We Keep Coding

Iterate over a list plus one value using LINQ

In a checksum calculation algorithm I'm implementing, the input must be an even number of bytes - if it isn't an extra zero byte must be packed at the end.
I do not want to modify the input data to my method by actually adding an element (and the input might be non-modifiable). Neither do I want to create a new data structure and copy the input.
I wondered if LINQ is a good option to create a lightweight IEnumerable something like:
void Calculate(IList<byte> input)
{
IEnumerable<byte> items = (input.Count & 1 ==0) ? items : X(input,0x0);
foreach(var i in items)
{
...
}
}
i.e. what would X(...) look like?

You can use this iterator (yield return) extension method to add extra items to the end of an IEnumerable<T> without needing to initially iterate over the elements (which you would need to do in-order to get a .Count value).
Note that you should check if input is an IReadOnlyCollection<T> or an IList<T> because that means you can use a more optimal code path when the .Count can be known in-advance.
public static IEnumerable<T> EnsureModuloItems<T>( this IEnumerable<T> source, Int32 modulo, T defaultValue = default )
{
if( source is null ) throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(source));
if( modulo < 1 ) throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException( nameof(modulo), modulo, message: "Value must be 1 or greater." );
//
Int32 count = 0;
foreach( T item in source )
{
yield return item;
count++;
}
Int32 remainder = count % modulo;
for( Int32 i = 0; i < remainder; i++ )
{
yield return defaultValue;
}
}
Used like so:
foreach( Byte b in input.EnsureModuloItems( modulo: 2, defaultValue: 0x00 ) )
{
}

You might use Concat method for that
IEnumerable<byte> items = input.Count() % 2 == 0 ? input : input.Concat(new[] { (byte)0x0 });
I've also changed your code a little bit, there is no Count property for IEnumerable<T>, you should use Count() method.
Since Concat() accepts IEnumerable<T>, it requires to a List<T> ao array to it. You can make a simple extension method to wrap a single item as IEnumerable<T>
internal static class Ext
{
public static IEnumerable<T> Yield<T>(this T item)
{
yield return item;
}
}
and use it
IEnumerable<byte> items = input.Count() % 2 == 0 ? input : input.Concat(((byte)0x0).Yield());
However, according to comments, the better option here can be an Append method
IEnumerable<byte> items = input.Count() % 2 == 0 ? input : input.Append((byte)0x0);

SortedSet with element duplication - can't remove element

I'm working on an implementation of the A-star algorithm in C# in Unity.
I need to evaluate a collection of Node :
class Node
{
public Cell cell;
public Node previous;
public int f;
public int h;
public Node(Cell cell, Node previous = null, int f = 0, int h = 0)
{
this.cell = cell;
this.previous = previous;
this.f = f;
this.h = h;
}
}
I have a SortedSet which allows me to store several Node, sorted by h property. Though, I need to be able to store two nodes with the same h property. So I've implemented a specific IComparer, in a way that allow me sorting by h property, and triggerring equality only when two nodes are representing the exact same cell.
class ByHCost : IComparer<Node>
{
public int Compare(Node n1, Node n2)
{
int result = n1.h.CompareTo(n2.h);
result = (result == 0) ? 1 : result;
result = (n1.cell == n2.cell) ? 0 : result;
return result;
}
}
My problem : I have a hard time to remove things from my SortedSet (I named it openSet).Here is an example:
At some point in the algorithm, I need to remove a node from the list based on some criteria (NB: I use isCell127 variable to focus my debug on an unique cell)
int removedNodesNb = openSet.RemoveWhere((Node n) => {
bool isSame = n.cell == candidateNode.cell;
bool hasWorseCost = n.f > candidateNode.f;
if(isCell127)
{
Debug.Log(isSame && hasWorseCost); // the predicate match exactly one time and debug.log return true
}
return isSame && hasWorseCost;
});
if(isCell127)
{
Debug.Log($"removed {removedNodesNb}"); // 0 nodes where removed
}
Here, the removeWhere method seems to find a match, but doesn't remove the node.
I tried another way :
Node worseNode = openSet.SingleOrDefault(n => {
bool isSame = n.cell == candidateNode.cell;
bool hasWorseCost = n.f > candidateNode.f;
return isSame && hasWorseCost;
});
if(isCell127)
{
Debug.Log($"does worseNode exists ? {worseNode != null}"); // Debug returns true, it does exist.
}
if(worseNode != null)
{
if(isCell127)
{
Debug.Log($"openSet length {openSet.Count}"); // 10
}
openSet.Remove(worseNode);
if(isCell127)
{
Debug.Log($"openSet length {openSet.Count}"); // 10 - It should have been 9.
}
}
I think the problem is related to my pretty unusual IComparer, but I can't figure whats exatcly the problem.
Also, I would like to know if there is a significative performance improvment about using an auto SortedSet instead of a manually sorted List, especially in the A-star algorithm use case.

If i write your test you do:
n1.h < n2.h
n1.cell = n2.cell -> final result = 0
n1.h > n2.h
n1.cell = n2.cell -> final result = 0
n1.h = n2.h
n1.cell != n2.cell -> final result = 1
n1.h < n2.h
n1.cell != n2.cell -> final result = -1
n1.h > n2.h
n1.cell != n2.cell -> final result = 1
when you have equality on h value (test number 3) you choose to have always the same result -> 1. so its no good you have to have another test on cell to clarify the position bacause there is a confusion with other test which gives the same result (test number 5)
So i could test with sample, but i am pretty sure you break the Sort.
So if you clarify the test, i suggest you to use Linq with a list...its best performance.

I'll answer my own topic because I've a pretty complete one.
Comparison
The comparison of the IComparer interface needs to follow some rules. Like #frenchy said, my own comparison was broken. Here are math fundamentals of a comparison I totally forgot (I found them here):
1) A.CompareTo(A) must return zero.
2) If A.CompareTo(B) returns zero, then B.CompareTo(A) must return zero.
3) If A.CompareTo(B) returns zero and B.CompareTo(C) returns zero, then A.CompareTo(C) must return zero.
4) If A.CompareTo(B) returns a value other than zero, then B.CompareTo(A) must return a value of the opposite sign.
5) If A.CompareTo(B) returns a value x not equal to zero, and B.CompareTo(C) returns a value y of the same sign as x, then A.CompareTo(C) must return a value of the same sign as x and y.
6) By definition, any object compares greater than (or follows) null, and two null references compare equal to each other.
In my case, rule 4) - symetry - was broken.
I needed to store multiple node with the same h property, but also to sort by that h property. So, I needed to avoid equality when h property are the same.
What I decided to do, instead of a default value when h comparison lead to 0 (which broke 4th rule), is refine the comparison in a way that never lead to 0 with a unique value foreach node instance. Well, this implementation is probably not the best, maybe there is something better to do for a unique value, but here is what I did.
private class Node
{
private static int globalIncrement = 0;
public Cell cell;
public Node previous;
public int f;
public int h;
public int uid;
public Node(Cell cell, Node previous = null, int f = 0, int h = 0)
{
Node.globalIncrement++;
this.cell = cell;
this.previous = previous;
this.f = f;
this.h = h;
this.uid = Node.globalIncrement;
}
}
private class ByHCost : IComparer<Node>
{
public int Compare(Node n1, Node n2)
{
if(n1.cell == n2.cell)
{
return 0;
}
int result = n1.h.CompareTo(n2.h);
result = (result == 0) ? n1.uid.CompareTo(n2.uid) : result; // Here is the additional comparison which never lead to 0. Depending on use case and number of object, it would be better to use another system of unique values.
return result;
}
}
RemoveWhere method
RemoveWhere use a predicate to look into the collection so I didn't think it cares about comparison. But RemoveWhere use internally Remove method, which do care about the comparison. So, even if the RemoveWhere have found one element, if your comparison is inconstent, it will silently pass its way. That's a pretty weird implementation, no ?

Array sorting by two parameters

I'm having a little difficulty with the array.sort. I have a class and this class has two fields, one is a random string the other one is a random number. If i want to sort it with one parameter it just works fine. But i would like to sort it with two parameters. The first one is the SUM of the numbers(from low to high), and THEN if these numbers are equal by the random string that is give to them(from low to high).
Can you give some hint and tips how may i can "merge" these two kinds of sort?
Array.Sort(Phonebook, delegate(PBook user1, PBook user2)
{ return user1.Sum().CompareTo(user2.Sum()); });
Console.WriteLine("ORDER");
foreach (PBook user in Phonebook)
{
Console.WriteLine(user.name);
}
That's how i order it with one parameter.

i think this is what you are after:
sourcearray.OrderBy(a=> a.sum).ThenBy(a => a.random)

Here is the general algorithm that you'll use for comparing multiple fields in a CompareTo method:
public int compare(MyClass first, MyClass second)
{
int firstComparison = first.FirstValue.CompareTo(second.SecondValue);
if (firstComparison != 0)
{
return firstComparison;
}
else
{
return first.SecondValue.CompareTo(second.SecondValue);
}
}
However, LINQ does make the syntax for doing this much easier, allowing you to only write:
Phonebook = Phonebook.OrderBy(book=> book.Sum())
.ThenBy(book => book.OtherProperty)
.ToArray();

You can do this in-place by using a custom IComparer<PBook>. The following should order your array as per your original code, but if two sums are equal it should fall back on the random string (which I've called RandomString):
public class PBookComparer : IComparer<PBook>
{
public int Compare(PBook x, PBook y)
{
// Sort null items to the top; you can drop this
// if you don't care about null items.
if (x == null)
return y == null ? 0 : -1;
else if (y == null)
return 1;
// Comparison of sums.
var sumCompare = x.Sum().CompareTo(y.Sum());
if (sumCompare != 0)
return sumCompare;
// Sums are the same; return comparison of strings
return String.Compare(x.RandomString, y.RandomString);
}
}
You call this as
Array.Sort(Phonebook, new PBookComparer());
You could just do this inline but it gets a bit hard to follow:
Array.Sort(Phonebook, (x, y) => {
int sc = x.Sum().CompareTo(y.Sum());
return sc != 0 ? sc : string.Compare(x.RandomString, y.RandomString); });
... Actually, that isn't too bad, although I have dropped the null checks.

Listview item sort

I have several columns in a listview but I am just so dummb to think up a logical sorting method to both sort items out alphabetically and numerically. Because in case of numerical values
I'd like a column's content such as:
111
13
442
23
214
to be:
13
23
111
214
442
My current sorting class looks like this:
class itemsorter:IComparer
{
public int compare (object a, object b)
{
return string.compare(((lvitem)a).text,((lvitem)b).text));
}
}

Parse your Strings to numbers before doing the comparison, in which case you can simply return the difference of the 2 numbers as your result from the compare method.
As it sounds like you still want to sort both alphabetical and numerical values, this would have to be a combined, hybrid approach with the above - such that numbers are sorted against numbers, and alphabetical values with alphabetical. You'd just need to choose which takes precedence, such that either numerical or alphabetical values always come first - necessary to maintain a stable and reflexive sort. (For example, if a is a number, and b is a non-number, return 1. If a is a non-number, and b is a number, return -1. Else, they must be of equal types, and then you can defer to the type-specific sorting.)

As ziesemer said, you can take my sample code as below, hope this will give you a hand.
class itemsorter : IComparer
{
public int compare(object a, object b)
{
int resultA, resultB;
bool markA = int.TryParse(((lvitem)a).text, out resultA);
bool markB = int.TryParse(((lvitem)b).text, out resultB)
// They are number.
if (markA && markB)
{
if (resultA > resultB)
return 1;
else if (resultA < resultB)
return -1;
else
return 0;
}
// a can convert to number,
// b can't.
if (markA && !markB)
{
return 1;
}
// b can convert to number,
// a can't.
if(!markA && markB)
{
return -1;
}
}
}

Order an Array like another Array in C#

What is the best algorithm to take array like below:
A {0,1,2,3}
I expected to order it like array below:
B {3,1,0,2}
Any ideas?

So if you have two arrays and they hold the same data just in different order then just do this:
A = B
I suspect that is not your situation so I think we need more info.

What you need to do is determine the ordering of B and then apply that ordering to A. One way to accomplish this is to undo the ordering of B and keep track of what happens along the way. Then you can do the reverse to A.
Here's some sketchy C# (sorry, I haven't actually run this)...
Take a copy of B:
List<int> B2 = new List<int>(B);
Now sort it, using a sort function that records the swaps:
List<KeyValuePair<int,int>> swaps = new List<KeyValuePair<int,int>>();
B2.Sort( delegate( int x, int y ) {
if( x<y ) return -1;
if( x==y ) return 0;
// x and y must be transposed, so assume they will be:
swaps.Add( new KeyValuePair<int,int>(x,y) );
return 1;
});
Now apply the swaps, in reverse order, to A:
swaps.Reverse();
foreach( KeyValuePair<int,int> x in swaps )
{
int t = A[x.key];
A[x.key] = A[x.value];
A[x.value] = t;
}
Depending how the built-in sort algorithm works, you might need to roll your own. Something nondestructive like a merge sort should give you the correct results.

Here's my implementation of the comparer (uses LINQ, but can be easily adapted to older .net versions). You can use it for any sorting algorithms such as Array.Sort, Enumerable.OrderBy, List.Sort, etc.
var data = new[] { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 };
var customOrder = new[] { 2, 1 };
Array.Sort(data, new CustomOrderComparer<int>(customOrder));
foreach (var v in data)
Console.Write("{0},", v);
The result is 2,1,3,4,5, - any items not listed in the customOrder are placed at the end in the default for the given type (unless a fallback comparator is given)
public class CustomOrderComparer<TValue> : IComparer<TValue>
{
private readonly IComparer<TValue> _fallbackComparer;
private const int UseDictionaryWhenBigger = 64; // todo - adjust
private readonly IList<TValue> _customOrder;
private readonly Dictionary<TValue, uint> _customOrderDict;
public CustomOrderComparer(IList<TValue> customOrder, IComparer<TValue> fallbackComparer = null)
{
if (customOrder == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("customOrder");
_fallbackComparer = fallbackComparer ?? Comparer<TValue>.Default;
if (UseDictionaryWhenBigger < customOrder.Count)
{
_customOrderDict = new Dictionary<TValue, uint>(customOrder.Count);
for (int i = 0; i < customOrder.Count; i++)
_customOrderDict.Add(customOrder[i], (uint) i);
}
else
_customOrder = customOrder;
}
#region IComparer<TValue> Members
public int Compare(TValue x, TValue y)
{
uint indX, indY;
if (_customOrderDict != null)
{
if (!_customOrderDict.TryGetValue(x, out indX)) indX = uint.MaxValue;
if (!_customOrderDict.TryGetValue(y, out indY)) indY = uint.MaxValue;
}
else
{
// (uint)-1 == uint.MaxValue
indX = (uint) _customOrder.IndexOf(x);
indY = (uint) _customOrder.IndexOf(y);
}
if (indX == uint.MaxValue && indY == uint.MaxValue)
return _fallbackComparer.Compare(x, y);
return indX.CompareTo(indY);
}
#endregion
}

In the example you gave (an array of numbers), there would be no point in re-ordering A, since you could just use B.
So, presumably these are arrays of objects which you want ordered by one of their properties.
Then, you will need a way to look up items in A based on the property in question (like a hashtable). Then you can iterate B (which is in the desired sequence), and operate on the corresponding element in A.

Both array's contain the same values (or nearly so) but I need to force them to be in the same order. For example, in array A the value "3045" is in index position 4 and in array B it is in index position 1. I want to reorder B so that the index positions of like values are the same as A.

If they are nearly the same then here is some pseudo code:
Make an ArrayList
Copy the contents of the smaller array to the arraylist
for each item I in the larger array
FInd I in the ArrayList
Append I to a new array
Remove I from the arraylist

Could the issue be resolved using a Dictionary so the elements have a relationship that isn't predicated on sort order at all?