = new T[]{new T("msg")};
items = items.Append(new T("msg2"));
Still, please note that this function will not change the input sequence, it just return a wrapper that put the given sequence and the appended item together.
Not only can you not add items like you state, but if you add an item to a List<T> (or pretty much any other non-read only collection) that you have an existing enumerator for, the enumerator is invalidated (throws InvalidOperationException from then on).
If you are aggregating results from some type of data query, you can use the Concat extension method:
Edit: I originally used the Union extension in the example, which is not really correct. My application uses it extensively to make sure overlapping queries don't duplicate results.
IEnumerable<T> itemsA = ...;
IEnumerable<T> itemsB = ...;
IEnumerable<T> itemsC = ...;
return itemsA.Concat(itemsB).Concat(itemsC);
Others have already given great explanations regarding why you can not (and should not!) be able to add items to an IEnumerable. I will only add that if you are looking to continue coding to an interface that represents a collection and want an add method, you should code to ICollection or IList. As an added bonanza, these interfaces implement IEnumerable.
you can do this.
//Create IEnumerable
IEnumerable<T> items = new T[]{new T("msg")};
//Convert to list.
List<T> list = items.ToList();
//Add new item to list.
list.add(new T("msg2"));
//Cast list to IEnumerable
items = (IEnumerable<T>)items;
Easyest way to do that is simply
IEnumerable<T> items = new T[]{new T("msg")};
List<string> itemsList = new List<string>();
itemsList.AddRange(items.Select(y => y.ToString()));
itemsList.Add("msg2");
Then you can return list as IEnumerable also because it implements IEnumerable interface
Instances implementing IEnumerable and IEnumerator (returned from IEnumerable) don't have any APIs that allow altering collection, the interface give read-only APIs.
The 2 ways to actually alter the collection:
If the instance happens to be some collection with write API (e.g. List) you can try casting to this type:
IList<string> list = enumerableInstance as IList<string>;
Create a list from IEnumerable (e.g. via LINQ extension method toList():
var list = enumerableInstance.toList();
IEnumerable items = Enumerable.Empty(T);
List somevalues = new List();
items.ToList().Add(someValues);
items.ToList().AddRange(someValues);
Sorry for reviving really old question but as it is listed among first google search results I assume that some people keep landing here.
Among a lot of answers, some of them really valuable and well explained, I would like to add a different point of vue as, to me, the problem has not be well identified.
You are declaring a variable which stores data, you need it to be able to change by adding items to it ? So you shouldn't use declare it as IEnumerable.
As proposed by #NightOwl888
For this example, just declare IList instead of IEnumerable: IList items = new T[]{new T("msg")}; items.Add(new T("msg2"));
Trying to bypass the declared interface limitations only shows that you made the wrong choice.
Beyond this, all methods that are proposed to implement things that already exists in other implementations should be deconsidered.
Classes and interfaces that let you add items already exists. Why always recreate things that are already done elsewhere ?
This kind of consideration is a goal of abstracting variables capabilities within interfaces.
TL;DR : IMO these are cleanest ways to do what you need :
// 1st choice : Changing declaration
IList<T> variable = new T[] { };
variable.Add(new T());
// 2nd choice : Changing instantiation, letting the framework taking care of declaration
var variable = new List<T> { };
variable.Add(new T());
When you'll need to use variable as an IEnumerable, you'll be able to. When you'll need to use it as an array, you'll be able to call 'ToArray()', it really always should be that simple. No extension method needed, casts only when really needed, ability to use LinQ on your variable, etc ...
Stop doing weird and/or complex things because you only made a mistake when declaring/instantiating.
Maybe I'm too late but I hope it helps anyone in the future.
You can use the insert function to add an item at a specific index.
list.insert(0, item);
Sure, you can (I am leaving your T-business aside):
public IEnumerable<string> tryAdd(IEnumerable<string> items)
{
List<string> list = items.ToList();
string obj = "";
list.Add(obj);
return list.Select(i => i);
}