I am playing with LINQ to learn about it, but I can't figure out how to use Distinct when I do not have a simple list (a simple list of integers is pretty easy to do, this is not the question). What I if want to use Distinct on a List<TElement> on one or more properties of the TElement?
Example: If an object is Person, with property Id. How can I get all Person and use Distinct on them with the property Id of the object?
Person1: Id=1, Name="Test1"
Person2: Id=1, Name="Test1"
Person3: Id=2, Name="Test2"
How can I get just Person1 and Person3? Is that possible?
If it's not possible with LINQ, what would be the best way to have a list of Person depending on some of its properties?
What if I want to obtain a distinct list based on one or more properties?
Simple! You want to group them and pick a winner out of the group.
List<Person> distinctPeople = allPeople
.GroupBy(p => p.PersonId)
.Select(g => g.First())
.ToList();
If you want to define groups on multiple properties, here's how:
List<Person> distinctPeople = allPeople
.GroupBy(p => new {p.PersonId, p.FavoriteColor} )
.Select(g => g.First())
.ToList();
Note: Certain query providers are unable to resolve that each group must have at least one element, and that First is the appropriate method to call in that situation. If you find yourself working with such a query provider, FirstOrDefault may help get your query through the query provider.
Note2: Consider this answer for an EF Core (prior to EF Core 6) compatible approach. https://stackoverflow.com/a/66529949/8155
EDIT: This is now part of MoreLINQ.
What you need is a "distinct-by" effectively. I don't believe it's part of LINQ as it stands, although it's fairly easy to write:
public static IEnumerable<TSource> DistinctBy<TSource, TKey>
(this IEnumerable<TSource> source, Func<TSource, TKey> keySelector)
{
HashSet<TKey> seenKeys = new HashSet<TKey>();
foreach (TSource element in source)
{
if (seenKeys.Add(keySelector(element)))
{
yield return element;
}
}
}
So to find the distinct values using just the Id property, you could use:
var query = people.DistinctBy(p => p.Id);
And to use multiple properties, you can use anonymous types, which implement equality appropriately:
var query = people.DistinctBy(p => new { p.Id, p.Name });
Untested, but it should work (and it now at least compiles).
It assumes the default comparer for the keys though - if you want to pass in an equality comparer, just pass it on to the HashSet constructor.
Use:
List<Person> pList = new List<Person>();
/* Fill list */
var result = pList.Where(p => p.Name != null).GroupBy(p => p.Id)
.Select(grp => grp.FirstOrDefault());
The where helps you filter the entries (could be more complex) and the groupby and select perform the distinct function.
You could also use query syntax if you want it to look all LINQ-like:
var uniquePeople = from p in people
group p by new {p.ID} //or group by new {p.ID, p.Name, p.Whatever}
into mygroup
select mygroup.FirstOrDefault();
I think it is enough:
list.Select(s => s.MyField).Distinct();
Solution first group by your fields then select FirstOrDefault item.
List<Person> distinctPeople = allPeople
.GroupBy(p => p.PersonId)
.Select(g => g.FirstOrDefault())
.ToList();
Starting with .NET 6, there is new solution using the new DistinctBy() extension in Linq, so we can do:
var distinctPersonsById = personList.DistinctBy(x => x.Id);
The signature of the DistinctBy method:
// Returns distinct elements from a sequence according to a specified
// key selector function.
public static IEnumerable<TSource> DistinctBy<TSource, TKey> (
this IEnumerable<TSource> source,
Func<TSource, TKey> keySelector);
You can do this with the standard Linq.ToLookup(). This will create a collection of values for each unique key. Just select the first item in the collection
Persons.ToLookup(p => p.Id).Select(coll => coll.First());
The following code is functionally equivalent to Jon Skeet's answer.
Tested on .NET 4.5, should work on any earlier version of LINQ.
public static IEnumerable<TSource> DistinctBy<TSource, TKey>(
this IEnumerable<TSource> source, Func<TSource, TKey> keySelector)
{
HashSet<TKey> seenKeys = new HashSet<TKey>();
return source.Where(element => seenKeys.Add(keySelector(element)));
}
Incidentially, check out Jon Skeet's latest version of DistinctBy.cs on Google Code.
Update 2022-04-03
Based on an comment by Andrew McClement, best to take John Skeet's answer over this one.
I've written an article that explains how to extend the Distinct function so that you can do as follows:
var people = new List<Person>();
people.Add(new Person(1, "a", "b"));
people.Add(new Person(2, "c", "d"));
people.Add(new Person(1, "a", "b"));
foreach (var person in people.Distinct(p => p.ID))
// Do stuff with unique list here.
Here's the article (now in the Web Archive): Extending LINQ - Specifying a Property in the Distinct Function
Personally I use the following class:
public class LambdaEqualityComparer<TSource, TDest> :
IEqualityComparer<TSource>
{
private Func<TSource, TDest> _selector;
public LambdaEqualityComparer(Func<TSource, TDest> selector)
{
_selector = selector;
}
public bool Equals(TSource obj, TSource other)
{
return _selector(obj).Equals(_selector(other));
}
public int GetHashCode(TSource obj)
{
return _selector(obj).GetHashCode();
}
}
Then, an extension method:
public static IEnumerable<TSource> Distinct<TSource, TCompare>(
this IEnumerable<TSource> source, Func<TSource, TCompare> selector)
{
return source.Distinct(new LambdaEqualityComparer<TSource, TCompare>(selector));
}
Finally, the intended usage:
var dates = new List<DateTime>() { /* ... */ }
var distinctYears = dates.Distinct(date => date.Year);
The advantage I found using this approach is the re-usage of LambdaEqualityComparer class for other methods that accept an IEqualityComparer. (Oh, and I leave the yield stuff to the original LINQ implementation...)
You can use DistinctBy() for getting Distinct records by an object property. Just add the following statement before using it:
using Microsoft.Ajax.Utilities;
and then use it like following:
var listToReturn = responseList.DistinctBy(x => x.Index).ToList();
where 'Index' is the property on which i want the data to be distinct.
You can do it (albeit not lightning-quickly) like so:
people.Where(p => !people.Any(q => (p != q && p.Id == q.Id)));
That is, "select all people where there isn't another different person in the list with the same ID."
Mind you, in your example, that would just select person 3. I'm not sure how to tell which you want, out of the previous two.
In case you need a Distinct method on multiple properties, you can check out my PowerfulExtensions library. Currently it's in a very young stage, but already you can use methods like Distinct, Union, Intersect, Except on any number of properties;
This is how you use it:
using PowerfulExtensions.Linq;
...
var distinct = myArray.Distinct(x => x.A, x => x.B);
When we faced such a task in our project we defined a small API to compose comparators.
So, the use case was like this:
var wordComparer = KeyEqualityComparer.Null<Word>().
ThenBy(item => item.Text).
ThenBy(item => item.LangID);
...
source.Select(...).Distinct(wordComparer);
And API itself looks like this:
using System;
using System.Collections;
using System.Collections.Generic;
public static class KeyEqualityComparer
{
public static IEqualityComparer<T> Null<T>()
{
return null;
}
public static IEqualityComparer<T> EqualityComparerBy<T, K>(
this IEnumerable<T> source,
Func<T, K> keyFunc)
{
return new KeyEqualityComparer<T, K>(keyFunc);
}
public static KeyEqualityComparer<T, K> ThenBy<T, K>(
this IEqualityComparer<T> equalityComparer,
Func<T, K> keyFunc)
{
return new KeyEqualityComparer<T, K>(keyFunc, equalityComparer);
}
}
public struct KeyEqualityComparer<T, K>: IEqualityComparer<T>
{
public KeyEqualityComparer(
Func<T, K> keyFunc,
IEqualityComparer<T> equalityComparer = null)
{
KeyFunc = keyFunc;
EqualityComparer = equalityComparer;
}
public bool Equals(T x, T y)
{
return ((EqualityComparer == null) || EqualityComparer.Equals(x, y)) &&
EqualityComparer<K>.Default.Equals(KeyFunc(x), KeyFunc(y));
}
public int GetHashCode(T obj)
{
var hash = EqualityComparer<K>.Default.GetHashCode(KeyFunc(obj));
if (EqualityComparer != null)
{
var hash2 = EqualityComparer.GetHashCode(obj);
hash ^= (hash2 << 5) + hash2;
}
return hash;
}
public readonly Func<T, K> KeyFunc;
public readonly IEqualityComparer<T> EqualityComparer;
}
More details is on our site: IEqualityComparer in LINQ.
If you don't want to add the MoreLinq library to your project just to get the DistinctBy functionality then you can get the same end result using the overload of Linq's Distinct method that takes in an IEqualityComparer argument.
You begin by creating a generic custom equality comparer class that uses lambda syntax to perform custom comparison of two instances of a generic class:
public class CustomEqualityComparer<T> : IEqualityComparer<T>
{
Func<T, T, bool> _comparison;
Func<T, int> _hashCodeFactory;
public CustomEqualityComparer(Func<T, T, bool> comparison, Func<T, int> hashCodeFactory)
{
_comparison = comparison;
_hashCodeFactory = hashCodeFactory;
}
public bool Equals(T x, T y)
{
return _comparison(x, y);
}
public int GetHashCode(T obj)
{
return _hashCodeFactory(obj);
}
}
Then in your main code you use it like so:
Func<Person, Person, bool> areEqual = (p1, p2) => int.Equals(p1.Id, p2.Id);
Func<Person, int> getHashCode = (p) => p.Id.GetHashCode();
var query = people.Distinct(new CustomEqualityComparer<Person>(areEqual, getHashCode));
Voila! :)
The above assumes the following:
Property Person.Id is of type int
The people collection does not contain any null elements
If the collection could contain nulls then simply rewrite the lambdas to check for null, e.g.:
Func<Person, Person, bool> areEqual = (p1, p2) =>
{
return (p1 != null && p2 != null) ? int.Equals(p1.Id, p2.Id) : false;
};
EDIT
This approach is similar to the one in Vladimir Nesterovsky's answer but simpler.
It is also similar to the one in Joel's answer but allows for complex comparison logic involving multiple properties.
However, if your objects can only ever differ by Id then another user gave the correct answer that all you need to do is override the default implementations of GetHashCode() and Equals() in your Person class and then just use the out-of-the-box Distinct() method of Linq to filter out any duplicates.
Override Equals(object obj) and GetHashCode() methods:
class Person
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public int Name { get; set; }
public override bool Equals(object obj)
{
return ((Person)obj).Id == Id;
// or:
// var o = (Person)obj;
// return o.Id == Id && o.Name == Name;
}
public override int GetHashCode()
{
return Id.GetHashCode();
}
}
and then just call:
List<Person> distinctList = new[] { person1, person2, person3 }.Distinct().ToList();
The best way to do this that will be compatible with other .NET versions is to override Equals and GetHash to handle this (see Stack Overflow question This code returns distinct values. However, what I want is to return a strongly typed collection as opposed to an anonymous type), but if you need something that is generic throughout your code, the solutions in this article are great.
List<Person>lst=new List<Person>
var result1 = lst.OrderByDescending(a => a.ID).Select(a =>new Player {ID=a.ID,Name=a.Name} ).Distinct();
You should be able to override Equals on person to actually do Equals on Person.id. This ought to result in the behavior you're after.
If you use old .NET version, where the extension method is not built-in, then you may define your own extension method:
public static class EnumerableExtensions
{
public static IEnumerable<T> DistinctBy<T, TKey>(this IEnumerable<T> enumerable, Func<T, TKey> keySelector)
{
return enumerable.GroupBy(keySelector).Select(grp => grp.First());
}
}
Example of usage:
var personsDist = persons.DistinctBy(item => item.Name);
Definitely not the most efficient but for those, who are looking for a short and simple answer:
list.Select(x => x.Id).Distinct().Select(x => list.First(y => x == y.Id)).ToList();
Please give a try with below code.
var Item = GetAll().GroupBy(x => x .Id).ToList();
I am trying to compare (values of the properties) a instance of type in a List and eliminate duplicates.
According to MSDN GetHashCode() is one of the way to compare two objects.
A hash code is intended for efficient insertion and lookup in
collections that are based on a hash table. A hash code is not a
permanent value
Considering that, I started writing my extension method as bellow
public static class Linq
{
public static IEnumerable<T> DistinctObjects<T>(this IEnumerable<T> source)
{
List<T> newList = new List<T>();
foreach (var item in source)
{
if(newList.All(x => x.GetHashCode() != item.GetHashCode()))
newList.Add(item);
}
return newList;
}
}
This condition always gives me false though the data of the object is same.
newList.All(x => x.GetHashCode() != item.GetHashCode())
Finally I would like to use it like
MyDuplicateList.DistinctObjects().ToList();
If comparing all fields of the object is too much, I am okay to use it like,
MyDuplicateList.DistinctObjects(x=>x.Id, x.Name).ToList();
Here I am telling compare only these two fields of those objects.
After reading your comments I would propose this solution:
public static IEnumerable<TSource> DistinctBy<TSource, TResult>(this IEnumerable<TSource> source, Func<TSource, TResult> selector)
{
HashSet<TResult> set = new HashSet<TResult>();
foreach(var item in source)
{
var selectedValue = selector(item);
if (set.Add(selectedValue))
yield return item;
}
}
Then you can use it like this:
var distinctedList = myList.DistinctBy(x => x.A);
or for multiple properties like that:
var distinctedList = myList.DistinctBy(x => new {x.A,x.B});
The advantage of this solution is you can exactly specify what properties should be used in distinction and you don't have to override Equals and GetHashCode for every object. You need to make sure that your properties can be compared.
You shouldn't need to create your own custom, generic method for this. Instead, provide a custom EqualityComparar for your data type:
var myDuplicates = myList.Distinct(new MyComparer());
Where you define a custom Comparer like this:
public class MyComparer : IEqualityComparer<Mine>
{
public bool Equals(Mine x, Mine y)
{
if (x == null && y == null) return true;
if (x == null || y == null) return false;
return x.Name == y.Name && x.Id == y.Id;
}
public int GetHashCode(Mine obj)
{
return obj.Name.GetHashCode() ^ obj.Id.GetHashCode();
}
}
Edit: I initially had incorrect code here, this should do what you want without you having to override an Equals operator
I'm trying to maintain a list of unique models from a variety of queries. Unfortunately, the equals method of our models are not defined, so I couldn't use a hash map easily.
As a quick fix I used the following code:
public void AddUnique(
List<Model> source,
List<Model> result)
{
if (result != null)
{
if (result.Count > 0
&& source != null
&& source.Count > 0)
{
source.RemoveAll(
s => result.Contains(
r => r.ID == s.ID));
}
result.AddRange(source);
}
}
Unfortunately, this does not work. When I step throught the code, I find that even though I've checked to make sure that there was at least one Model with the same ID in both source and result, the RemoveAll(Predicate<Model>) line does not change the number of items in source. What am I missing?
The above code shouldn't even compile, as Contains expects a Model, not a predicate.
You can use Any() instead:
source.RemoveAll(s => result.Any(r => r.ID == s.ID));
This will remove the items from source correctly.
I might opt to tackle the problem a different way.
You said you do not have suitable implementations of equality inside the class. Maybe you can't change that. However, you can define an IEqualityComparer<Model> implementation that allows you to specify appropriate Equals and GetHashCode implementations external to the actual Model class itself.
var comparer = new ModelComparer();
var addableModels = newSourceOfModels.Except(modelsThatAlreadyExist, comparer);
// you can then add the result to the existing
Where you might define the comparer as
class ModelComparer : IEqualityComparer<Model>
{
public bool Equals(Model x, Model y)
{
// validations omitted
return x.ID == y.ID;
}
public int GetHashCode(Model m)
{
return m.ID.GetHashCode();
}
}
source.RemoveAll(source.Where(result.Select(r => r.ID).Contains(source.Select(s => s.ID))));
The goal of this statement is to make two enumerations of IDs, one for source and one for result. It then will return true to the where statement for each of the elements in both enumerations. Then it will remove any elements that return true.
Your code is removing all the models which are the same between the two lists, not those which have the same ID. Unless they're actually the same instances of the model, it won't work like you're expecting.
Sometimes I use these extension methods for that sort of thing:
public static class CollectionHelper
{
public static void RemoveWhere<T>(this IList<T> list, Func<T, bool> selector)
{
var itemsToRemove = list.Where(selector).ToList();
foreach (var item in itemsToRemove)
{
list.Remove(item);
}
}
public static void RemoveWhere<TKey, TValue>(this IDictionary<TKey, TValue> dictionary, Func<KeyValuePair<TKey, TValue>, bool> selector)
{
var itemsToRemove = dictionary.Where(selector).ToList();
foreach (var item in itemsToRemove)
{
dictionary.Remove(item);
}
}
}
Im trying to get an enumberable collection from a dictionary held array.
Or should I say, I'm trying to write an extension method for my dictionary objects which store arrays to return an IEnumerable item when the result is null.
Im using dictionarys to store array datasets (there are speed reasons for this), which I extract at certain search points. the extracted data is used in Linq queries, joins etc but I have problems when a data set doesnt exist.
Returning an empty (0 count) row set would fix my problem. what I have so far is this (simplified code ofcourse)
public class Supplier
{
public string ID {get;set}
public string Name {get;set}
}
private sups[] = new Supplier[10];
Dictionary<int,Supplier[]> dic = new Dictionary<int, Supplier[]>();
dic.Add(1,sups[]);
public static IEnumerable<Supplier> TryGetValue<Tkey>(this IDictionary<Tkey, Supplier[]> source, Tkey ItemKey)
{
Supplier[] foundList;
IEnumerable<Supplier> retVal;
if (source.TryGetValue(ItemKey, out foundList))
{
retVal = foundList.AsEnumerable();
}
else
{
retVal = new Supplier[0].AsEnumerable();
}
return retVal;
}
// later in the code there is some thing like:
dic.TryGetValue(1).Count()
//or a linq join
from a in anothertable
join d in dic.TryGetValue(1) on a.ID equals d.ID
What im trying to acheive is a generic extension method like below:
public static IEnumerable<T> TryGetValue<Tkey,TValue>(this IDictionary<Tkey, TValue> source, Tkey ItemKey)
{
// same code...
// returning retVal = new T[0].AsEnumerable();
}
I keep getting close but never exactly there.... I would like to keep the extension method parameters simple. Its the passing of T which keeps catching me out.
If anybody can help then please send me your feed back.
many thanks in advance!
EDIT: Complications with type-inference.
Here's a way, the idea is to constrain the dictionary-values' type to be anIEnumerableof something.
Unfortunately, type-inference doesn't seem to work with this signature (tested with C# 3), so you will have to specify the generic arguments explicitly.
public static IEnumerable<TUnderlyingValue> GetValueOrEmpty<TKey, TUnderlyingValue, TValue>
(this IDictionary<TKey, TValue> source, TKey key)
where TValue : IEnumerable<TUnderlyingValue>
{
if(source == null)
throw new ArgumentNullException("source");
TValue retVal;
return source.TryGetValue(key, out retVal) ? retVal : Enumerable.Empty<TUnderlyingValue>;
}
Usage:
var dict = new Dictionary<string, int[]>
{
{ "foo", new[] { 6, 7, 8 } }
{ "bar", new[] { 1 } }
};
var fooOrEmpty = dict.GetValueOrEmpty<string, int, int[]>("foo"); // { 6, 7, 8 }
var barOrEmpty = dict.GetValueOrEmpty<string, int, int[]>("bar"); // { 1 }
var bazOrEmpty = dict.GetValueOrEmpty<string, int, int[]>("baz"); // { }
Alternatively, we could use just 2 generic parameters without any constraints, but this will make the dictionary type less flexible. In this case, the compiler will infer the generic arguments just fine.
public static TUnderlyingValue[] GetValueOrEmpty<TKey, TUnderlyingValue>
(this IDictionary<TKey, TUnderlyingValue[]> source, TKey key)
{
if(source == null)
throw new ArgumentNullException("source");
TUnderlyingValue[] retVal;
return source.TryGetValue(key, out retVal) ? retVal : new TUnderlyingValue[0];
}
I am getting strange behaviour using the built-in C# List.Sort function with a custom comparer.
For some reason it sometimes calls the comparer class's Compare method with a null object as one of the parameters. But if I check the list with the debugger there are no null objects in the collection.
My comparer class looks like this:
public class DelegateToComparer<T> : IComparer<T>
{
private readonly Func<T,T,int> _comparer;
public int Compare(T x, T y)
{
return _comparer(x, y);
}
public DelegateToComparer(Func<T, T, int> comparer)
{
_comparer = comparer;
}
}
This allows a delegate to be passed to the List.Sort method, like this:
mylist.Sort(new DelegateToComparer<MyClass>(
(x, y) => {
return x.SomeProp.CompareTo(y.SomeProp);
});
So the above delegate will throw a null reference exception for the x parameter, even though no elements of mylist are null.
UPDATE: Yes I am absolutely sure that it is parameter x throwing the null reference exception!
UPDATE: Instead of using the framework's List.Sort method, I tried a custom sort method (i.e. new BubbleSort().Sort(mylist)) and the problem went away. As I suspected, the List.Sort method passes null to the comparer for some reason.
This problem will occur when the comparison function is not consistent, such that x < y does not always imply y < x. In your example, you should check how two instances of the type of SomeProp are being compared.
Here's an example that reproduces the problem. Here, it's caused by the pathological compare function "compareStrings". It's dependent on the initial state of the list: if you change the initial order to "C","B","A", then there is no exception.
I wouldn't call this a bug in the Sort function - it's simply a requirement that the comparison function is consistent.
using System.Collections.Generic;
class Program
{
static void Main()
{
var letters = new List<string>{"B","C","A"};
letters.Sort(CompareStrings);
}
private static int CompareStrings(string l, string r)
{
if (l == "B")
return -1;
return l.CompareTo(r);
}
}
Are you sure the problem isn't that SomeProp is null?
In particular, with strings or Nullable<T> values.
With strings, it would be better to use:
list.Sort((x, y) => string.Compare(x.SomeProp, y.SomeProp));
(edit)
For a null-safe wrapper, you can use Comparer<T>.Default - for example, to sort a list by a property:
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
public static class ListExt {
public static void Sort<TSource, TValue>(
this List<TSource> list,
Func<TSource, TValue> selector) {
if (list == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("list");
if (selector == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("selector");
var comparer = Comparer<TValue>.Default;
list.Sort((x,y) => comparer.Compare(selector(x), selector(y)));
}
}
class SomeType {
public override string ToString() { return SomeProp; }
public string SomeProp { get; set; }
static void Main() {
var list = new List<SomeType> {
new SomeType { SomeProp = "def"},
new SomeType { SomeProp = null},
new SomeType { SomeProp = "abc"},
new SomeType { SomeProp = "ghi"},
};
list.Sort(x => x.SomeProp);
list.ForEach(Console.WriteLine);
}
}
I too have come across this problem (null reference being passed to my custom IComparer implementation) and finally found out that the problem was due to using inconsistent comparison function.
This was my initial IComparer implementation:
public class NumericStringComparer : IComparer<String>
{
public int Compare(string x, string y)
{
float xNumber, yNumber;
if (!float.TryParse(x, out xNumber))
{
return -1;
}
if (!float.TryParse(y, out yNumber))
{
return -1;
}
if (xNumber == yNumber)
{
return 0;
}
else
{
return (xNumber > yNumber) ? 1 : -1;
}
}
}
The mistake in this code was that Compare would return -1 whenever one of the values could not be parsed properly (in my case it was due to wrongly formatted string representations of numeric values so TryParse always failed).
Notice that in case both x and y were formatted incorrectly (and thus TryParse failed on both of them), calling Compare(x, y) and Compare(y, x) would yield the same result: -1. This I think was the main problem. When debugging, Compare() would be passed null string pointer as one of its arguments at some point even though the collection being sorted did not cotain a null string.
As soon as I had fixed the TryParse issue and ensured consistency of my implementation the problem went away and Compare wasn't being passed null pointers anymore.
Marc's answer is useful. I agree with him that the NullReference is due to calling CompareTo on a null property. Without needing an extension class, you can do:
mylist.Sort((x, y) =>
(Comparer<SomePropType>.Default.Compare(x.SomeProp, y.SomeProp)));
where SomePropType is the type of SomeProp
For debugging purposes, you want your method to be null-safe. (or at least, catch the null-ref. exception, and handle it in some hard-coded way). Then, use the debugger to watch what other values get compared, in what order, and which calls succeed or fail.
Then you will find your answer, and you can then remove the null-safety.
Can you run this code ...
mylst.Sort((i, j) =>
{
Debug.Assert(i.SomeProp != null && j.SomeProp != null);
return i.SomeProp.CompareTo(j.SomeProp);
}
);
I stumbled across this issue myself, and found that it was related to a NaN property in my input. Here's a minimal test case that should produce the exception:
public class C {
double v;
public static void Main() {
var test =
new List<C> { new C { v = 0d },
new C { v = Double.NaN },
new C { v = 1d } };
test.Sort((d1, d2) => (int)(d1.v - d2.v));
}
}