I have an object whose value may be one of several array types like int[] or string[], and I want to convert it to a string[]. My first attempt failed:
void Do(object value)
{
if (value.GetType().IsArray)
{
object[] array = (object[])value;
string[] strings = Array.ConvertAll(array, item => item.ToString());
// ...
}
}
with the runtime error Unable to cast object of type 'System.Int32[]' to type 'System.Object[]', which makes sense in retrospect since my int[] doesn't contain boxed integers.
After poking around I arrived at this working version:
void Do(object value)
{
if (value.GetType().IsArray)
{
object[] array = ((Array)value).Cast<object>().ToArray();
string[] strings = Array.ConvertAll(array, item => item.ToString());
// ...
}
}
I guess this is OK, but it seems pretty convoluted. Anyone have a simpler way?
You don't need to convert it to an array and then use LINQ. You can do it in a more streaming fashion, only converting to an array at the end:
var strings = ((IEnumerable) value).Cast<object>()
.Select(x => x == null ? x : x.ToString())
.ToArray();
(Note that this will preserve nulls, rather than throwing an exception. It's also fine for any IEnumerable, not just arrays.)
.ToArray makes multiple memory allocations in most cases, but there are few ways around it:
object value = new[] { 1, 2.3 };
IList list = value as IList;
string[] strings = new string[list.Count];
for (int i = 0; i < strings.Length; i++)
strings[i] = Convert.ToString(list[i]);
In most cases that might be a bit overkill and waste of vertical space, so I would use something like the accepted answer with an optional null-conditional operator ? to check if the source is array:
string[] strings = (value as Array)?.Cast<object>().Select(Convert.ToString).ToArray();
void Do(object value)
{
if (value.GetType().IsArray)
{
string[] strings = ((object[]) value).Select(obj => Convert.ToString(obj)).ToArray();
}
}
Related
I'm a student and I was wondering what the most efficient way is to check if a certain value is present in a array.
My second attempt:
string value = "pow";
string[] array = new string[] { "pong", "ping", "pow" };
bool valueIsInArray = false;
foreach(var s in array) if (s == value) valueIsInArray = true;
if (valueIsInArray)
{
// code here
}
I've researched and found if I were to use LINQ the code would look like this:
string value = "oink"; // value given to the method
string[] array = new string[] { "oink", "oink", "baboinkadoink" };
if (array.Contains(value))
{
//code here
}
The question is if using LINQ in anyway negatively impacts the speed or consistency of the code, and if there is an even better way to go about doing this?
Use linq Any(), The enumeration of source is stopped as soon as the result can be determined.
string value = "pow";
string[] array = new string[] { "pong", "ping", "pow" };
bool isValuePresent = array.Any(x => x == value);
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb534972(v=vs.110).aspx
As a commenter said, LiNQ won't really trouble you here. The difference is microscopic (even on larger collections). However, if you must use an alternative, use IndexOf. See: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.array.indexof(v=vs.110).aspx
Example:
string value = "oink"; // value given to the method
string[] array = new string[] { "oink", "oink", "baboinkadoink" };
if (Array.IndexOf(array, value) > -1)
{
//code here
}
Although I'm not sure what Contains ends up doing underwater, but they probably make a call to IndexOf aswell.
Willy-nilly you have to scan the array up to the first match (or entire array if there's no match); you can either put foreach loop:
bool valueIsInArray = false;
foreach (var item in array)
if (item == value) {
valueIsInArray = true;
break;
}
use for one:
bool valueIsInArray = false;
foreach (int i = 0; i < array.Length; ++i)
if (array[i] == value) {
valueIsInArray = true;
break;
}
Try Array class:
bool valueIsInArray = array.Contains(value);
Implement the code with a help of Linq:
bool valueIsInArray = array.Any(item => item == value);
The difference of these methods is a question of microseconds (if any); that's why put the version which is the most readable for you. My own choice is array.Contains(value) - let the system work for you and hide unwanted details (e.g. break in the loop)
You shoud have to iterate through the entire array for checking the value.
Either Linq or Conventional looping methods. Or you can use the
Array.Find()
also for the same. Better to go with the Linq and make the code is more simpler.
Happy coding
C# allows creating and populating multidimensional arrays, here is a simple example:
public static void Main(String[] args)
{
var arr = (int[,])CreateArray(new [] {2, 3}, 8);
Console.WriteLine("Value: " + arr[0,0]);
}
// Creates a multidimensional array with the given dimensions, and assigns the
// given x to the first array element
public static Array CreateArray<T>(int[] dimLengths, T x)
{
var arr = Array.CreateInstance(typeof(T), dimLengths);
var indices = new int[dimLengths.Length];
for (var i = 0; i < indices.Length; i++)
indices[i] = 0;
arr.SetValue(x, indices); // Does boxing/unboxing
return arr;
}
This works well. However, for some reason there is no generic version of Array.SetValue(), so the code above does boxing/unboxing, which I'd like to avoid. I was wondering if I missed something or if this is an omission in the .NET API?
No, you are not missing anything: Arrays does not have an option that sets the value without boxing and unboxing.
You do have an alternative to this with LINQ, but it is probably going to be slower than boxing/unboxing for a single element, because compiling a dynamic lambda would "eat up" the potential benefits:
public static Array CreateArray<T>(int[] dimLengths, T x) {
var arr = Array.CreateInstance(typeof(T), dimLengths);
var p = Expression.Parameter(typeof(object), "arr");
var ind = new Expression[dimLengths.Length];
for (var i = 0; i < dimLengths.Length; i++) {
ind[i] = Expression.Constant(0);
}
var v = Expression.Variable(arr.GetType(), "cast");
var block = Expression.Block(
new[] {v}
, new Expression[] {
Expression.Assign(v, Expression.Convert(p, arr.GetType()))
, Expression.Assign(Expression.ArrayAccess(v, ind), Expression.Constant(x))
, Expression.Constant(null, typeof(object))
}
);
Expression.Lambda<Func<object, object>>(block, p).Compile()(arr);
return arr;
}
If you wanted to set all elements in a loop, you could modify the above to compile a dynamically created lambda with multiple nested loops. In this case, you could get an improvement on having to perform multiple boxing and unboxing in a series of nested loops.
for some reason there is no generic version of Array.SetValue()
While it is definitely possible to write a generic method similar to SetValue in the Array class, it may not be desirable. A generic method on a non-generic class would give a false promise of compile-time type safety, which cannot be guaranteed, because the compiler does not know the runtime type of the Array object.
I didn't find any generic ways either to set a value into an Array instance, so I guess the only workaround is to use the unsafe context to avoid boxing.
However, there can be no generic version, now when I think of it. See, when you define a generic method method<T>()..., you do define the parameter for the method: ...<T>(T[] a)... where you have to be specific about the dimensions count, which is one. To create a twodimensional parameter, you define it like this ...<T>(T[,] a)... and so on.
As you can see, by the current syntax of C#, you simple cannot create a generic method, which can accept any-dimensional array.
Consider string.Format() whose parameters are a string and, among others in the overload list, an object[] or many objects.
This statement succeeds:
string foo = string.Format("{0} {1}", 5, 6);
as does this:
object[] myObjs = new object[] {8,9};
string baz = string.Format("{0} and {1}", myObjs;
as does an array of strings:
string[] myStrings = new string[] {"abc", "xyz"};
string baz = string.Format("{0} {1}", myStrings);
It seems that the integers, when specified individually, can be boxed or coerced to type object, which in turn is coerced to a string.
This statement fails at runtime.
int[] myInts = new int[] {8,9};
string bar = string.Format("{0} and {1}", myInts);
Index (zero based) must be greater than or equal to zero and less than the size of the argument list.
Why doesn't or can't the int array be coerced or boxed to an object[] or string[]?
Out of a small bit of curiosity, why doesn't the compiler catch this?
The call fails with the same reason the following will also fail:
string foo = string.Format("{0} {1}", 5);
You are specifying two arguments in the format but only specifying one object.
The compiler does not catch it because int[] is passed as an object which is a perfectly valid argument for the function.
Also note that array covariance does not work with value types so you cannot do:
object[] myInts = new int[] {8,9};
However you can get away with:
object[] myInts = new string[] { "8", "9" };
string bar = string.Format("{0} {1}", myInts);
which would work because you would be using the String.Format overload that accepts an object[].
Your call gets translated into this:
string foo = string.Format("{0} {1}", myInts.ToString());
which results in this string:
string foo = "System.Int32[] {1}";
So as the {1} doesn't have a parameter, it throws an exception
I think the concept you are having an issue with is why int[] isn't cast to object[]. Here's an example that shows why that would be bad
int[] myInts = new int[]{8,9};
object[] myObjs = (object[])myInts;
myObjs[0] = new object();
The problem is that we just added an object into a int array.
So what happens in your code is that myInts is cast to object and you don't have a second argument to fill in the {1}
Short way to make it work (not the most optimal though):
int[] myInts = new int[] { 8, 9 };
string[] myStrings = Array.ConvertAll(myInts, x => x.ToString());
// or using LINQ
// string[] myStrings = myInts.Select(x => x.ToString()).ToArray();
bar = string.Format("{0} and {1}", myStrings);
This is quite an old question, but I recently got the same issue. And I haven't seen an answer that works for me, so I'll share the solution I found.
Why doesn't or can't the int array be coerced or boxed to an object[] or string[]? Why it isn't boxed, I don't know. But it can be boxed explicitly, see solution below.
Why doesn't the compiler catch this? Because the compiler misinterprets the situation: The type isn't exactly an object array, so it doesn't know what to do with it and decides to perform a .ToString() on the int array, which returns one single parameter containing the type name rather than the parameter list itself. It doesn't do that with a string array, because the target type is already a string - but with any other kind of array the same issue happens (for example bool[]). Consider var arr1 = new int[]{1,2}; with string.Format("{0}", arr1): As long as you have only {0} in the format string, you get only the type name "System.Int32[]" back (and no exception occurs). If you have more placeholders, e.g. string.Format("{0}{1}", arr1), then the exception occurs - because arr1 is misinterpreted as one parameter - and for the compiler, a 2nd one is missing. But what I think is a conceptional bug is that you can't convert arr1, i.e. if you try to do (object[])arr1- you're getting:
CS0030 Cannot convert type 'int[]' to 'object[]'
Solution:
Filling in each element of the int array is not a solution that works for me, because in my project I am creating a format template string dynamically during runtime containing the {0}...{n} - hence I need to pass an array to String.Format.
So I found the following workaround. I created a generic helper function (which of course could be an extension method too if you prefer):
// converts any array to object[] and avoids FormatException
object[] Convert<T>(T[] arr)
{
var obj = new List<object>();
foreach (var item in arr)
{
obj.Add((object)item);
}
return obj.ToArray();
}
Now if you try that in the example below which is showing up the FormatException:
// FormatException: Index (zero based) must be greater than or equal to zero
// and less than the size of the argument list
var arr1 = (new int[] { 1, 2 });
string.Format("{0}{1}{0}{1}", arr1).Dump();
Fix: Use Convert(arr1) as 2nd parameter for string.Format(...) as shown below:
// Workaround: This shows 1212, as expected
var arr1 = (new int[] { 1, 2 });
string.Format("{0}{1}{0}{1}", Convert(arr1)).Dump();
Try example as DotNetFiddle
Conclusion:
As it seems, the .NET runtime really misinterprets the parameter by applying a .ToString() to it, if it is not already of type object[]. The Convert method gives the runtime no other choice than to do it the right way, because it returns the expected type. I found that an explicit type conversion did not work, hence the helper function was needed.
Note: If you invoke the method many times in a loop and you're concerned about speed, you could also convert everything to a string array which is probably most efficient:
// converts any array to string[] and avoids FormatException
string[] ConvertStr<T>(T[] arr)
{
var strArr = new string[arr.Length];
for (int i = 0; i < arr.Length; i++)
{
strArr[i]=arr[i].ToString();
}
return strArr;
}
This is working as well. To convert from a different datatype, such as a dictionary, you can simply use
string[] Convert<K,V>(Dictionary<K,V> coll)
{
return ConvertStr<V>(coll.Values.ToArray());
}
Update: With string interpolation, another short way to solve it is:
var baz = string.Format("{0} and {1}", myInts.Select(s => $"{s}").ToArray());
Your string.Format is expecting 2 arguments ({0} and {1}). You are only supplying 1 argument (the int[]). You need something more like this:
string bar = string.Format("{0} and {1}", myInts[0], myInts[1]);
The compiler does not notice the problem because the format string is evaluated at runtime. IE The compiler doesn't know that {0} and {1} mean there should be 2 arguments.
This works:
string bar = string.Format("{0} and {1}", myInts[0], myInts[1]);
The compiler doesn't catch it because it doesn't evaluate your format string.
The example you gave up top doesn't match what you're trying to do down below... you provided two {} and two arguments, but in the bottom one you only provided one argument.
I have an arraylist of doubles returned by a JSON library. After the JSON parser's decode method is run, we have this in the C# locals window:
Name Value Type
myObj Count=4 object {System.Collections.ArrayList}
[0] 100.0 object {double}
[1] 244.0 object {double}
[2] 123.0 object {double}
[3] 999.0 object {double}
My goal is to produce an array of integers from this ArrayList. It would be simple to iterate and do this one value at a time, but I'd like to know how to do it using the built-in converter functionality. I have been reading theads on ConvertAll but I cannot get it to work.
I do not have control of the JSON library so I must begin with the ArrayList.
Thanks
Linq:
var array = (from double d in list
select (int)d).ToArray();
You need to be careful with ArrayLists because of boxing. Thus:
// list is ArrayList
int[] array = Array.ConvertAll(list.ToArray(), o => (int)(double)o);
Note the cast is framed as (int)(double). This first unboxes the boxed double and then casts to an int.
To do this in older versions of .NET
// list is ArrayList
int[] array = Array.ConvertAll(
list.ToArray(),
delegate(object o) { return (int)(double)o; }
);
An alternative is
// list is ArrayList
int[] array = Array.ConvertAll(
(double[])list.ToArray(typeof(double)),
o => (int)o
);
Here we do not need an unboxing operation because we have first converted the ArrayList to an array of unboxed doubles.
To do this in older versions of .NET
// list is ArrayList
int[] array = Array.ConvertAll(
(double[])list.ToArray(typeof(double)),
delegate(double o) { return (int)o; }
);
I would think something like this (with converter):
private void Main()
{
List<Double> lstd = new List<Double>();
lstd.Add(100.0);
lstd.Add(244.0);
lstd.Add(123.0);
lstd.Add(999.0);
List<int> lsti = lstd.ConvertAll(new Converter<double, int>(DoubleToInt));
}
public static int DoubleToInt(double dbl)
{
return (int)dbl;
}
If you want a sample of a working solution using ConvertAll, here's a quick snippet.
public static void testCOnvertAll()
{
List<double> target = new List<double>();
target.Add(2.3);
target.Add(2.4);
target.Add(3.2);
List<int> result = target.ConvertAll<int>(new Converter<double, int>(DoubleToInt));
}
public static int DoubleToInt(double toConvert)
{
return Convert.ToInt32(toConvert);
}
The linq options are cleaner, but if you don't have linq.
//Assuming someValues is your input array and you're sure you don't need to check the types
int[] outputValues = new int[someValues.Count];
for (int i = 0; i < someValues.Count; i++)
outputValues[i] = (int)someValues[i];
I need to search a string in the string array. I dont want to use any for looping in it
string [] arr = {"One","Two","Three"};
string theString = "One"
I need to check whether theString variable is present in arr.
Well, something is going to have to look, and looping is more efficient than recursion (since tail-end recursion isn't fully implemented)... so if you just don't want to loop yourself, then either of:
bool has = arr.Contains(var); // .NET 3.5
or
bool has = Array.IndexOf(arr, var) >= 0;
For info: avoid names like var - this is a keyword in C# 3.0.
Every method, mentioned earlier does looping either internally or externally, so it is not really important how to implement it. Here another example of finding all references of target string
string [] arr = {"One","Two","Three"};
var target = "One";
var results = Array.FindAll(arr, s => s.Equals(target));
Does it have to be a string[] ? A List<String> would give you what you need.
List<String> testing = new List<String>();
testing.Add("One");
testing.Add("Two");
testing.Add("Three");
testing.Add("Mouse");
bool inList = testing.Contains("Mouse");
bool exists = arr.Contains("One");
I think it is better to use Array.Exists than Array.FindAll.
Its pretty simple. I always use this code to search string from a string array
string[] stringArray = { "text1", "text2", "text3", "text4" };
string value = "text3";
int pos = Array.IndexOf(stringArray, value);
if (pos > -1)
{
return true;
}
else
{
return false;
}
If the array is sorted, you can use BinarySearch. This is a O(log n) operation, so it is faster as looping. If you need to apply multiple searches and speed is a concern, you could sort it (or a copy) before using it.
Each class implementing IList has a method Contains(Object value). And so does System.Array.
Why the prohibition "I don't want to use any looping"? That's the most obvious solution. When given the chance to be obvious, take it!
Note that calls like arr.Contains(...) are still going to loop, it just won't be you who has written the loop.
Have you considered an alternate representation that's more amenable to searching?
A good Set implementation would perform well. (HashSet, TreeSet or the local equivalent).
If you can be sure that arr is sorted, you could use binary search (which would need to recurse or loop, but not as often as a straight linear search).
You can use Find method of Array type. From .NET 3.5 and higher.
public static T Find<T>(
T[] array,
Predicate<T> match
)
Here is some examples:
// we search an array of strings for a name containing the letter “a”:
static void Main()
{
string[] names = { "Rodney", "Jack", "Jill" };
string match = Array.Find (names, ContainsA);
Console.WriteLine (match); // Jack
}
static bool ContainsA (string name) { return name.Contains ("a"); }
Here’s the same code shortened with an anonymous method:
string[] names = { "Rodney", "Jack", "Jill" };
string match = Array.Find (names, delegate (string name)
{ return name.Contains ("a"); } ); // Jack
A lambda expression shortens it further:
string[] names = { "Rodney", "Jack", "Jill" };
string match = Array.Find (names, n => n.Contains ("a")); // Jack
At first shot, I could come up with something like this (but it's pseudo code and assuming you cannot use any .NET built-in libaries). Might require a bit of tweaking and re-thinking, but should be good enough for a head-start, maybe?
int findString(String var, String[] stringArray, int currentIndex, int stringMaxIndex)
{
if currentIndex > stringMaxIndex
return (-stringMaxIndex-1);
else if var==arr[currentIndex] //or use any string comparison op or function
return 0;
else
return findString(var, stringArray, currentIndex++, stringMaxIndex) + 1 ;
}
//calling code
int index = findString(var, arr, 0, getMaxIndex(arr));
if index == -1 printOnScreen("Not found");
else printOnScreen("Found on index: " + index);
In C#, if you can use an ArrayList, you can use the Contains method, which returns a boolean:
if MyArrayList.Contains("One")
You can check the element existence by
arr.Any(x => x == "One")
it is old one ,but this is the way i do it ,
enter code herevar result = Array.Find(names, element => element == "One");
I'm surprised that no one suggested using Array.IndexOf Method.
Indeed, Array.IndexOf has two advantages :
It allows searching if an element is included into an array,
It gets at the same time the index into the array.
int stringIndex = Array.IndexOf(arr, theString);
if (stringIndex >= 0)
{
// theString has been found
}
Inline version :
if (Array.IndexOf(arr, theString) >= 0)
{
// theString has been found
}
Using Contains()
string [] SomeArray = {"One","Two","Three"};
bool IsExist = SomeArray.Contains("One");
Console.WriteLine("Is string exist: "+ IsExist);
Using Find()
string [] SomeArray = {"One","Two","Three"};
var result = Array.Find(SomeArray, element => element == "One");
Console.WriteLine("Required string is: "+ result);
Another simple & traditional way, very useful for beginners to build logic.
string [] SomeArray = {"One","Two","Three"};
foreach (string value in SomeArray) {
if (value == "One") {
Console.WriteLine("Required string is: "+ value);
}
}