Related
How can I quickly shift all the items in an array one to the left, padding the end with null?
For example, [0,1,2,3,4,5,6] would become [1,2,3,4,5,6,null]
Edit: I said quickly but I guess I meant efficiently. I need to do this without creating a List or some other data structure. This is something I need to do several hundred thousand times in as short amount of time as possible.
Here's my test harness...
var source = Enumerable.Range(1, 100).Cast<int?>().ToArray();
var destination = new int?[source.Length];
var s = new Stopwatch();
s.Start();
for (int i = 0; i < 1000000;i++)
{
Array.Copy(source, 1, destination, 0, source.Length - 1);
}
s.Stop();
Console.WriteLine(s.Elapsed);
Here are the performance results for 1 million iterations of each solution (8 Core Intel Xeon E5450 # 3.00GHz)
100 elements 10000 elements
For Loop 0.390s 31.839s
Array.Copy() 0.177s 12.496s
Aaron 1 3.789s 84.082s
Array.ConstrainedCopy() 0.197s 17.658s
Make the choice for yourself :)
The quickest way to do this is to use Array.Copy, which in the final implementation uses a bulk memory transfer operation (similar to memcpy):
var oldArray = new int?[] { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 };
var newArray = new int?[oldArray.Length];
Array.Copy(oldArray, 1, newArray, 0, oldArray.Length - 1);
// newArray is now { 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, null }
Edited: according to the documentation:
If sourceArray and destinationArray overlap, this method behaves as if the original values of sourceArray were preserved in a temporary location before destinationArray is overwritten.
So if you don't want to allocate a new array, you can pass in the original array for both source and destination--although I imagine the tradeoff will be a somewhat slower performance since the values go through a temporary holding position.
I suppose, as in any investigation of this kind, you should do some quick benchmarking.
Here is my solution, similar to Task's in that it is a simple Array wrapper and that it takes O(1) time to shift the array to the left.
public class ShiftyArray<T>
{
private readonly T[] array;
private int front;
public ShiftyArray(T[] array)
{
this.array = array;
front = 0;
}
public void ShiftLeft()
{
array[front++] = default(T);
if(front > array.Length - 1)
{
front = 0;
}
}
public void ShiftLeft(int count)
{
for(int i = 0; i < count; i++)
{
ShiftLeft();
}
}
public T this[int index]
{
get
{
if(index > array.Length - 1)
{
throw new IndexOutOfRangeException();
}
return array[(front + index) % array.Length];
}
}
public int Length { get { return array.Length; } }
}
Running it through Jason Punyon's test code...
int?[] intData = Enumerable.Range(1, 100).Cast<int?>().ToArray();
ShiftyArray<int?> array = new ShiftyArray<int?>(intData);
Stopwatch watch = new Stopwatch();
watch.Start();
for(int i = 0; i < 1000000; i++)
{
array.ShiftLeft();
}
watch.Stop();
Console.WriteLine(watch.ElapsedMilliseconds);
Takes ~29ms, regardless of the array size.
Use the Array.Copy() method as in
int?[] myArray = new int?[]{0,1,2,3,4};
Array.Copy(myArray, 1, myArray, 0, myArray.Length - 1);
myArray[myArray.Length - 1] = null
The Array.Copy is probably the way, Microsoft wanted us to copy array elements...
Couldn't you use a System.Collections.Generic.Queue instead of an array ?
I feel like you need to perform actions on your value the discard it, thus using a queue seems to be more appropriate :
// dummy initialization
System.Collections.Generic.Queue<int> queue = new Queue<int>();
for (int i = 0; i < 7; ++i ) { queue.Enqueue(i); }// add each element at the end of the container
// working thread
if (queue.Count > 0)
doSomething(queue.Dequeue());// removes the last element of the container and calls doSomething on it
For any pour soul finding this thread and about to implement one of the highly rated answers. All of them are trash, I'm not sure why that is. Maybe Dested asked for a new array implementation at first or something that has now been removed from the question. Well if you simply want to shift the array and don't need a new one, see an answer like tdaines's answer. And read up on things like the Circular Buffer / Ring Buffer : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_buffer. No moving of the actual data is necessary. The performance of shifting an array should not be tied to the size of the array.
If it absolutely has to be in an array, then I would recommend the most obvious code possible.
for (int index = startIndex; index + 1 < values.Length; index++)
values[index] = values[index + 1];
values[values.Length - 1] = null;
This gives the optimizer the most opportunities to find the best way on whatever target platform the program is installed on.
EDIT:
I just borrowed Jason Punyon's test code, and I'm afraid he's right. Array.Copy wins!
var source = Enumerable.Range(1, 100).Cast<int?>().ToArray();
int indexToRemove = 4;
var s = new Stopwatch();
s.Start();
for (int i = 0; i < 1000000; i++)
{
Array.Copy(source, indexToRemove + 1, source, indexToRemove, source.Length - indexToRemove - 1);
//for (int index = indexToRemove; index + 1 < source.Length; index++)
// source[index] = source[index + 1];
}
s.Stop();
Console.WriteLine(s.Elapsed);
Array.Copy takes between 103 and 150 ms on my machine.
for loop takes between 269 and 338 ms on my machine.
Can't you
allocate the array with an extra 1000 elements
have an integer variable int base = 0
instead of accessing a[i] access a[base+i]
to do your shift, just say base++
Then after you've done this 1000 times, copy it down and start over.
That way, you only do the copy once per 1000 shifts.
Old joke:
Q: How many IBM 360s does it take to shift a register by 1 bit?
A: 33. 32 to hold the bits in place, and 1 to move the register. (or some such...)
You can use the same array as source and destination for fast in-place copy:
static void Main(string[] args)
{
int[] array = {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7};
Array.ConstrainedCopy(array, 1, array, 0, array.Length - 1);
array[array.Length - 1] = 0;
}
You might do it like this:
var items = new int?[] { 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 }; // Your array
var itemList = new List<int?>(items); // Put the items in a List<>
itemList.RemoveAt(1); // Remove the item at index 1
itemList.Add(null); // Add a null to the end of the list
items = itemList.ToArray(); // Turn the list back into an array
Of course, it would be more efficient to get rid of the array entirely and just use a List<>. You could then forget the first line and last line and do it like this:
var itemList = new List<int?> { 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 };
itemList.RemoveAt(1); // Remove the item at index 1
itemList.Add(null); // Add a null to the end of the list
The best and most efficient method I believe is using Buffer.BlockCopy function.
You will set both source and destination to your array, the offset of the source is 1. Depending on your array type (I assume it is int), 1 int = 4 bytes, so you must pass in 4 as the second parameter of this function. Note that the offset is byte offset.
So it looks like this:
int bytes2copy = yourArray.length - 4;
Buffer.BlockCopy(yourArray, 4, yourArray, 0, bytes2copy);
yourArray[yourArray.length-1] = null;
Try this! using Linq. No need of second Array.
var i_array = new int?[] {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 };
i_array = i_array.Select((v, k) => new { v = v, k = k }).
Where(i => i.k > 0).Select(i => i.v).ToArray();
Array.Resize(ref i_array, i_array.Length + 1);
Output:
[0,1,2,3,4,5,6] would become [1,2,3,4,5,6,null]
If you own the memory you could consider using Unsafe Code and good old fashioned pointers.
Make yourself a memory stream and lock it down or use Marshal.AllocHGlobal
Construct all your arrays in it with a little bit of padding at the beginning and end.
increment or decrement all of the array pointers at once. You'll still need to loop back and set your nulls.
If you need to selectively increment or decrement the arrays you would have to add padding between them.
Arrays are incredibly low level data structures, if you treat them in a low level way you can get huge performance out of them.
A baytrail doing this could outperform Jason's with all its copying 8 Core Intel Xeon E5450 # 3.00GHz
Not tested this code, but it should shifts all the values to right by one. Note that the last three lines of code is all you require to efficiently shift the array.
public class Shift : MonoBehaviour {
//Initialize Array
public int[] queue;
void Start () {
//Create Array Rows
queue = new int[5];
//Set Values to 1,2,3,4,5
for (int i=0; i<5;i++)
{
queue[i] = i + 1;
}
//Get the integer at the first index
int prev = queue[0];
//Copy the array to the new array.
System.Array.Copy(queue, 1, queue, 0, queue.Length - 1);
//Set the last shifted value to the previously first value.
queue[queue.Length - 1] = prev;
Implementation with Extension methods passing shifting direction as Enum.
"for" statements and indexers only (don't use Array.Copy method).
using System;
namespace ShiftArrayElements
{
public static class EnumShifter
{
public static int[] Shift(int[] source, Direction[] directions)
{
for (var i = 0; i < directions.Length; i++)
{
var direction = directions[i];
if (direction == Direction.Left)
{
source.LeftShift();
}
else if (direction == Direction.Right)
{
source.RightShift();
}
else
{
throw new InvalidOperationException("Direction is invalid");
}
}
return source;
}
public static void LeftShift(this int[] source)
{
var lastIndex = source?.Length - 1 ?? 0;
var temp = source[0];
for (int j = 0; j + 1 < source.Length; j++)
{
source[j] = source[j + 1];
}
source[lastIndex] = temp;
}
public static void RightShift(this int[] source)
{
var lastIndex = source?.Length - 1 ?? 0;
var temp = source[lastIndex];
for (int j = lastIndex; j > 0; j--)
{
source[j] = source[j - 1];
}
source[0] = temp;
}
}
}
Array copying is an O(n) operation and creates a new array.
While array copying can certainly be done quickly and efficiently, the problem you've stated can actually be solved in an entirely different way without (as you've requested) creating a new array/data structure and only creating one small wrapping object instance per array:
using System;
using System.Text;
public class ArrayReindexer
{
private Array reindexed;
private int location, offset;
public ArrayReindexer( Array source )
{
reindexed = source;
}
public object this[int index]
{
get
{
if (offset > 0 && index >= location)
{
int adjustedIndex = index + offset;
return adjustedIndex >= reindexed.Length ? "null" : reindexed.GetValue( adjustedIndex );
}
return reindexed.GetValue( index );
}
}
public void Reindex( int position, int shiftAmount )
{
location = position;
offset = shiftAmount;
}
public override string ToString()
{
StringBuilder output = new StringBuilder( "[ " );
for (int i = 0; i < reindexed.Length; ++i)
{
output.Append( this[i] );
if (i == reindexed.Length - 1)
{
output.Append( " ]" );
}
else
{
output.Append( ", " );
}
}
return output.ToString();
}
}
By wrapping and controlling access to the array in this manner, we can now demonstrate how the problem was solved with an O(1) method call...
ArrayReindexer original = new ArrayReindexer( SourceArray );
Console.WriteLine( " Base array: {0}", original.ToString() );
ArrayReindexer reindexed = new ArrayReindexer( SourceArray );
reindexed.Reindex( 1, 1 );
Console.WriteLine( "Shifted array: {0}", reindexed.ToString() );
Will produce the output:
Base array: [ 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ]
Shifted array: [ 0, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, null ]
I'm willing to bet that there will be a reason that such a solution won't work for you, but I believe this does match your initial stated requirements. 8 )
It's often helpful to think about all the different kinds of solutions to a problem before implementing a specific one, and perhaps that might be the most important thing that this example can demonstrate.
Hope this helps!
Incorrect and slightly amusing answer (thanks, i'll be here all night !)
int?[] test = new int?[] {0,1,2,3,4,5,6 };
int?[] t = new int?[test.Length];
t = test.Skip(1).ToArray();
t[t.Length - 1] = null;
In the spirit of still using Skip (dont ask me, i know worst usage of LINQ extension methods ever), the only way I thought of rewriting it would be
int?[] test = new int?[] { 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 };
int?[] t = new int?[test.Length];
Array.Copy(test.Skip(1).ToArray(), t, t.Length - 1);
But it's in NO WAY faster than the other options.
I know this is an old question but coming from Google there was no simple example so thanks to this is the easiest way to reorder a list, and you don't have to supply the type it will work it out at runtime,
private static List<T> reorderList<T>(List<T> list){
List<T> newList = new List<T>();
list.ForEach(delegate(T item)
{
newList.Add(item);
});
return newList;
}
using System;
using System.Threading;
namespace ShiftMatrix
{
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
MatrixOperation objMatrixOperation = new MatrixOperation();
//Create a matrix
int[,] mat = new int[,]
{
{1, 2},
{3,4 },
{5, 6},
{7,8},
{8,9},
};
int type = 2;
int counter = 0;
if (type == 1)
{
counter = mat.GetLength(0);
}
else
{
counter = mat.GetLength(1);
}
while (true)
{
for (int i = 0; i < counter; i++)
{
ShowMatrix(objMatrixOperation.ShiftMatrix(mat, i, type));
Thread.Sleep(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(2));
}
}
}
public static void ShowMatrix(int[,] matrix)
{
int rows = matrix.GetLength(0);
int columns = matrix.GetLength(1);
for (int k = 0; k < rows; k++)
{
for (int l = 0; l < columns; l++)
{
Console.Write(matrix[k, l] + " ");
}
Console.WriteLine();
}
}
}
class MatrixOperation
{
public int[,] ShiftMatrix(int[,] origanalMatrix, int shift, int type)
{
int rows = origanalMatrix.GetLength(0);
int cols = origanalMatrix.GetLength(1);
int[,] _tmpMatrix = new int[rows, cols];
if (type == 2)
{
for (int x1 = 0; x1 < rows; x1++)
{
int y2 = 0;
for (int y1 = shift; y2 < cols - shift; y1++, y2++)
{
_tmpMatrix[x1, y2] = origanalMatrix[x1, y1];
}
y2--;
for (int y1 = 0; y1 < shift; y1++, y2++)
{
_tmpMatrix[x1, y2] = origanalMatrix[x1, y1];
}
}
}
else
{
int x2 = 0;
for (int x1 = shift; x2 < rows - shift; x1++, x2++)
{
for (int y1 = 0; y1 < cols; y1++)
{
_tmpMatrix[x2, y1] = origanalMatrix[x1, y1];
}
}
x2--;
for (int x1 = 0; x1 < shift; x1++, x2++)
{
for (int y1 = 0; y1 < cols; y1++)
{
_tmpMatrix[x2, y1] = origanalMatrix[x1, y1];
}
}
}
return _tmpMatrix;
}
}
}
See C# code below to remove space from string. That shift character in array. Performance is O(n). No other array is used. So no extra memory either.
static void Main(string[] args)
{
string strIn = System.Console.ReadLine();
char[] chraryIn = strIn.ToCharArray();
int iShift = 0;
char chrTemp;
for (int i = 0; i < chraryIn.Length; ++i)
{
if (i > 0)
{
chrTemp = chraryIn[i];
chraryIn[i - iShift] = chrTemp;
chraryIn[i] = chraryIn[i - iShift];
}
if (chraryIn[i] == ' ') iShift++;
if (i >= chraryIn.Length - 1 - iShift) chraryIn[i] = ' ';
}
System.Console.WriteLine(new string(chraryIn));
System.Console.Read();
}
a is array of ints & d is number of times array has to shift left.
static int[] rotLeft(int[] a, int d)
{
var innerLoop = a.Length - 1;
for(var loop=0; loop < d; loop++)
{
var res = a[innerLoop];
for (var i= innerLoop; i>=0; i--)
{
var tempI = i-1;
if (tempI < 0)
{
tempI = innerLoop;
}
var yolo = a[tempI];
a[tempI] = res;
res = yolo;
}
}
return a;
}
Simple way to do it when you need to resize the same array.
var nLength = args.Length - 1;
Array.Copy(args, 1, args, 0, nLength);
Array.Resize(ref args, nLength);
This is a basic question ( I am new to C#), but is there an efficient way to move the first element to the end of the array in C#?
I found this question, which describes the .rotate method in ruby, but I have been unable to find a similar method in C#.
If I have an array:
[1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
Is there a function in C# that returns:
[2, 3, 4, 5, 1]
Thanks in advance!
EDIT: Answer
The best solution is to use LinkedList<T> as many of you suggested and as shown in Alex's answer. His suggested solution was using:
list.AddLast(list.RemoveFirst());
which can be run in a for loop:
void func<T>(LinkedList<T> list, int rotate) {
for(var i = 0; i < rotate; i++) {
list.AddLast(list.RemoveFirst());
}
}
Thank you all for your help!
There are many ways to achieve this. One way would be:
var result = arr.Skip(1).Concat(arr.Take(1))
If you use LinkedList<T> instead of array<T> you could just use this:
list.AddLast(list.RemoveAndGetFirst());
Edit: RemoveAndGetFirst() can be an extension like:
LinkedListNode<T> elem = list.First;
list.RemoveFirst();
return elem;
Complexity O(1). When you perform this multiple times:
void func<T>(LinkedList<T> list, int rotate) {
for(var i = 0; i < rotate; i++) {
list.AddLast(list.RemoveFirst());
}
}
You will have a complexity of O(N) [where N is the number of rotations]. This is, performance wise, the best solution.
If you really need to use arrays this could be a naiv solution:
var tmp = list[0];
for(var i = 1; i < list.Length; i++) {
list[i - 1] = list[i];
}
list[list.Length - 1] = tmp;
(Be aware there are no range checks)
But this will be very time consuming if you need to do this often. If you perform this multiple times:
void func<T>(T[] list, int rotate) {
for(var j = 0; j < rotate; j++) {
var tmp = list[0];
for(var i = 1; i < list.Length; i++) {
list[i - 1] = list[i];
}
list[list.Length - 1] = tmp;
}
}
You will end up with O(N^2) = O(N * M) [where N is the number of elements and M the number of rotations]. This would be really bad. A better approach, if you know in advance you'll perform this often would be:
void func<T>(T[] list, int rotate {
for(var j = 0; j < list.Length; j++) {
var tmp = list[j];
var ix = (rotate + j) % list.Length;
list[j] = list[ix];
list[ix] = tmp;
}
}
Which will result in O(N) [where N is the number of elements].
As others already suggested, it's a good idea to write an extension method if you need this at multiple locations.
Using Array.Copy to copy elements to itself just shifted ;)
var array = new int[]{1, 2, 3, 4, 5};
var head = array[0];
Array.Copy(array, 1, array, 0, array.Length- 1);
array[array.Length - 1] = head;
And as an extension method returning a new array just like the Ruby version
static class ArrayRotateExtensions {
public static int[] Rotate(this int[] arr, int offset) {
var l = arr.Length;
var rot = new int[l];
if (offset == 0) {
Array.Copy(arr, 0, rot, 0, l);
return rot;
}
// constrain rotations greater than array length, it's the same result anyway
offset = offset % l;
// negative rotation is equal to positive rotation length - offset
if (offset < 0) {
offset += l;
}
Array.Copy(arr, offset, rot, 0, l - offset);
Array.Copy(arr, 0, rot, l - offset, offset);
return rot;
}
}
This will allow you to do
var array = new int[]{1, 2, 3, 4, 5};
var rotated = array.Rotate(1);
Plus rotation by any arbitrary amount.
Only downside is you'd have to add a version for every array type you'd like to use it on.
It's starting to look like Code Golf now :-) so here's my contribution:
var x = new[] { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 };
var y = Enumerable.Range(1, x.Length).Select(i => x[i % x.Length]).ToArray();
The reason why there is no function like that in LINQ is most likely that people who developed LINQ didn't think it's something that is an absolute must...
If you really need that you can create an extension method.
Something along the lines of:
public static IEnumerable<T> Rotate<T>(this IEnumerable<T> elements, int number)
{
var elemetsList = elements as IList<T> ?? elements.ToList();
var list = new List<T>(elemetsList.Count);
if (number > elemetsList.Count - 1)
{
throw new ArgumentException(nameof(number));
}
for (int i = number; i < elemetsList.Count; i++)
{
list.Add(elemetsList[i]);
}
for (int i = 0; i < number; i++)
{
list.Add(elemetsList[i]);
}
return list;
}
And use it:
var arr = new int[] {1, 2, 3, 4, 5};
int[] result = arr.Rotate(1).ToArray();
int[] result2 = arr.Rotate(3).ToArray();
Output:
2 3 4 5 1
4 5 1 2 3
This solution is fairly efficient.
For an array 500 000 in length it took only 7ms on my machine to execute.
Try this one..
using System;
public class Program
{
public static int[] arrData = new int[5]{1,2,3,4,5};
public static void Main()
{
Console.WriteLine("\nOriginal array\n");
foreach(var item in arrData)
{
Console.WriteLine(item.ToString());
}
Console.WriteLine("\nShift to last\n");
arrData = shiftLast(arrData);
foreach(var item in arrData)
{
Console.WriteLine(item.ToString());
}
}
public static int[] shiftLast(int[] arr)
{
int last = arr[arr.Length - 1];
int first= arr[0];
arr[arr.Length - 1] = first;
arr[0] = last;
return arr;
}
}
Try to run here
Cheers
Maybe like this -
static void Main( string[] args ) {
Console.WriteLine(string.Join(", ", getArray(new int[] { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 })));
Console.Read();
return;
}
static int[] getArray( int[] arr ) {
List<int> O = new List<int>();
for (int x = 1, l = arr.Length; x < l; x++) {
O.Add(arr[x]);
}
O.Add(arr[0]);
return O.ToArray();
}
As far as I know there isn't such method for an array. If you do this often perhaps you should consider using a different object (List<T>, Stack<T>, etc).
But even with an array you can implement simple functionality like this using extension methods:
public static int[] MoveFirstToLast (this int[] obj)
{
int movedValue = obj[0];
(int i = 1; i < obj.Length; i++)
{
obj[i - 1] = obj[i];
}
obj[obj.Length - 1] = movedValue;
return obj;
}
And then the use is just:
int[] myArray = //whatever;
int[] changedArray = myArray.MoveFirstToLast();
What I have:
//This data set contains columns (second index) having the same value in each row (first index)
double[][] dataSet = new double[][]
{
new double[] {1, 2, 3, 4},
new double[] {5, 6, 7, 4},
new double[] {8, 9, 10, 4},
};
What i want to get:
// This data set has no column where the value in each row is the same
double[][] reducedDataSet = new double[][]
{
new double[] {1, 2, 3},
new double[] {5, 6, 7},
new double[] {8, 9, 10},
};
In python this can be easily done by:
all_equal_value_indices = numpy.all(data_set == data_set[0, :], axis=0) // Finds the indices of all columns that have equal values in each row
reduced_data_set = data_set[:, ~all_equal_value_indices] // Takes all rows with only those columns where all_equal_value_indices is not 1
In C# I can get an array containing the indices that should be excluded relatively fast, but how can I use these indices as mask to get only those columns not contained in these indices?
What i tried:
var numberOfDeletedColumns = 0;
var reducedDataSet = dataSet;
foreach (var columnToDelete in columnsToDelete)
{
reducedDataSet = reducedDataSet.RemoveColumn(columnToDelete - numberOfDeletedColumns++);
}
RemoveColumn is an extension provided by Accord.Net and has the following code:
/// <summary>Returns a new matrix without one of its columns.</summary>
public static T[][] RemoveColumn<T>(this T[][] matrix, int index)
{
T[][] objArray = new T[matrix.Length][];
for (int index1 = 0; index1 < matrix.Length; ++index1)
{
objArray[index1] = new T[matrix[index1].Length - 1];
for (int index2 = 0; index2 < index; ++index2)
objArray[index1][index2] = matrix[index1][index2];
for (int index2 = index + 1; index2 < matrix[index1].Length; ++index2)
objArray[index1][index2 - 1] = matrix[index1][index2];
}
return objArray;
}
But this is much slower than the implementation in python. Could someone suggest a faster method to achieve a reduced data set?
Array.Copy helps it run about 2x faster on my computer.
static T[][] FastRemoveColumn<T>(T[][] matrix, int index)
{
T[][] objArray = new T[matrix.Length][];
for (int i = 0; i < matrix.Length; i++)
{
var line = matrix[i];
var reducedline = new T[line.Length - 1];
Array.Copy(line, 0, reducedline, 0, index);
Array.Copy(line, index + 1, reducedline, index, line.Length - index - 1);
objArray[i] = reducedline;
}
return objArray;
}
and I also tried multithread. It runs very slow:
static T[][] MultiThreadRemoveColumn<T>(T[][] matrix, int index)
{
T[][] objArray = new T[matrix.Length][];
Parallel.For(0, matrix.Length, i =>
{
var line = matrix[i];
var reducedline = new T[line.Length - 1];
Array.Copy(line, 0, reducedline, 0, index);
Array.Copy(line, index + 1, reducedline, index, line.Length - index - 1);
objArray[i] = reducedline;
});
return objArray;
}
Test:
// init
double[][] arr = new double[2000][];
for (int i = 0; i < arr.Length; i++)
arr[i] = new double[2000];
double v = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < arr.Length; i++)
{
for (int j = 0; j < arr[i].Length; j++)
{
arr[i][j] = v;
v++;
}
}
Stopwatch sw = Stopwatch.StartNew();
var reducedArr = RemoveColumn(arr, 200);
sw.Stop();
Console.WriteLine(sw.ElapsedMilliseconds);
sw.Restart();
var reducedArr2 = FastRemoveColumn(arr, 200);
sw.Stop();
Console.WriteLine(sw.ElapsedMilliseconds);
sw.Restart();
var reducedArr3 = MultiThreadRemoveColumn(arr, 200);
sw.Stop();
Console.WriteLine(sw.ElapsedMilliseconds);
// Check the result
for (int i = 0; i < reducedArr.Length; i++)
{
for (int j = 0; j < reducedArr[i].Length; j++)
{
if(reducedArr[i][j] != reducedArr2[i][j]) throw new Exception();
if(reducedArr[i][j] != reducedArr3[i][j]) throw new Exception();
}
}
Update
Solution to remove several columns:
public static T[][] DeleteColumns<T>(T[][] matrix, int[] columns)
{
if (matrix.Length == 0) return new T[0][];
bool[] delColumns = new bool[matrix[0].Length];
foreach (int col in columns) delColumns[col] = true;
List<int> remainCols = new List<int>();
for (int i = 0; i < delColumns.Length; i++)
{
if (!delColumns[i]) remainCols.Add(i);
}
var target = new T[matrix.Length][];
for (int rowIndex = 0; rowIndex < matrix.Length; rowIndex++)
{
T[] sourceRow = matrix[rowIndex];
T[] targetRow = new T[remainCols.Count];
for (int i = 0; i < remainCols.Count; i++)
{
targetRow[i] = sourceRow[remainCols[i]];
}
target[rowIndex] = targetRow;
}
return target;
}
Test on a 2000x2000 matrix. Comparing with Adam Brown's solution, testing removing all columns is absolutely unfair, but my solution is faster even if removing only one column.
Sometimes, components don't work nicely in aggregate. In this case, your remove column function is reallocating the entire matrix, so the operation is linear in the number of columns you want to remove (ouch). To fix this, remove all the columns in one pass.
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var matrix = new[]
{
new [] {1, 2, 3, 4, 5},
new [] {1, 2, 3, 4, 5},
new [] {1, 2, 3, 4, 5},
new [] {1, 2, 3, 4, 5},
};
var result = matrix.DeleteColums(new [] {0, 2, 4});
foreach (var row in result)
{
foreach (var column in row)
{
Console.Write(column);
Console.Write(" ");
}
Console.WriteLine();
}
Console.ReadKey();
}
}
static class MatrixHelper
{
public static T[][] DeleteColums<T>(this T[][] matrix, int[] columns)
{
var sorted = columns.Distinct().OrderBy(e => e).Concat(new [] { int.MaxValue }).ToArray();
var target = new T[matrix.Length][];
for (int row = 0; row < matrix.Length; row++)
{
var sourceRow = matrix[row];
var targetRow = new T[sourceRow.Length - columns.Length];
var sortedIndex = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < sourceRow.Length; i++)
{
if (i == sorted[sortedIndex])
{
sortedIndex++;
continue;
}
targetRow[i - sortedIndex] = sourceRow[i];
}
target[row] = targetRow;
}
return target;
}
}
If this isn't enough, then you'll need to think about whether you need to use arrays. For instance, you could have a data structure for your matrix that dynamically masks columns, instead of an array-of-arrays.
UPDATE:
Given that other solutions in this page have assumed that the matrix, despite being represented by a jagged array, has the same indices per row, I thought I would give another go at making a faster solution. Here are two solutions that beat all previous ones in this thread, under those assumptions, including a faster parallel one.
public static T[][] DeleteColumns<T>(this T[][] matrix, int[] columns)
{
if (matrix.Length == 0) return matrix;
//Previous code assumed matrix could be jagged - new code assumes all columns
//present and all rows same length
var rowLength = matrix[0].Length;
if (rowLength == 0) return matrix;
var sorted = columns.Distinct().ToArray();
var target = new T[matrix.Length][];
var remainingLength = rowLength - sorted.Length;
//Allocate the targets all in one go - to avoid doing allocation in parallel.
for (var row = 0; row < matrix.Length; row++)
{
target[row] = new T[remainingLength];
}
//Work out remaining columns (previous code assumed these could
//be different per row, this assumes all rows have the same
//contents.
var remaining = Enumerable.Range(0, rowLength).Except(sorted).ToArray();
for (int row = 0; row < matrix.Length; row++)
{
var sourceRow = matrix[row];
var targetRow = target[row];
for (int i = 0; i < targetRow.Length; i++)
{
targetRow[i] = sourceRow[remaining[i]];
}
}
return target;
}
And the faster parallel one (allocation for the parallel one is now about 90% of the total time):
public static T[][] DeleteColumnsParallel<T>(this T[][] matrix, int[] columns)
{
if (matrix.Length == 0) return matrix;
//Previous code assumed matrix could be jagged - new code assumes all columns
//present and all rows same length
var rowLength = matrix[0].Length;
if (rowLength == 0) return matrix;
var sorted = columns.Distinct().ToArray();
var target = new T[matrix.Length][];
var remainingLength = rowLength - sorted.Length;
//Allocate the targets all in one go - to avoid doing allocation in parallel.
for (var row = 0; row < matrix.Length; row++)
{
target[row] = new T[remainingLength];
}
//Work out remaining columns (previous code assumed these could
//be different per row, this assumes all rows have the same
//contents.
var remaining = Enumerable.Range(0, rowLength).Except(sorted).ToArray();
Parallel.For(0, matrix.Length, row =>
{
var sourceRow = matrix[row];
var targetRow = target[row];
for (int i = 0; i < targetRow.Length; i++)
{
targetRow[i] = sourceRow[remaining[i]];
}
});
return target;
}
Results for 10000x10000 matrix with half the columns randomly removed.
My previous attempt: 1300ms
Best previous attempt: 450ms
My new serial version: 390ms
My new parallel version: 310ms
Time just to allocate the result matrix (i.e. lower bound on best achievable time): 265ms
But, I think it's important to call out a far, far faster solution. At the moment, in the fastest parallel solution, 90% of the time is spent allocating memory. If, on the other hand, you were to make a Matrix class that had it's own indexer, you would be able to dynamically pretend that certain columns of the underlying data structure didn't exist. Depending on how you're using the matrices, versus how often you're masking rows or columns, this could be dramatically faster.
I have a multi dimensional array which i need to convert to a list of arrays. Not one single array, but for each iteration of the first dimension i need a separate array containing the values in the second dimension.
How do I convert this:
int[,] dummyArray = new int[,] { {1,2,3}, {4,5,6}};
into a list<int[]> holding two arrays with values {1,2,3} and {4,5,6}?
You can convert 2d array into jagged array and then convert it to List.
int[,] arr = new int[,] { { 1, 2, 3 }, { 4, 5, 6 } };
int[][] jagged = new int[arr.GetLength(0)][];
for (int i = 0; i < arr.GetLength(0); i++)
{
jagged[i] = new int[arr.GetLength(1)];
for (int j = 0; j < arr.GetLength(1); j++)
{
jagged[i][j] = arr[i, j];
}
}
List<int[]> list = jagged.ToList();
You can use Linq:
int[,] dummyArray = new int[,] { { 1, 2, 3 }, { 4, 5, 6 } };
int count = 0;
List<int[]> list = dummyArray.Cast<int>()
.GroupBy(x => count++ / dummyArray.GetLength(1))
.Select(g => g.ToArray())
.ToList();
You could use for loop like this:
int[,] dummyArray = new int[,] { { 1, 2, 3 }, { 4, 5, 6 } };
int size1 = dummyArray.GetLength(1);
int size0 = dummyArray.GetLength(0);
List<int[]> list = new List<int[]>();
for (int i = 0; i < size0; i++)
{
List<int> newList = new List<int>();
for (int j = 0; j < size1; j++)
{
newList.Add(dummyArray[i, j]);
}
list.Add(newList.ToArray());
}
Here is a reusable implementation
public static class Utils
{
public static List<T[]> To1DArrayList<T>(this T[,] source)
{
if (source == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("source");
int rowCount = source.GetLength(0), colCount = source.GetLength(1);
var list = new List<T[]>(rowCount);
for (int row = 0; row < rowCount; row++)
{
var data = new T[colCount];
for (int col = 0; col < data.Length; col++)
data[col] = source[row, col];
list.Add(data);
}
return list;
}
}
and sample usage
var source = new int[,] { { 1, 2, 3 }, { 4, 5, 6 } };
var result = source.To1DArrayList();
Some comments on other answers.
M.kazem Akhgary: If I need a list, I don't see why should I first create jagged array and convert it to a list instead of creating list directly.
Eser: I usually like his elegant Linq solutions, but this definitely is not one of them. If the idea is to use Linq (although I strongly believe it's not intended for that), the following would be much more appropriate:
var source = new int[,] { { 1, 2, 3 }, { 4, 5, 6 } };
var result = Enumerable.Range(0, source.GetLength(0))
.Select(row => Enumerable.Range(0, source.GetLength(1))
.Select(col => source[row, col]).ToArray())
.ToList();
How can I quickly shift all the items in an array one to the left, padding the end with null?
For example, [0,1,2,3,4,5,6] would become [1,2,3,4,5,6,null]
Edit: I said quickly but I guess I meant efficiently. I need to do this without creating a List or some other data structure. This is something I need to do several hundred thousand times in as short amount of time as possible.
Here's my test harness...
var source = Enumerable.Range(1, 100).Cast<int?>().ToArray();
var destination = new int?[source.Length];
var s = new Stopwatch();
s.Start();
for (int i = 0; i < 1000000;i++)
{
Array.Copy(source, 1, destination, 0, source.Length - 1);
}
s.Stop();
Console.WriteLine(s.Elapsed);
Here are the performance results for 1 million iterations of each solution (8 Core Intel Xeon E5450 # 3.00GHz)
100 elements 10000 elements
For Loop 0.390s 31.839s
Array.Copy() 0.177s 12.496s
Aaron 1 3.789s 84.082s
Array.ConstrainedCopy() 0.197s 17.658s
Make the choice for yourself :)
The quickest way to do this is to use Array.Copy, which in the final implementation uses a bulk memory transfer operation (similar to memcpy):
var oldArray = new int?[] { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 };
var newArray = new int?[oldArray.Length];
Array.Copy(oldArray, 1, newArray, 0, oldArray.Length - 1);
// newArray is now { 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, null }
Edited: according to the documentation:
If sourceArray and destinationArray overlap, this method behaves as if the original values of sourceArray were preserved in a temporary location before destinationArray is overwritten.
So if you don't want to allocate a new array, you can pass in the original array for both source and destination--although I imagine the tradeoff will be a somewhat slower performance since the values go through a temporary holding position.
I suppose, as in any investigation of this kind, you should do some quick benchmarking.
Here is my solution, similar to Task's in that it is a simple Array wrapper and that it takes O(1) time to shift the array to the left.
public class ShiftyArray<T>
{
private readonly T[] array;
private int front;
public ShiftyArray(T[] array)
{
this.array = array;
front = 0;
}
public void ShiftLeft()
{
array[front++] = default(T);
if(front > array.Length - 1)
{
front = 0;
}
}
public void ShiftLeft(int count)
{
for(int i = 0; i < count; i++)
{
ShiftLeft();
}
}
public T this[int index]
{
get
{
if(index > array.Length - 1)
{
throw new IndexOutOfRangeException();
}
return array[(front + index) % array.Length];
}
}
public int Length { get { return array.Length; } }
}
Running it through Jason Punyon's test code...
int?[] intData = Enumerable.Range(1, 100).Cast<int?>().ToArray();
ShiftyArray<int?> array = new ShiftyArray<int?>(intData);
Stopwatch watch = new Stopwatch();
watch.Start();
for(int i = 0; i < 1000000; i++)
{
array.ShiftLeft();
}
watch.Stop();
Console.WriteLine(watch.ElapsedMilliseconds);
Takes ~29ms, regardless of the array size.
Use the Array.Copy() method as in
int?[] myArray = new int?[]{0,1,2,3,4};
Array.Copy(myArray, 1, myArray, 0, myArray.Length - 1);
myArray[myArray.Length - 1] = null
The Array.Copy is probably the way, Microsoft wanted us to copy array elements...
Couldn't you use a System.Collections.Generic.Queue instead of an array ?
I feel like you need to perform actions on your value the discard it, thus using a queue seems to be more appropriate :
// dummy initialization
System.Collections.Generic.Queue<int> queue = new Queue<int>();
for (int i = 0; i < 7; ++i ) { queue.Enqueue(i); }// add each element at the end of the container
// working thread
if (queue.Count > 0)
doSomething(queue.Dequeue());// removes the last element of the container and calls doSomething on it
For any pour soul finding this thread and about to implement one of the highly rated answers. All of them are trash, I'm not sure why that is. Maybe Dested asked for a new array implementation at first or something that has now been removed from the question. Well if you simply want to shift the array and don't need a new one, see an answer like tdaines's answer. And read up on things like the Circular Buffer / Ring Buffer : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_buffer. No moving of the actual data is necessary. The performance of shifting an array should not be tied to the size of the array.
If it absolutely has to be in an array, then I would recommend the most obvious code possible.
for (int index = startIndex; index + 1 < values.Length; index++)
values[index] = values[index + 1];
values[values.Length - 1] = null;
This gives the optimizer the most opportunities to find the best way on whatever target platform the program is installed on.
EDIT:
I just borrowed Jason Punyon's test code, and I'm afraid he's right. Array.Copy wins!
var source = Enumerable.Range(1, 100).Cast<int?>().ToArray();
int indexToRemove = 4;
var s = new Stopwatch();
s.Start();
for (int i = 0; i < 1000000; i++)
{
Array.Copy(source, indexToRemove + 1, source, indexToRemove, source.Length - indexToRemove - 1);
//for (int index = indexToRemove; index + 1 < source.Length; index++)
// source[index] = source[index + 1];
}
s.Stop();
Console.WriteLine(s.Elapsed);
Array.Copy takes between 103 and 150 ms on my machine.
for loop takes between 269 and 338 ms on my machine.
Can't you
allocate the array with an extra 1000 elements
have an integer variable int base = 0
instead of accessing a[i] access a[base+i]
to do your shift, just say base++
Then after you've done this 1000 times, copy it down and start over.
That way, you only do the copy once per 1000 shifts.
Old joke:
Q: How many IBM 360s does it take to shift a register by 1 bit?
A: 33. 32 to hold the bits in place, and 1 to move the register. (or some such...)
You can use the same array as source and destination for fast in-place copy:
static void Main(string[] args)
{
int[] array = {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7};
Array.ConstrainedCopy(array, 1, array, 0, array.Length - 1);
array[array.Length - 1] = 0;
}
You might do it like this:
var items = new int?[] { 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 }; // Your array
var itemList = new List<int?>(items); // Put the items in a List<>
itemList.RemoveAt(1); // Remove the item at index 1
itemList.Add(null); // Add a null to the end of the list
items = itemList.ToArray(); // Turn the list back into an array
Of course, it would be more efficient to get rid of the array entirely and just use a List<>. You could then forget the first line and last line and do it like this:
var itemList = new List<int?> { 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 };
itemList.RemoveAt(1); // Remove the item at index 1
itemList.Add(null); // Add a null to the end of the list
The best and most efficient method I believe is using Buffer.BlockCopy function.
You will set both source and destination to your array, the offset of the source is 1. Depending on your array type (I assume it is int), 1 int = 4 bytes, so you must pass in 4 as the second parameter of this function. Note that the offset is byte offset.
So it looks like this:
int bytes2copy = yourArray.length - 4;
Buffer.BlockCopy(yourArray, 4, yourArray, 0, bytes2copy);
yourArray[yourArray.length-1] = null;
Try this! using Linq. No need of second Array.
var i_array = new int?[] {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 };
i_array = i_array.Select((v, k) => new { v = v, k = k }).
Where(i => i.k > 0).Select(i => i.v).ToArray();
Array.Resize(ref i_array, i_array.Length + 1);
Output:
[0,1,2,3,4,5,6] would become [1,2,3,4,5,6,null]
If you own the memory you could consider using Unsafe Code and good old fashioned pointers.
Make yourself a memory stream and lock it down or use Marshal.AllocHGlobal
Construct all your arrays in it with a little bit of padding at the beginning and end.
increment or decrement all of the array pointers at once. You'll still need to loop back and set your nulls.
If you need to selectively increment or decrement the arrays you would have to add padding between them.
Arrays are incredibly low level data structures, if you treat them in a low level way you can get huge performance out of them.
A baytrail doing this could outperform Jason's with all its copying 8 Core Intel Xeon E5450 # 3.00GHz
Not tested this code, but it should shifts all the values to right by one. Note that the last three lines of code is all you require to efficiently shift the array.
public class Shift : MonoBehaviour {
//Initialize Array
public int[] queue;
void Start () {
//Create Array Rows
queue = new int[5];
//Set Values to 1,2,3,4,5
for (int i=0; i<5;i++)
{
queue[i] = i + 1;
}
//Get the integer at the first index
int prev = queue[0];
//Copy the array to the new array.
System.Array.Copy(queue, 1, queue, 0, queue.Length - 1);
//Set the last shifted value to the previously first value.
queue[queue.Length - 1] = prev;
Implementation with Extension methods passing shifting direction as Enum.
"for" statements and indexers only (don't use Array.Copy method).
using System;
namespace ShiftArrayElements
{
public static class EnumShifter
{
public static int[] Shift(int[] source, Direction[] directions)
{
for (var i = 0; i < directions.Length; i++)
{
var direction = directions[i];
if (direction == Direction.Left)
{
source.LeftShift();
}
else if (direction == Direction.Right)
{
source.RightShift();
}
else
{
throw new InvalidOperationException("Direction is invalid");
}
}
return source;
}
public static void LeftShift(this int[] source)
{
var lastIndex = source?.Length - 1 ?? 0;
var temp = source[0];
for (int j = 0; j + 1 < source.Length; j++)
{
source[j] = source[j + 1];
}
source[lastIndex] = temp;
}
public static void RightShift(this int[] source)
{
var lastIndex = source?.Length - 1 ?? 0;
var temp = source[lastIndex];
for (int j = lastIndex; j > 0; j--)
{
source[j] = source[j - 1];
}
source[0] = temp;
}
}
}
Array copying is an O(n) operation and creates a new array.
While array copying can certainly be done quickly and efficiently, the problem you've stated can actually be solved in an entirely different way without (as you've requested) creating a new array/data structure and only creating one small wrapping object instance per array:
using System;
using System.Text;
public class ArrayReindexer
{
private Array reindexed;
private int location, offset;
public ArrayReindexer( Array source )
{
reindexed = source;
}
public object this[int index]
{
get
{
if (offset > 0 && index >= location)
{
int adjustedIndex = index + offset;
return adjustedIndex >= reindexed.Length ? "null" : reindexed.GetValue( adjustedIndex );
}
return reindexed.GetValue( index );
}
}
public void Reindex( int position, int shiftAmount )
{
location = position;
offset = shiftAmount;
}
public override string ToString()
{
StringBuilder output = new StringBuilder( "[ " );
for (int i = 0; i < reindexed.Length; ++i)
{
output.Append( this[i] );
if (i == reindexed.Length - 1)
{
output.Append( " ]" );
}
else
{
output.Append( ", " );
}
}
return output.ToString();
}
}
By wrapping and controlling access to the array in this manner, we can now demonstrate how the problem was solved with an O(1) method call...
ArrayReindexer original = new ArrayReindexer( SourceArray );
Console.WriteLine( " Base array: {0}", original.ToString() );
ArrayReindexer reindexed = new ArrayReindexer( SourceArray );
reindexed.Reindex( 1, 1 );
Console.WriteLine( "Shifted array: {0}", reindexed.ToString() );
Will produce the output:
Base array: [ 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ]
Shifted array: [ 0, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, null ]
I'm willing to bet that there will be a reason that such a solution won't work for you, but I believe this does match your initial stated requirements. 8 )
It's often helpful to think about all the different kinds of solutions to a problem before implementing a specific one, and perhaps that might be the most important thing that this example can demonstrate.
Hope this helps!
Incorrect and slightly amusing answer (thanks, i'll be here all night !)
int?[] test = new int?[] {0,1,2,3,4,5,6 };
int?[] t = new int?[test.Length];
t = test.Skip(1).ToArray();
t[t.Length - 1] = null;
In the spirit of still using Skip (dont ask me, i know worst usage of LINQ extension methods ever), the only way I thought of rewriting it would be
int?[] test = new int?[] { 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 };
int?[] t = new int?[test.Length];
Array.Copy(test.Skip(1).ToArray(), t, t.Length - 1);
But it's in NO WAY faster than the other options.
I know this is an old question but coming from Google there was no simple example so thanks to this is the easiest way to reorder a list, and you don't have to supply the type it will work it out at runtime,
private static List<T> reorderList<T>(List<T> list){
List<T> newList = new List<T>();
list.ForEach(delegate(T item)
{
newList.Add(item);
});
return newList;
}
using System;
using System.Threading;
namespace ShiftMatrix
{
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
MatrixOperation objMatrixOperation = new MatrixOperation();
//Create a matrix
int[,] mat = new int[,]
{
{1, 2},
{3,4 },
{5, 6},
{7,8},
{8,9},
};
int type = 2;
int counter = 0;
if (type == 1)
{
counter = mat.GetLength(0);
}
else
{
counter = mat.GetLength(1);
}
while (true)
{
for (int i = 0; i < counter; i++)
{
ShowMatrix(objMatrixOperation.ShiftMatrix(mat, i, type));
Thread.Sleep(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(2));
}
}
}
public static void ShowMatrix(int[,] matrix)
{
int rows = matrix.GetLength(0);
int columns = matrix.GetLength(1);
for (int k = 0; k < rows; k++)
{
for (int l = 0; l < columns; l++)
{
Console.Write(matrix[k, l] + " ");
}
Console.WriteLine();
}
}
}
class MatrixOperation
{
public int[,] ShiftMatrix(int[,] origanalMatrix, int shift, int type)
{
int rows = origanalMatrix.GetLength(0);
int cols = origanalMatrix.GetLength(1);
int[,] _tmpMatrix = new int[rows, cols];
if (type == 2)
{
for (int x1 = 0; x1 < rows; x1++)
{
int y2 = 0;
for (int y1 = shift; y2 < cols - shift; y1++, y2++)
{
_tmpMatrix[x1, y2] = origanalMatrix[x1, y1];
}
y2--;
for (int y1 = 0; y1 < shift; y1++, y2++)
{
_tmpMatrix[x1, y2] = origanalMatrix[x1, y1];
}
}
}
else
{
int x2 = 0;
for (int x1 = shift; x2 < rows - shift; x1++, x2++)
{
for (int y1 = 0; y1 < cols; y1++)
{
_tmpMatrix[x2, y1] = origanalMatrix[x1, y1];
}
}
x2--;
for (int x1 = 0; x1 < shift; x1++, x2++)
{
for (int y1 = 0; y1 < cols; y1++)
{
_tmpMatrix[x2, y1] = origanalMatrix[x1, y1];
}
}
}
return _tmpMatrix;
}
}
}
See C# code below to remove space from string. That shift character in array. Performance is O(n). No other array is used. So no extra memory either.
static void Main(string[] args)
{
string strIn = System.Console.ReadLine();
char[] chraryIn = strIn.ToCharArray();
int iShift = 0;
char chrTemp;
for (int i = 0; i < chraryIn.Length; ++i)
{
if (i > 0)
{
chrTemp = chraryIn[i];
chraryIn[i - iShift] = chrTemp;
chraryIn[i] = chraryIn[i - iShift];
}
if (chraryIn[i] == ' ') iShift++;
if (i >= chraryIn.Length - 1 - iShift) chraryIn[i] = ' ';
}
System.Console.WriteLine(new string(chraryIn));
System.Console.Read();
}
a is array of ints & d is number of times array has to shift left.
static int[] rotLeft(int[] a, int d)
{
var innerLoop = a.Length - 1;
for(var loop=0; loop < d; loop++)
{
var res = a[innerLoop];
for (var i= innerLoop; i>=0; i--)
{
var tempI = i-1;
if (tempI < 0)
{
tempI = innerLoop;
}
var yolo = a[tempI];
a[tempI] = res;
res = yolo;
}
}
return a;
}
Simple way to do it when you need to resize the same array.
var nLength = args.Length - 1;
Array.Copy(args, 1, args, 0, nLength);
Array.Resize(ref args, nLength);