Search Results

Search found 70 results on 3 pages for 'icomparable'.

Page 2/3 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3  | Next Page >

  • C#: Abstract classes need to implement interfaces?

    - by bguiz
    My test code in C#: namespace DSnA { public abstract class Test : IComparable { } } Results in the following compiler error: error CS0535: 'DSnA.Test' does not implement interface member 'System.IComparable.CompareTo(object)' Since the class Test is an abstract class, why does the compiler require it to implement the interface? Shouldn't this requirement only be compulsory for concrete classes?

    Read the article

  • Utility of List<T>.Sort() versus List<T>.OrderBy() for a member of a custom container class

    - by ccomet
    I've found myself running back through some old 3.5 framework legacy code, and found some points where there are a whole bunch of lists and dictionaries that must be updated in a synchronized fashion. I've determined that I can make this process infinitely easier to both utilize and understand by converging these into custom container classes of new custom classes. There are some points, however, where I came to concerns with organizing the contents of these new container classes by a specific inner property. For example, sorting by the ID number property of one class. As the container classes are primarily based around a generic List object, my first instinct was to write the inner classes with IComparable, and write the CompareTo method that compares the properties. This way, I can just call items.Sort() when I want to invoke the sorting. However, I've been thinking instead about using items = items.OrderBy(Func) instead. This way it is more flexible if I need to sort by any other property. Readability is better as well, since the property used for sorting will be listed in-line with the sort call rather than having to look up the IComparable code. The overall implementation feels cleaner as a result. I don't care for premature or micro optimization, but I like consistency. I find it best to stick with one kind of implementation for as many cases as it is appropriate, and use different implementations where it is necessary. Is it worth it to convert my code to use the LINQ OrderBy instead of using List.Sort? Is it a better practice to stick with the IComparable implementation for these custom containers? Are there any significant mechanical advantages offered by either path that I should be weighing the decision on? Or is their end-functionality equivalent to the point that it just becomes coder's preference?

    Read the article

  • C#/.NET Little Wonders: Constraining Generics with Where Clause

    - by James Michael Hare
    Back when I was primarily a C++ developer, I loved C++ templates.  The power of writing very reusable generic classes brought the art of programming to a brand new level.  Unfortunately, when .NET 1.0 came about, they didn’t have a template equivalent.  With .NET 2.0 however, we finally got generics, which once again let us spread our wings and program more generically in the world of .NET However, C# generics behave in some ways very differently from their C++ template cousins.  There is a handy clause, however, that helps you navigate these waters to make your generics more powerful. The Problem – C# Assumes Lowest Common Denominator In C++, you can create a template and do nearly anything syntactically possible on the template parameter, and C++ will not check if the method/fields/operations invoked are valid until you declare a realization of the type.  Let me illustrate with a C++ example: 1: // compiles fine, C++ makes no assumptions as to T 2: template <typename T> 3: class ReverseComparer 4: { 5: public: 6: int Compare(const T& lhs, const T& rhs) 7: { 8: return rhs.CompareTo(lhs); 9: } 10: }; Notice that we are invoking a method CompareTo() off of template type T.  Because we don’t know at this point what type T is, C++ makes no assumptions and there are no errors. C++ tends to take the path of not checking the template type usage until the method is actually invoked with a specific type, which differs from the behavior of C#: 1: // this will NOT compile! C# assumes lowest common denominator. 2: public class ReverseComparer<T> 3: { 4: public int Compare(T lhs, T rhs) 5: { 6: return lhs.CompareTo(rhs); 7: } 8: } So why does C# give us a compiler error even when we don’t yet know what type T is?  This is because C# took a different path in how they made generics.  Unless you specify otherwise, for the purposes of the code inside the generic method, T is basically treated like an object (notice I didn’t say T is an object). That means that any operations, fields, methods, properties, etc that you attempt to use of type T must be available at the lowest common denominator type: object.  Now, while object has the broadest applicability, it also has the fewest specific.  So how do we allow our generic type placeholder to do things more than just what object can do? Solution: Constraint the Type With Where Clause So how do we get around this in C#?  The answer is to constrain the generic type placeholder with the where clause.  Basically, the where clause allows you to specify additional constraints on what the actual type used to fill the generic type placeholder must support. You might think that narrowing the scope of a generic means a weaker generic.  In reality, though it limits the number of types that can be used with the generic, it also gives the generic more power to deal with those types.  In effect these constraints says that if the type meets the given constraint, you can perform the activities that pertain to that constraint with the generic placeholders. Constraining Generic Type to Interface or Superclass One of the handiest where clause constraints is the ability to specify the type generic type must implement a certain interface or be inherited from a certain base class. For example, you can’t call CompareTo() in our first C# generic without constraints, but if we constrain T to IComparable<T>, we can: 1: public class ReverseComparer<T> 2: where T : IComparable<T> 3: { 4: public int Compare(T lhs, T rhs) 5: { 6: return lhs.CompareTo(rhs); 7: } 8: } Now that we’ve constrained T to an implementation of IComparable<T>, this means that our variables of generic type T may now call any members specified in IComparable<T> as well.  This means that the call to CompareTo() is now legal. If you constrain your type, also, you will get compiler warnings if you attempt to use a type that doesn’t meet the constraint.  This is much better than the syntax error you would get within C++ template code itself when you used a type not supported by a C++ template. Constraining Generic Type to Only Reference Types Sometimes, you want to assign an instance of a generic type to null, but you can’t do this without constraints, because you have no guarantee that the type used to realize the generic is not a value type, where null is meaningless. Well, we can fix this by specifying the class constraint in the where clause.  By declaring that a generic type must be a class, we are saying that it is a reference type, and this allows us to assign null to instances of that type: 1: public static class ObjectExtensions 2: { 3: public static TOut Maybe<TIn, TOut>(this TIn value, Func<TIn, TOut> accessor) 4: where TOut : class 5: where TIn : class 6: { 7: return (value != null) ? accessor(value) : null; 8: } 9: } In the example above, we want to be able to access a property off of a reference, and if that reference is null, pass the null on down the line.  To do this, both the input type and the output type must be reference types (yes, nullable value types could also be considered applicable at a logical level, but there’s not a direct constraint for those). Constraining Generic Type to only Value Types Similarly to constraining a generic type to be a reference type, you can also constrain a generic type to be a value type.  To do this you use the struct constraint which specifies that the generic type must be a value type (primitive, struct, enum, etc). Consider the following method, that will convert anything that is IConvertible (int, double, string, etc) to the value type you specify, or null if the instance is null. 1: public static T? ConvertToNullable<T>(IConvertible value) 2: where T : struct 3: { 4: T? result = null; 5:  6: if (value != null) 7: { 8: result = (T)Convert.ChangeType(value, typeof(T)); 9: } 10:  11: return result; 12: } Because T was constrained to be a value type, we can use T? (System.Nullable<T>) where we could not do this if T was a reference type. Constraining Generic Type to Require Default Constructor You can also constrain a type to require existence of a default constructor.  Because by default C# doesn’t know what constructors a generic type placeholder does or does not have available, it can’t typically allow you to call one.  That said, if you give it the new() constraint, it will mean that the type used to realize the generic type must have a default (no argument) constructor. Let’s assume you have a generic adapter class that, given some mappings, will adapt an item from type TFrom to type TTo.  Because it must create a new instance of type TTo in the process, we need to specify that TTo has a default constructor: 1: // Given a set of Action<TFrom,TTo> mappings will map TFrom to TTo 2: public class Adapter<TFrom, TTo> : IEnumerable<Action<TFrom, TTo>> 3: where TTo : class, new() 4: { 5: // The list of translations from TFrom to TTo 6: public List<Action<TFrom, TTo>> Translations { get; private set; } 7:  8: // Construct with empty translation and reverse translation sets. 9: public Adapter() 10: { 11: // did this instead of auto-properties to allow simple use of initializers 12: Translations = new List<Action<TFrom, TTo>>(); 13: } 14:  15: // Add a translator to the collection, useful for initializer list 16: public void Add(Action<TFrom, TTo> translation) 17: { 18: Translations.Add(translation); 19: } 20:  21: // Add a translator that first checks a predicate to determine if the translation 22: // should be performed, then translates if the predicate returns true 23: public void Add(Predicate<TFrom> conditional, Action<TFrom, TTo> translation) 24: { 25: Translations.Add((from, to) => 26: { 27: if (conditional(from)) 28: { 29: translation(from, to); 30: } 31: }); 32: } 33:  34: // Translates an object forward from TFrom object to TTo object. 35: public TTo Adapt(TFrom sourceObject) 36: { 37: var resultObject = new TTo(); 38:  39: // Process each translation 40: Translations.ForEach(t => t(sourceObject, resultObject)); 41:  42: return resultObject; 43: } 44:  45: // Returns an enumerator that iterates through the collection. 46: public IEnumerator<Action<TFrom, TTo>> GetEnumerator() 47: { 48: return Translations.GetEnumerator(); 49: } 50:  51: // Returns an enumerator that iterates through a collection. 52: IEnumerator IEnumerable.GetEnumerator() 53: { 54: return GetEnumerator(); 55: } 56: } Notice, however, you can’t specify any other constructor, you can only specify that the type has a default (no argument) constructor. Summary The where clause is an excellent tool that gives your .NET generics even more power to perform tasks higher than just the base "object level" behavior.  There are a few things you cannot specify with constraints (currently) though: Cannot specify the generic type must be an enum. Cannot specify the generic type must have a certain property or method without specifying a base class or interface – that is, you can’t say that the generic must have a Start() method. Cannot specify that the generic type allows arithmetic operations. Cannot specify that the generic type requires a specific non-default constructor. In addition, you cannot overload a template definition with different, opposing constraints.  For example you can’t define a Adapter<T> where T : struct and Adapter<T> where T : class.  Hopefully, in the future we will get some of these things to make the where clause even more useful, but until then what we have is extremely valuable in making our generics more user friendly and more powerful!   Technorati Tags: C#,.NET,Little Wonders,BlackRabbitCoder,where,generics

    Read the article

  • Having trouble returning a value from a method call when sending an array and the program is error out when run in reference to the sort

    - by programmerNOOB
    I am getting the following output when this program is run: Please enter the Social Security Number for taxpayer 0: 111111111 Please enter the gross income for taxpayer 0: 20000 Please enter the Social Security Number for taxpayer 1: 555555555 Please enter the gross income for taxpayer 1: 50000 Please enter the Social Security Number for taxpayer 2: 333333333 Please enter the gross income for taxpayer 2: 5464166 Please enter the Social Security Number for taxpayer 3: 222222222 Please enter the gross income for taxpayer 3: 645641 Please enter the Social Security Number for taxpayer 4: 444444444 Please enter the gross income for taxpayer 4: 29000 Taxpayer # 1 SSN: 111111111, Income is $20,000.00, Tax is $0.00 Taxpayer # 2 SSN: 555555555, Income is $50,000.00, Tax is $0.00 Taxpayer # 3 SSN: 333333333, Income is $5,464,166.00, Tax is $0.00 Taxpayer # 4 SSN: 222222222, Income is $645,641.00, Tax is $0.00 Taxpayer # 5 SSN: 444444444, Income is $29,000.00, Tax is $0.00 Unhandled Exception: System.InvalidOperationException: Failed to compare two elements in the array. --- System.ArgumentException: At least one object must implement IComparable. at System.Collections.Comparer.Compare(Object a, Object b) at System.Collections.Generic.ObjectComparer`1.Compare(T x, T y) at System.Collections.Generic.ArraySortHelper`1.SwapIfGreaterWithItems(T[] keys, IComparer`1 comparer, Int32 a, Int32 b) at System.Collections.Generic.ArraySortHelper`1.QuickSort(T[] keys, Int32 left, Int32 right, IComparer`1 comparer) at System.Collections.Generic.ArraySortHelper`1.Sort(T[] keys, Int32 index, Int32 length, IComparer`1 comparer) --- End of inner exception stack trace --- at System.Collections.Generic.ArraySortHelper`1.Sort(T[] keys, Int32 index, Int32 length, IComparer`1 comparer) at System.Array.Sort[T](T[] array, Int32 index, Int32 length, IComparer`1 comparer) at System.Array.Sort[T](T[] array) at Assignment5.Taxpayer.Main(String[] args) in Program.cs:line 150 Notice the 0s at the end of the line that should be the tax amount??? Here is the code: using System; using System.Collections.Generic; using System.Linq; using System.Text; namespace taxes { class Rates { // Create a class named rates that has the following data members: private int incLimit; private double lowTaxRate; private double highTaxRate; // use read-only accessor public int IncomeLimit { get { return incLimit; } } public double LowTaxRate { get { return lowTaxRate; } } public double HighTaxRate { get { return highTaxRate; } } //A class constructor that assigns default values public Rates() { int limit = 30000; double lowRate = .15; double highRate = .28; incLimit = limit; lowTaxRate = lowRate; highTaxRate = highRate; } //A class constructor that takes three parameters to assign input values for limit, low rate and high rate. public Rates(int limit, double lowRate, double highRate) { } // A CalculateTax method that takes an income parameter and computes the tax as follows: public int CalculateTax(int income) { int limit = 0; double lowRate = 0; double highRate = 0; int taxOwed = 0; // If income is less than the limit then return the tax as income times low rate. if (income < limit) taxOwed = Convert.ToInt32(income * lowRate); // If income is greater than or equal to the limit then return the tax as income times high rate. if (income >= limit) taxOwed = Convert.ToInt32(income * highRate); return taxOwed; } } //end class Rates // Create a class named Taxpayer that has the following data members: public class Taxpayer { //Use get and set accessors. string SSN { get; set; } int grossIncome { get; set; } // Use read-only accessor. public int taxOwed { get { return taxOwed; } } // The Taxpayer class should be set up so that its objects are comparable to each other based on tax owed. class taxpayer : IComparable { public int taxOwed { get; set; } public int income { get; set; } int IComparable.CompareTo(Object o) { int returnVal; taxpayer temp = (taxpayer)o; if (this.taxOwed > temp.taxOwed) returnVal = 1; else if (this.taxOwed < temp.taxOwed) returnVal = -1; else returnVal = 0; return returnVal; } // End IComparable.CompareTo } //end taxpayer IComparable class // **The tax should be calculated whenever the income is set. // The Taxpayer class should have a getRates class method that has the following. public static void GetRates() { // Local method data members for income limit, low rate and high rate. int incLimit = 0; double lowRate; double highRate; string userInput; // Prompt the user to enter a selection for either default settings or user input of settings. Console.Write("Would you like the default values (D) or would you like to enter the values (E)?: "); /* If the user selects default the default values you will instantiate a rates object using the default constructor * and set the Taxpayer class data member for tax equal to the value returned from calling the rates object CalculateTax method.*/ userInput = Convert.ToString(Console.ReadLine()); if (userInput == "D" || userInput == "d") { Rates rates = new Rates(); rates.CalculateTax(incLimit); } // end if /* If the user selects to enter the rates data then prompt the user to enter values for income limit, low rate and high rate, * instantiate a rates object using the three-argument constructor passing those three entries as the constructor arguments and * set the Taxpayer class data member for tax equal to the valuereturned from calling the rates object CalculateTax method. */ if (userInput == "E" || userInput == "e") { Console.Write("Please enter the income limit: "); incLimit = Convert.ToInt32(Console.ReadLine()); Console.Write("Please enter the low rate: "); lowRate = Convert.ToDouble(Console.ReadLine()); Console.Write("Please enter the high rate: "); highRate = Convert.ToDouble(Console.ReadLine()); Rates rates = new Rates(incLimit, lowRate, highRate); rates.CalculateTax(incLimit); } } static void Main(string[] args) { Taxpayer[] taxArray = new Taxpayer[5]; Rates taxRates = new Rates(); // Implement a for-loop that will prompt the user to enter the Social Security Number and gross income. for (int x = 0; x < taxArray.Length; ++x) { taxArray[x] = new Taxpayer(); Console.Write("Please enter the Social Security Number for taxpayer {0}: ", x + 1); taxArray[x].SSN = Console.ReadLine(); Console.Write("Please enter the gross income for taxpayer {0}: ", x + 1); taxArray[x].grossIncome = Convert.ToInt32(Console.ReadLine()); } Taxpayer.GetRates(); // Implement a for-loop that will display each object as formatted taxpayer SSN, income and calculated tax. for (int i = 0; i < taxArray.Length; ++i) { Console.WriteLine("Taxpayer # {0} SSN: {1}, Income is {2:c}, Tax is {3:c}", i + 1, taxArray[i].SSN, taxArray[i].grossIncome, taxRates.CalculateTax(taxArray[i].grossIncome)); } // end for // Implement a for-loop that will sort the five objects in order by the amount of tax owed Array.Sort(taxArray); Console.WriteLine("Sorted by tax owed"); for (int i = 0; i < taxArray.Length; ++i) { Console.WriteLine("Taxpayer # {0} SSN: {1}, Income is {2:c}, Tax is {3:c}", i + 1, taxArray[i].SSN, taxArray[i].grossIncome, taxRates.CalculateTax(taxArray[i].grossIncome)); } } //end main } // end Taxpayer class } //end Any clues as to why the dollar amount is coming up as 0 and why the sort is not working?

    Read the article

  • Use of Distinct with list of Custom Object

    - by Burnzy
    How can I make the Distinct() method work with a list of custom object(Href in this case), here is what the current object looks like: public class Href : IComparable, IComparer<Href> { public Uri URL { get; set; } public UrlType URLType { get; set; } public Href(Uri url, UrlType urltype) { URL = url; URLType = urltype; } #region IComparable Members public int CompareTo( object obj ) { if(obj is Href) { return URL.ToString().CompareTo( ( obj as Href ).URL.ToString() ); } else throw new ArgumentException("Wrong data type."); } #endregion #region IComparer<Href> Members int IComparer<Href>.Compare( Href x , Href y ) { return string.Compare( x.URL.ToString() , y.URL.ToString() ); } #endregion }

    Read the article

  • Customized sorting on DataTable in C#?

    - by Steve
    This is a C# Winform question. I have a DataGridView which is bounded to a DataTable. I construct the DataTable myself, which several DataColumn instances. When the DataTable is bound to the DataGridView, by default, every column is sortable by clicking the headers of the DataGridView. But the sorting behavior is something "by default". It seems that it is sorted by string. This is true even if I put this as my code: DataColumn dc = new DataColumn("MyObjectColumn", typeof(MyObject)); And MyObject has overriden ToString() and has implemented the IComparable interface. That means even if I have told the DataTable how to sort the special column with the implementation of IComparable interface, DataGridView still doesn't do it the way I expect. So how can I let DataTable sort data in the way I want? Thanks for the answers.

    Read the article

  • Regarding Visual C# MenuItem: Where does the NullReference come from?

    - by Thomas
    Hi All. I have a problem creating MenuItems for a TreeView dynamically: here is the (simplified)code i'm using. public class CTM : TreeNode, IComparable, IComparable<CTM> { public CTM(CTMProvider provider) { this.provider = provider; this.manager = provider.manager; this.IEEEAddress = provider.IEEEAddress; this.endpoint = provider.state._conn.RemoteEndPoint; this.Text = String.Format("CTM: {0} {0}", IEEEAddress, ((System.Net.IPEndPoint)endpoint).ToString()); try { MenuItem meni = System.EventHandler(this.provider.Disconnect)); this.ContextMenu.MenuItems.Add(meni); } catch { Trace.TraceError("Could not create menu item!"); } } } This code always triggers the catch clause with a NullReferenceException. Any Ideas?

    Read the article

  • Making your own "int" or "string" class

    - by amerninja13
    I disassembled the .NET 'System' DLL and looked at the source code for the variable classes (string, int, byte, etc.) to see if I could figure out how to make a class that could take on a value. I noticed that the "Int32" class inherits the following: IComparable, IFormattable, IConvertible, IComparable, IEquatable. The String and Int32 classes are not inheritable, and I can't figure out what in these inherited interfaces allows the classes to hold a value. What I would want is something like this: public class MyVariable : //inherits here { //Code in here that allows it to get/set the value } public static class Main(string[] args) { MyVariable a = "This is my own custom variable!"; MyVariable b = 2976; if(a == "Hello") { } if(b = 10) { } Console.WriteLine(a.ToString()); Console.WriteLine(a.ToString()); }

    Read the article

  • C# Extension Methods - To Extend or Not To Extend...

    - by James Michael Hare
    I've been thinking a lot about extension methods lately, and I must admit I both love them and hate them. They are a lot like sugar, they taste so nice and sweet, but they'll rot your teeth if you eat them too much.   I can't deny that they aren't useful and very handy. One of the major components of the Shared Component library where I work is a set of useful extension methods. But, I also can't deny that they tend to be overused and abused to willy-nilly extend every living type.   So what constitutes a good extension method? Obviously, you can write an extension method for nearly anything whether it is a good idea or not. Many times, in fact, an idea seems like a good extension method but in retrospect really doesn't fit.   So what's the litmus test? To me, an extension method should be like in the movies when a person runs into their twin, separated at birth. You just know you're related. Obviously, that's hard to quantify, so let's try to put a few rules-of-thumb around them.   A good extension method should:     Apply to any possible instance of the type it extends.     Simplify logic and improve readability/maintainability.     Apply to the most specific type or interface applicable.     Be isolated in a namespace so that it does not pollute IntelliSense.     So let's look at a few examples in relation to these rules.   The first rule, to me, is the most important of all. Once again, it bears repeating, a good extension method should apply to all possible instances of the type it extends. It should feel like the long lost relative that should have been included in the original class but somehow was missing from the family tree.    Take this nifty little int extension, I saw this once in a blog and at first I really thought it was pretty cool, but then I started noticing a code smell I couldn't quite put my finger on. So let's look:       public static class IntExtensinos     {         public static int Seconds(int num)         {             return num * 1000;         }           public static int Minutes(int num)         {             return num * 60000;         }     }     This is so you could do things like:       ...     Thread.Sleep(5.Seconds());     ...     proxy.Timeout = 1.Minutes();     ...     Awww, you say, that's cute! Well, that's the problem, it's kitschy and it doesn't always apply (and incidentally you could achieve the same thing with TimeStamp.FromSeconds(5)). It's syntactical candy that looks cool, but tends to rot and pollute the code. It would allow things like:       total += numberOfTodaysOrders.Seconds();     which makes no sense and should never be allowed. The problem is you're applying an extension method to a logical domain, not a type domain. That is, the extension method Seconds() doesn't really apply to ALL ints, it applies to ints that are representative of time that you want to convert to milliseconds.    Do you see what I mean? The two problems, in a nutshell, are that a) Seconds() called off a non-time value makes no sense and b) calling Seconds() off something to pass to something that does not take milliseconds will be off by a factor of 1000 or worse.   Thus, in my mind, you should only ever have an extension method that applies to the whole domain of that type.   For example, this is one of my personal favorites:       public static bool IsBetween<T>(this T value, T low, T high)         where T : IComparable<T>     {         return value.CompareTo(low) >= 0 && value.CompareTo(high) <= 0;     }   This allows you to check if any IComparable<T> is within an upper and lower bound. Think of how many times you type something like:       if (response.Employee.Address.YearsAt >= 2         && response.Employee.Address.YearsAt <= 10)     {     ...     }     Now, you can instead type:       if(response.Employee.Address.YearsAt.IsBetween(2, 10))     {     ...     }     Note that this applies to all IComparable<T> -- that's ints, chars, strings, DateTime, etc -- and does not depend on any logical domain. In addition, it satisfies the second point and actually makes the code more readable and maintainable.   Let's look at the third point. In it we said that an extension method should fit the most specific interface or type possible. Now, I'm not saying if you have something that applies to enumerables, you create an extension for List, Array, Dictionary, etc (though you may have reasons for doing so), but that you should beware of making things TOO general.   For example, let's say we had an extension method like this:       public static T ConvertTo<T>(this object value)     {         return (T)Convert.ChangeType(value, typeof(T));     }         This lets you do more fluent conversions like:       double d = "5.0".ConvertTo<double>();     However, if you dig into Reflector (LOVE that tool) you will see that if the type you are calling on does not implement IConvertible, what you convert to MUST be the exact type or it will throw an InvalidCastException. Now this may or may not be what you want in this situation, and I leave that up to you. Things like this would fail:       object value = new Employee();     ...     // class cast exception because typeof(IEmployee) != typeof(Employee)     IEmployee emp = value.ConvertTo<IEmployee>();       Yes, that's a downfall of working with Convertible in general, but if you wanted your fluent interface to be more type-safe so that ConvertTo were only callable on IConvertibles (and let casting be a manual task), you could easily make it:         public static T ConvertTo<T>(this IConvertible value)     {         return (T)Convert.ChangeType(value, typeof(T));     }         This is what I mean by choosing the best type to extend. Consider that if we used the previous (object) version, every time we typed a dot ('.') on an instance we'd pull up ConvertTo() whether it was applicable or not. By filtering our extension method down to only valid types (those that implement IConvertible) we greatly reduce our IntelliSense pollution and apply a good level of compile-time correctness.   Now my fourth rule is just my general rule-of-thumb. Obviously, you can make extension methods as in-your-face as you want. I included all mine in my work libraries in its own sub-namespace, something akin to:       namespace Shared.Core.Extensions { ... }     This is in a library called Shared.Core, so just referencing the Core library doesn't pollute your IntelliSense, you have to actually do a using on Shared.Core.Extensions to bring the methods in. This is very similar to the way Microsoft puts its extension methods in System.Linq. This way, if you want 'em, you use the appropriate namespace. If you don't want 'em, they won't pollute your namespace.   To really make this work, however, that namespace should only include extension methods and subordinate types those extensions themselves may use. If you plant other useful classes in those namespaces, once a user includes it, they get all the extensions too.   Also, just as a personal preference, extension methods that aren't simply syntactical shortcuts, I like to put in a static utility class and then have extension methods for syntactical candy. For instance, I think it imaginable that any object could be converted to XML:       namespace Shared.Core     {         // A collection of XML Utility classes         public static class XmlUtility         {             ...             // Serialize an object into an xml string             public static string ToXml(object input)             {                 var xs = new XmlSerializer(input.GetType());                   // use new UTF8Encoding here, not Encoding.UTF8. The later includes                 // the BOM which screws up subsequent reads, the former does not.                 using (var memoryStream = new MemoryStream())                 using (var xmlTextWriter = new XmlTextWriter(memoryStream, new UTF8Encoding()))                 {                     xs.Serialize(xmlTextWriter, input);                     return Encoding.UTF8.GetString(memoryStream.ToArray());                 }             }             ...         }     }   I also wanted to be able to call this from an object like:       value.ToXml();     But here's the problem, if i made this an extension method from the start with that one little keyword "this", it would pop into IntelliSense for all objects which could be very polluting. Instead, I put the logic into a utility class so that users have the choice of whether or not they want to use it as just a class and not pollute IntelliSense, then in my extensions namespace, I add the syntactical candy:       namespace Shared.Core.Extensions     {         public static class XmlExtensions         {             public static string ToXml(this object value)             {                 return XmlUtility.ToXml(value);             }         }     }   So now it's the best of both worlds. On one hand, they can use the utility class if they don't want to pollute IntelliSense, and on the other hand they can include the Extensions namespace and use as an extension if they want. The neat thing is it also adheres to the Single Responsibility Principle. The XmlUtility is responsible for converting objects to XML, and the XmlExtensions is responsible for extending object's interface for ToXml().

    Read the article

  • C#/.NET Little Wonders: Tuples and Tuple Factory Methods

    - by James Michael Hare
    Once again, in this series of posts I look at the parts of the .NET Framework that may seem trivial, but can really help improve your code by making it easier to write and maintain.  This week, we look at the System.Tuple class and the handy factory methods for creating a Tuple by inferring the types. What is a Tuple? The System.Tuple is a class that tends to inspire a reaction in one of two ways: love or hate.  Simply put, a Tuple is a data structure that holds a specific number of items of a specific type in a specific order.  That is, a Tuple<int, string, int> is a tuple that contains exactly three items: an int, followed by a string, followed by an int.  The sequence is important not only to distinguish between two members of the tuple with the same type, but also for comparisons between tuples.  Some people tend to love tuples because they give you a quick way to combine multiple values into one result.  This can be handy for returning more than one value from a method (without using out or ref parameters), or for creating a compound key to a Dictionary, or any other purpose you can think of.  They can be especially handy when passing a series of items into a call that only takes one object parameter, such as passing an argument to a thread's startup routine.  In these cases, you do not need to define a class, simply create a tuple containing the types you wish to return, and you are ready to go? On the other hand, there are some people who see tuples as a crutch in object-oriented design.  They may view the tuple as a very watered down class with very little inherent semantic meaning.  As an example, what if you saw this in a piece of code: 1: var x = new Tuple<int, int>(2, 5); What are the contents of this tuple?  If the tuple isn't named appropriately, and if the contents of each member are not self evident from the type this can be a confusing question.  The people who tend to be against tuples would rather you explicitly code a class to contain the values, such as: 1: public sealed class RetrySettings 2: { 3: public int TimeoutSeconds { get; set; } 4: public int MaxRetries { get; set; } 5: } Here, the meaning of each int in the class is much more clear, but it's a bit more work to create the class and can clutter a solution with extra classes. So, what's the correct way to go?  That's a tough call.  You will have people who will argue quite well for one or the other.  For me, I consider the Tuple to be a tool to make it easy to collect values together easily.  There are times when I just need to combine items for a key or a result, in which case the tuple is short lived and so the meaning isn't easily lost and I feel this is a good compromise.  If the scope of the collection of items, though, is more application-wide I tend to favor creating a full class. Finally, it should be noted that tuples are immutable.  That means they are assigned a value at construction, and that value cannot be changed.  Now, of course if the tuple contains an item of a reference type, this means that the reference is immutable and not the item referred to. Tuples from 1 to N Tuples come in all sizes, you can have as few as one element in your tuple, or as many as you like.  However, since C# generics can't have an infinite generic type parameter list, any items after 7 have to be collapsed into another tuple, as we'll show shortly. So when you declare your tuple from sizes 1 (a 1-tuple or singleton) to 7 (a 7-tuple or septuple), simply include the appropriate number of type arguments: 1: // a singleton tuple of integer 2: Tuple<int> x; 3:  4: // or more 5: Tuple<int, double> y; 6:  7: // up to seven 8: Tuple<int, double, char, double, int, string, uint> z; Anything eight and above, and we have to nest tuples inside of tuples.  The last element of the 8-tuple is the generic type parameter Rest, this is special in that the Tuple checks to make sure at runtime that the type is a Tuple.  This means that a simple 8-tuple must nest a singleton tuple (one of the good uses for a singleton tuple, by the way) for the Rest property. 1: // an 8-tuple 2: Tuple<int, int, int, int, int, double, char, Tuple<string>> t8; 3:  4: // an 9-tuple 5: Tuple<int, int, int, int, double, int, char, Tuple<string, DateTime>> t9; 6:  7: // a 16-tuple 8: Tuple<int, int, int, int, int, int, int, Tuple<int, int, int, int, int, int, int, Tuple<int,int>>> t14; Notice that on the 14-tuple we had to have a nested tuple in the nested tuple.  Since the tuple can only support up to seven items, and then a rest element, that means that if the nested tuple needs more than seven items you must nest in it as well.  Constructing tuples Constructing tuples is just as straightforward as declaring them.  That said, you have two distinct ways to do it.  The first is to construct the tuple explicitly yourself: 1: var t3 = new Tuple<int, string, double>(1, "Hello", 3.1415927); This creates a triple that has an int, string, and double and assigns the values 1, "Hello", and 3.1415927 respectively.  Make sure the order of the arguments supplied matches the order of the types!  Also notice that we can't half-assign a tuple or create a default tuple.  Tuples are immutable (you can't change the values once constructed), so thus you must provide all values at construction time. Another way to easily create tuples is to do it implicitly using the System.Tuple static class's Create() factory methods.  These methods (much like C++'s std::make_pair method) will infer the types from the method call so you don't have to type them in.  This can dramatically reduce the amount of typing required especially for complex tuples! 1: // this 4-tuple is typed Tuple<int, double, string, char> 2: var t4 = Tuple.Create(42, 3.1415927, "Love", 'X'); Notice how much easier it is to use the factory methods and infer the types?  This can cut down on typing quite a bit when constructing tuples.  The Create() factory method can construct from a 1-tuple (singleton) to an 8-tuple (octuple), which of course will be a octuple where the last item is a singleton as we described before in nested tuples. Accessing tuple members Accessing a tuple's members is simplicity itself… mostly.  The properties for accessing up to the first seven items are Item1, Item2, …, Item7.  If you have an octuple or beyond, the final property is Rest which will give you the nested tuple which you can then access in a similar matter.  Once again, keep in mind that these are read-only properties and cannot be changed. 1: // for septuples and below, use the Item properties 2: var t1 = Tuple.Create(42, 3.14); 3:  4: Console.WriteLine("First item is {0} and second is {1}", 5: t1.Item1, t1.Item2); 6:  7: // for octuples and above, use Rest to retrieve nested tuple 8: var t9 = new Tuple<int, int, int, int, int, int, int, 9: Tuple<int, int>>(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,Tuple.Create(8,9)); 10:  11: Console.WriteLine("The 8th item is {0}", t9.Rest.Item1); Tuples are IStructuralComparable and IStructuralEquatable Most of you know about IComparable and IEquatable, what you may not know is that there are two sister interfaces to these that were added in .NET 4.0 to help support tuples.  These IStructuralComparable and IStructuralEquatable make it easy to compare two tuples for equality and ordering.  This is invaluable for sorting, and makes it easy to use tuples as a compound-key to a dictionary (one of my favorite uses)! Why is this so important?  Remember when we said that some folks think tuples are too generic and you should define a custom class?  This is all well and good, but if you want to design a custom class that can automatically order itself based on its members and build a hash code for itself based on its members, it is no longer a trivial task!  Thankfully the tuple does this all for you through the explicit implementations of these interfaces. For equality, two tuples are equal if all elements are equal between the two tuples, that is if t1.Item1 == t2.Item1 and t1.Item2 == t2.Item2, and so on.  For ordering, it's a little more complex in that it compares the two tuples one at a time starting at Item1, and sees which one has a smaller Item1.  If one has a smaller Item1, it is the smaller tuple.  However if both Item1 are the same, it compares Item2 and so on. For example: 1: var t1 = Tuple.Create(1, 3.14, "Hi"); 2: var t2 = Tuple.Create(1, 3.14, "Hi"); 3: var t3 = Tuple.Create(2, 2.72, "Bye"); 4:  5: // true, t1 == t2 because all items are == 6: Console.WriteLine("t1 == t2 : " + t1.Equals(t2)); 7:  8: // false, t1 != t2 because at least one item different 9: Console.WriteLine("t2 == t2 : " + t2.Equals(t3)); The actual implementation of IComparable, IEquatable, IStructuralComparable, and IStructuralEquatable is explicit, so if you want to invoke the methods defined there you'll have to manually cast to the appropriate interface: 1: // true because t1.Item1 < t3.Item1, if had been same would check Item2 and so on 2: Console.WriteLine("t1 < t3 : " + (((IComparable)t1).CompareTo(t3) < 0)); So, as I mentioned, the fact that tuples are automatically equatable and comparable (provided the types you use define equality and comparability as needed) means that we can use tuples for compound keys in hashing and ordering containers like Dictionary and SortedList: 1: var tupleDict = new Dictionary<Tuple<int, double, string>, string>(); 2:  3: tupleDict.Add(t1, "First tuple"); 4: tupleDict.Add(t2, "Second tuple"); 5: tupleDict.Add(t3, "Third tuple"); Because IEquatable defines GetHashCode(), and Tuple's IStructuralEquatable implementation creates this hash code by combining the hash codes of the members, this makes using the tuple as a complex key quite easy!  For example, let's say you are creating account charts for a financial application, and you want to cache those charts in a Dictionary based on the account number and the number of days of chart data (for example, a 1 day chart, 1 week chart, etc): 1: // the account number (string) and number of days (int) are key to get cached chart 2: var chartCache = new Dictionary<Tuple<string, int>, IChart>(); Summary The System.Tuple, like any tool, is best used where it will achieve a greater benefit.  I wouldn't advise overusing them, on objects with a large scope or it can become difficult to maintain.  However, when used properly in a well defined scope they can make your code cleaner and easier to maintain by removing the need for extraneous POCOs and custom property hashing and ordering. They are especially useful in defining compound keys to IDictionary implementations and for returning multiple values from methods, or passing multiple values to a single object parameter. Tweet Technorati Tags: C#,.NET,Tuple,Little Wonders

    Read the article

  • Strings in .NET are Enumerable

    - by Scott Dorman
    It seems like there is always some confusion concerning strings in .NET. This is both from developers who are new to the Framework and those that have been working with it for quite some time. Strings in the .NET Framework are represented by the System.String class, which encapsulates the data manipulation, sorting, and searching methods you most commonly perform on string data. In the .NET Framework, you can use System.String (which is the actual type name or the language alias (for C#, string). They are equivalent so use whichever naming convention you prefer but be consistent. Common usage (and my preference) is to use the language alias (string) when referring to the data type and String (the actual type name) when accessing the static members of the class. Many mainstream programming languages (like C and C++) treat strings as a null terminated array of characters. The .NET Framework, however, treats strings as an immutable sequence of Unicode characters which cannot be modified after it has been created. Because strings are immutable, all operations which modify the string contents are actually creating new string instances and returning those. They never modify the original string data. There is one important word in the preceding paragraph which many people tend to miss: sequence. In .NET, strings are treated as a sequence…in fact, they are treated as an enumerable sequence. This can be verified if you look at the class declaration for System.String, as seen below: // Summary:// Represents text as a series of Unicode characters.public sealed class String : IEnumerable, IComparable, IComparable<string>, IEquatable<string> The first interface that String implements is IEnumerable, which has the following definition: // Summary:// Exposes the enumerator, which supports a simple iteration over a non-generic// collection.public interface IEnumerable{ // Summary: // Returns an enumerator that iterates through a collection. // // Returns: // An System.Collections.IEnumerator object that can be used to iterate through // the collection. IEnumerator GetEnumerator();} As a side note, System.Array also implements IEnumerable. Why is that important to know? Simply put, it means that any operation you can perform on an array can also be performed on a string. This allows you to write code such as the following: string s = "The quick brown fox";foreach (var c in s){ System.Diagnostics.Debug.WriteLine(c);}for (int i = 0; i < s.Length; i++){ System.Diagnostics.Debug.WriteLine(s[i]);} If you executed those lines of code in a running application, you would see the following output in the Visual Studio Output window: In the case of a string, these enumerable or array operations return a char (System.Char) rather than a string. That might lead you to believe that you can get around the string immutability restriction by simply treating strings as an array and assigning a new character to a specific index location inside the string, like this: string s = "The quick brown fox";s[2] = 'a';   However, if you were to write such code, the compiler will promptly tell you that you can’t do it: This preserves the notion that strings are immutable and cannot be changed once they are created. (Incidentally, there is no built in way to replace a single character like this. It can be done but it would require converting the string to a character array, changing the appropriate indexed location, and then creating a new string.)

    Read the article

  • Generic Constraints And Type Parameters Mess

    - by Dummy01
    Hi everyone, I have the following base abstract class defined as: public abstract class BaseObject<T> : IComparable, IComparable<T>, IEquatable<T> {} I also have an interface defined as: public interface ICode<T> where T : struct { T Code { get; } } Now I want to derive a class that is inherited from BaseObject<T> and includes interface ICode<T>. I tried to define it like that: public class DerivedObject<T, U> : BaseObject<T>, ICode<U> where T : DerivedObject<T, U> where U : struct { public DerivedObject(U code) { Code = code; } // From BaseObject protected override int InstanceCompareTo(T obj) { return Code.CompareTo(obj.Code); } // From BaseObject protected override bool InstanceEquals(T obj) { return Code.Equals(obj.Code); } // From ICode U _Code; public U Code { get { return _Code; } protected set { _Code = value; } } } The only error that comes from the compiler is for Code.CompareTo(obj.Code) with the message: 'U' does not contain a definition for 'CompareTo' and no extension method 'CompareTo' accepting a first argument of type 'U' could be found. But U is a value type and should know CompareTo. Have you any idea what I am doing wrong, or if I do all wrong? My final aim is to derive classes such these: public class Account : DerivedObject<Account, int> public class ItemGroup : DerivedObject<ItemGroup, string> Big Thanks In Advance!

    Read the article

  • C# language questions

    - by Water Cooler v2
    1) What is int? Is it any different from the struct System.Int32? I understand that the former is a C# alias (typedef or #define equivalant) for the CLR type System.Int32. Is this understanding correct? 2) When we say: IComparable x = 10; Is that like saying: IComparable x = new System.Int32(); But we can't new a struct, right? or in C like syntax: struct System.In32 *x; x=>someThing = 10; 3) What is String with a capitalized S? I see in Reflector that it is the sealed String class, which, of course, is a reference type, unlike the System.Int32 above, which is a value type. What is string, with an uncapitalized s, though? Is that also the C# alias for this class? Why can I not see the alias definitions in Reflector? 4) Try to follow me down this subtle train of thought, if you please. We know that a storage location of a particular type can only access properties and members on its interface. That means: Person p = new Customer(); p.Name = "Water Cooler v2"; // legal because as Name is defined on Person. but // illegal without an explicit cast even though the backing // store is a Customer, the storage location is of type // Person, which doesn't support the member/method being // accessed/called. p.GetTotalValueOfOrdersMade(); Now, with that inference, consider this scenario: int i = 10; // obvious System.object defines no member to // store an integer value or any other value in. // So, my question really is, when the integer is // boxed, what is the *type* it is actually boxed to. // In other words, what is the type that forms the // backing store on the heap, for this operation? object x = i;

    Read the article

  • A Quantity class with units

    - by Ryan Ohs
    Goals Create a class that associates a numeric quantity with a unit of measurement. Provide support for simple arithmetic and comparison operations. Implementation An immutable class (Could have been struct but I may try inheritance later) Unit is stored in an enumeration Supported operations: Addition w/ like units Subtraction w/ like units Multiplication by scalar Division by scalar Modulus by scalar Equals() >, >=, <, <=, == IComparable ToString() Implicit cast to Decimal The Source The souce can be downloaded from Github. Notes This class does not support any arithmetic that would modify the unit. This class is not suitable for manipulating currencies. Future Ideas Have a CompositeQuantity class that would allow quantities with unlike units to be combined. Similar currency class with support for allocations/distributions. Provide conversion between units. (Actually I think this would be best placed in an external service. Many situations I deal with require some sort of dynamic conversion ratio.)

    Read the article

  • List<element> initialization fires "Process is terminated due to StackOverflowException"

    - by netmajor
    I have structs like below and when I do that initialization: ArrayList nodesMatrix = null; List<vertex> vertexMatrix = null; List<bool> odwiedzone = null; List<element> priorityQueue = null; vertexMatrix = new List<vertex>(nodesNr + 1); nodesMatrix = new ArrayList(nodesNr + 1); odwiedzone = new List<bool>(nodesNr + 1); priorityQueue = new List<element>(); arr.NodesMatrix = nodesMatrix; arr.VertexMatrix = vertexMatrix; arr.Odwiedzone = odwiedzone; arr.PriorityQueue = priorityQueue; //only here i have exception debuger fires Process is terminated due to StackOverflowException :/ Some idea why this collection fires this exception ? private struct arrays { ArrayList nodesMatrix; public ArrayList NodesMatrix { get { return nodesMatrix; } set { nodesMatrix = value; } } List<vertex> vertexMatrix; public List<vertex> VertexMatrix { get { return vertexMatrix; } set { vertexMatrix = value; } } List<bool> odwiedzone; public List<bool> Odwiedzone { get { return odwiedzone; } set { odwiedzone = value; } } public List<element> PriorityQueue { get { return PriorityQueue; } set { PriorityQueue = value; } } } public struct element : IComparable { public double priority { get { return priority; } set { priority = value; } } public int node { get { return node; } set { node = value; } } public element(double _prio, int _node) { priority = _prio; node = _node; } #region IComparable Members public int CompareTo(object obj) { element elem = (element)obj; return priority.CompareTo(elem.priority); } #endregion

    Read the article

  • Default for generic type?

    - by Mark
    Is it possible to do something like public class PriorityQueue<TValue, TPriority=int> where TPriority : IComparable (note the =int) ? Before you suggest it, yes, I know I can just add another line: public class PriorityQueue<TValue> : PriorityQueue<TValue, int> { } But I'm wondering if it's possible to do it as a param.

    Read the article

  • Using CompareTo() on different .NET types (e.g. int vs. double)

    - by Yossin
    Hi, I've got a static method that accepts two object type variables and runs the CompareTo() method: public static int Compare(Object objA, Object objB) { return (((IComparable)objA).CompareTo(objB)); } Problem is that CompareTo() throws an exception when trying to compare between different types (e.g. int and double). Does any one know of a better way in C#, to compare between two different types? Or a workaround to this problem? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Reversed Sorted Dictionary?

    - by Mark
    I have a SortedDictionary as defined like this: SortedDictionary<TPriority, Queue<TValue>> dict; But I want to sort the keys in reverse order. I assume I need set the Comparer, but what comparer do I use for a generic TPriority? Note that TPriority implements IComparable.

    Read the article

  • Several C# Language Questions

    - by Water Cooler v2
    1) What is int? Is it any different from the struct System.Int32? I understand that the former is a C# alias (typedef or #define equivalant) for the CLR type System.Int32. Is this understanding correct? 2) When we say: IComparable x = 10; Is that like saying: IComparable x = new System.Int32(); But we can't new a struct, right? or in C like syntax: struct System.In32 *x; x=>someThing = 10; 3) What is String with a capitalized S? I see in Reflector that it is the sealed String class, which, of course, is a reference type, unlike the System.Int32 above, which is a value type. What is string, with an uncapitalized s, though? Is that also the C# alias for this class? Why can I not see the alias definitions in Reflector? 4) Try to follow me down this subtle train of thought, if you please. We know that a storage location of a particular type can only access properties and members on its interface. That means: Person p = new Customer(); p.Name = "Water Cooler v2"; // legal because as Name is defined on Person. but // illegal without an explicit cast even though the backing // store is a Customer, the storage location is of type // Person, which doesn't support the member/method being // accessed/called. p.GetTotalValueOfOrdersMade(); Now, with that inference, consider this scenario: int i = 10; // obvious System.object defines no member to // store an integer value or any other value in. // So, my question really is, when the integer is // boxed, what is the *type* it is actually boxed to. // In other words, what is the type that forms the // backing store on the heap, for this operation? object x = i; Update Thank you for your answers, Eric Gunnerson and Aaronought. I'm afraid I haven't been able to articulate my questions well enough to attract very satisfying answers. The trouble is, I do know the answers to my questions on the surface, and I am, by no means, a newbie programmer. But I have to admit, a deeper understanding to the intricacies of how a language and its underlying platform/runtime handle storage of types has eluded me for as long as I've been a programmer, even though I write correct code.

    Read the article

  • Parallelism in .NET – Part 11, Divide and Conquer via Parallel.Invoke

    - by Reed
    Many algorithms are easily written to work via recursion.  For example, most data-oriented tasks where a tree of data must be processed are much more easily handled by starting at the root, and recursively “walking” the tree.  Some algorithms work this way on flat data structures, such as arrays, as well.  This is a form of divide and conquer: an algorithm design which is based around breaking up a set of work recursively, “dividing” the total work in each recursive step, and “conquering” the work when the remaining work is small enough to be solved easily. Recursive algorithms, especially ones based on a form of divide and conquer, are often a very good candidate for parallelization. This is apparent from a common sense standpoint.  Since we’re dividing up the total work in the algorithm, we have an obvious, built-in partitioning scheme.  Once partitioned, the data can be worked upon independently, so there is good, clean isolation of data. Implementing this type of algorithm is fairly simple.  The Parallel class in .NET 4 includes a method suited for this type of operation: Parallel.Invoke.  This method works by taking any number of delegates defined as an Action, and operating them all in parallel.  The method returns when every delegate has completed: Parallel.Invoke( () => { Console.WriteLine("Action 1 executing in thread {0}", Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId); }, () => { Console.WriteLine("Action 2 executing in thread {0}", Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId); }, () => { Console.WriteLine("Action 3 executing in thread {0}", Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId); } ); .csharpcode, .csharpcode pre { font-size: small; color: black; font-family: consolas, "Courier New", courier, monospace; background-color: #ffffff; /*white-space: pre;*/ } .csharpcode pre { margin: 0em; } .csharpcode .rem { color: #008000; } .csharpcode .kwrd { color: #0000ff; } .csharpcode .str { color: #006080; } .csharpcode .op { color: #0000c0; } .csharpcode .preproc { color: #cc6633; } .csharpcode .asp { background-color: #ffff00; } .csharpcode .html { color: #800000; } .csharpcode .attr { color: #ff0000; } .csharpcode .alt { background-color: #f4f4f4; width: 100%; margin: 0em; } .csharpcode .lnum { color: #606060; } Running this simple example demonstrates the ease of using this method.  For example, on my system, I get three separate thread IDs when running the above code.  By allowing any number of delegates to be executed directly, concurrently, the Parallel.Invoke method provides us an easy way to parallelize any algorithm based on divide and conquer.  We can divide our work in each step, and execute each task in parallel, recursively. For example, suppose we wanted to implement our own quicksort routine.  The quicksort algorithm can be designed based on divide and conquer.  In each iteration, we pick a pivot point, and use that to partition the total array.  We swap the elements around the pivot, then recursively sort the lists on each side of the pivot.  For example, let’s look at this simple, sequential implementation of quicksort: public static void QuickSort<T>(T[] array) where T : IComparable<T> { QuickSortInternal(array, 0, array.Length - 1); } private static void QuickSortInternal<T>(T[] array, int left, int right) where T : IComparable<T> { if (left >= right) { return; } SwapElements(array, left, (left + right) / 2); int last = left; for (int current = left + 1; current <= right; ++current) { if (array[current].CompareTo(array[left]) < 0) { ++last; SwapElements(array, last, current); } } SwapElements(array, left, last); QuickSortInternal(array, left, last - 1); QuickSortInternal(array, last + 1, right); } static void SwapElements<T>(T[] array, int i, int j) { T temp = array[i]; array[i] = array[j]; array[j] = temp; } Here, we implement the quicksort algorithm in a very common, divide and conquer approach.  Running this against the built-in Array.Sort routine shows that we get the exact same answers (although the framework’s sort routine is slightly faster).  On my system, for example, I can use framework’s sort to sort ten million random doubles in about 7.3s, and this implementation takes about 9.3s on average. Looking at this routine, though, there is a clear opportunity to parallelize.  At the end of QuickSortInternal, we recursively call into QuickSortInternal with each partition of the array after the pivot is chosen.  This can be rewritten to use Parallel.Invoke by simply changing it to: // Code above is unchanged... SwapElements(array, left, last); Parallel.Invoke( () => QuickSortInternal(array, left, last - 1), () => QuickSortInternal(array, last + 1, right) ); } This routine will now run in parallel.  When executing, we now see the CPU usage across all cores spike while it executes.  However, there is a significant problem here – by parallelizing this routine, we took it from an execution time of 9.3s to an execution time of approximately 14 seconds!  We’re using more resources as seen in the CPU usage, but the overall result is a dramatic slowdown in overall processing time. This occurs because parallelization adds overhead.  Each time we split this array, we spawn two new tasks to parallelize this algorithm!  This is far, far too many tasks for our cores to operate upon at a single time.  In effect, we’re “over-parallelizing” this routine.  This is a common problem when working with divide and conquer algorithms, and leads to an important observation: When parallelizing a recursive routine, take special care not to add more tasks than necessary to fully utilize your system. This can be done with a few different approaches, in this case.  Typically, the way to handle this is to stop parallelizing the routine at a certain point, and revert back to the serial approach.  Since the first few recursions will all still be parallelized, our “deeper” recursive tasks will be running in parallel, and can take full advantage of the machine.  This also dramatically reduces the overhead added by parallelizing, since we’re only adding overhead for the first few recursive calls.  There are two basic approaches we can take here.  The first approach would be to look at the total work size, and if it’s smaller than a specific threshold, revert to our serial implementation.  In this case, we could just check right-left, and if it’s under a threshold, call the methods directly instead of using Parallel.Invoke. The second approach is to track how “deep” in the “tree” we are currently at, and if we are below some number of levels, stop parallelizing.  This approach is a more general-purpose approach, since it works on routines which parse trees as well as routines working off of a single array, but may not work as well if a poor partitioning strategy is chosen or the tree is not balanced evenly. This can be written very easily.  If we pass a maxDepth parameter into our internal routine, we can restrict the amount of times we parallelize by changing the recursive call to: // Code above is unchanged... SwapElements(array, left, last); if (maxDepth < 1) { QuickSortInternal(array, left, last - 1, maxDepth); QuickSortInternal(array, last + 1, right, maxDepth); } else { --maxDepth; Parallel.Invoke( () => QuickSortInternal(array, left, last - 1, maxDepth), () => QuickSortInternal(array, last + 1, right, maxDepth)); } We no longer allow this to parallelize indefinitely – only to a specific depth, at which time we revert to a serial implementation.  By starting the routine with a maxDepth equal to Environment.ProcessorCount, we can restrict the total amount of parallel operations significantly, but still provide adequate work for each processing core. With this final change, my timings are much better.  On average, I get the following timings: Framework via Array.Sort: 7.3 seconds Serial Quicksort Implementation: 9.3 seconds Naive Parallel Implementation: 14 seconds Parallel Implementation Restricting Depth: 4.7 seconds Finally, we are now faster than the framework’s Array.Sort implementation.

    Read the article

  • Using ConcurrentQueue for thread-safe Performance Bookkeeping.

    - by Strenium
    Just a small tidbit that's sprung up today. I had to book-keep and emit diagnostics for the average thread performance in a highly-threaded code over a period of last X number of calls and no more. Need of the day: a thread-safe, self-managing stats container. Since .NET 4.0 introduced new thread-safe 'Collections.Concurrent' objects and I've been using them frequently - the one in particular seemed like a good fit for storing each threads' performance data - ConcurrentQueue. But I wanted to store only the most recent X# of calls and since the ConcurrentQueue currently does not support size constraint I had to come up with my own generic version which attempts to restrict usage to numeric types only: unfortunately there is no IArithmetic-like interface which constrains to only numeric types – so the constraints here here aren't as elegant as they could be. (Note the use of the Average() method, of course you can use others as well as make your own).   FIFO FixedSizedConcurrentQueue using System;using System.Collections.Concurrent;using System.Linq; namespace xxxxx.Data.Infrastructure{    [Serializable]    public class FixedSizedConcurrentQueue<T> where T : struct, IConvertible, IComparable<T>    {        private FixedSizedConcurrentQueue() { }         public FixedSizedConcurrentQueue(ConcurrentQueue<T> queue)        {            _queue = queue;        }         ConcurrentQueue<T> _queue = new ConcurrentQueue<T>();         public int Size { get { return _queue.Count; } }        public double Average { get { return _queue.Average(arg => Convert.ToInt32(arg)); } }         public int Limit { get; set; }        public void Enqueue(T obj)        {            _queue.Enqueue(obj);            lock (this)            {                T @out;                while (_queue.Count > Limit) _queue.TryDequeue(out @out);            }        }    } }   The usage case is straight-forward, in this case I’m using a FIFO queue of maximum size of 200 to store doubles to which I simply Enqueue() the calculated rates: Usage var RateQueue = new FixedSizedConcurrentQueue<double>(new ConcurrentQueue<double>()) { Limit = 200 }; /* greater size == longer history */   That’s about it. Happy coding!

    Read the article

  • Convert collections of enums to collection of strings and vice versa

    - by Michael Freidgeim
    Recently I needed to convert collections of  strings, that represent enum names, to collection of enums, and opposite,  to convert collections of   enums  to collection of  strings. I didn’t find standard LINQ extensions.However, in our big collection of helper extensions I found what I needed - just with different names: /// <summary> /// Safe conversion, ignore any unexpected strings/// Consider to name as Convert extension /// </summary> /// <typeparam name="EnumType"></typeparam> /// <param name="stringsList"></param> /// <returns></returns> public static List<EnumType> StringsListAsEnumList<EnumType>(this List<string> stringsList) where EnumType : struct, IComparable, IConvertible, IFormattable     { List<EnumType> enumsList = new List<EnumType>(); foreach (string sProvider in stringsList)     {     EnumType provider;     if (EnumHelper.TryParse<EnumType>(sProvider, out provider))     {     enumsList.Add(provider);     }     }     return enumsList;     }/// <summary> /// Convert each element of collection to string /// </summary> /// <typeparam name="T"></typeparam> /// <param name="objects"></param> /// <returns></returns> public static IEnumerable<string> ToStrings<T>(this IEnumerable<T> objects) {//from http://www.c-sharpcorner.com/Blogs/997/using-linq-to-convert-an-array-from-one-type-to-another.aspx return objects.Select(en => en.ToString()); }

    Read the article

  • C#/.NET Fundamentals: Choosing the Right Collection Class

    - by James Michael Hare
    The .NET Base Class Library (BCL) has a wide array of collection classes at your disposal which make it easy to manage collections of objects. While it's great to have so many classes available, it can be daunting to choose the right collection to use for any given situation. As hard as it may be, choosing the right collection can be absolutely key to the performance and maintainability of your application! This post will look at breaking down any confusion between each collection and the situations in which they excel. We will be spending most of our time looking at the System.Collections.Generic namespace, which is the recommended set of collections. The Generic Collections: System.Collections.Generic namespace The generic collections were introduced in .NET 2.0 in the System.Collections.Generic namespace. This is the main body of collections you should tend to focus on first, as they will tend to suit 99% of your needs right up front. It is important to note that the generic collections are unsynchronized. This decision was made for performance reasons because depending on how you are using the collections its completely possible that synchronization may not be required or may be needed on a higher level than simple method-level synchronization. Furthermore, concurrent read access (all writes done at beginning and never again) is always safe, but for concurrent mixed access you should either synchronize the collection or use one of the concurrent collections. So let's look at each of the collections in turn and its various pros and cons, at the end we'll summarize with a table to help make it easier to compare and contrast the different collections. The Associative Collection Classes Associative collections store a value in the collection by providing a key that is used to add/remove/lookup the item. Hence, the container associates the value with the key. These collections are most useful when you need to lookup/manipulate a collection using a key value. For example, if you wanted to look up an order in a collection of orders by an order id, you might have an associative collection where they key is the order id and the value is the order. The Dictionary<TKey,TVale> is probably the most used associative container class. The Dictionary<TKey,TValue> is the fastest class for associative lookups/inserts/deletes because it uses a hash table under the covers. Because the keys are hashed, the key type should correctly implement GetHashCode() and Equals() appropriately or you should provide an external IEqualityComparer to the dictionary on construction. The insert/delete/lookup time of items in the dictionary is amortized constant time - O(1) - which means no matter how big the dictionary gets, the time it takes to find something remains relatively constant. This is highly desirable for high-speed lookups. The only downside is that the dictionary, by nature of using a hash table, is unordered, so you cannot easily traverse the items in a Dictionary in order. The SortedDictionary<TKey,TValue> is similar to the Dictionary<TKey,TValue> in usage but very different in implementation. The SortedDictionary<TKey,TValye> uses a binary tree under the covers to maintain the items in order by the key. As a consequence of sorting, the type used for the key must correctly implement IComparable<TKey> so that the keys can be correctly sorted. The sorted dictionary trades a little bit of lookup time for the ability to maintain the items in order, thus insert/delete/lookup times in a sorted dictionary are logarithmic - O(log n). Generally speaking, with logarithmic time, you can double the size of the collection and it only has to perform one extra comparison to find the item. Use the SortedDictionary<TKey,TValue> when you want fast lookups but also want to be able to maintain the collection in order by the key. The SortedList<TKey,TValue> is the other ordered associative container class in the generic containers. Once again SortedList<TKey,TValue>, like SortedDictionary<TKey,TValue>, uses a key to sort key-value pairs. Unlike SortedDictionary, however, items in a SortedList are stored as an ordered array of items. This means that insertions and deletions are linear - O(n) - because deleting or adding an item may involve shifting all items up or down in the list. Lookup time, however is O(log n) because the SortedList can use a binary search to find any item in the list by its key. So why would you ever want to do this? Well, the answer is that if you are going to load the SortedList up-front, the insertions will be slower, but because array indexing is faster than following object links, lookups are marginally faster than a SortedDictionary. Once again I'd use this in situations where you want fast lookups and want to maintain the collection in order by the key, and where insertions and deletions are rare. The Non-Associative Containers The other container classes are non-associative. They don't use keys to manipulate the collection but rely on the object itself being stored or some other means (such as index) to manipulate the collection. The List<T> is a basic contiguous storage container. Some people may call this a vector or dynamic array. Essentially it is an array of items that grow once its current capacity is exceeded. Because the items are stored contiguously as an array, you can access items in the List<T> by index very quickly. However inserting and removing in the beginning or middle of the List<T> are very costly because you must shift all the items up or down as you delete or insert respectively. However, adding and removing at the end of a List<T> is an amortized constant operation - O(1). Typically List<T> is the standard go-to collection when you don't have any other constraints, and typically we favor a List<T> even over arrays unless we are sure the size will remain absolutely fixed. The LinkedList<T> is a basic implementation of a doubly-linked list. This means that you can add or remove items in the middle of a linked list very quickly (because there's no items to move up or down in contiguous memory), but you also lose the ability to index items by position quickly. Most of the time we tend to favor List<T> over LinkedList<T> unless you are doing a lot of adding and removing from the collection, in which case a LinkedList<T> may make more sense. The HashSet<T> is an unordered collection of unique items. This means that the collection cannot have duplicates and no order is maintained. Logically, this is very similar to having a Dictionary<TKey,TValue> where the TKey and TValue both refer to the same object. This collection is very useful for maintaining a collection of items you wish to check membership against. For example, if you receive an order for a given vendor code, you may want to check to make sure the vendor code belongs to the set of vendor codes you handle. In these cases a HashSet<T> is useful for super-quick lookups where order is not important. Once again, like in Dictionary, the type T should have a valid implementation of GetHashCode() and Equals(), or you should provide an appropriate IEqualityComparer<T> to the HashSet<T> on construction. The SortedSet<T> is to HashSet<T> what the SortedDictionary<TKey,TValue> is to Dictionary<TKey,TValue>. That is, the SortedSet<T> is a binary tree where the key and value are the same object. This once again means that adding/removing/lookups are logarithmic - O(log n) - but you gain the ability to iterate over the items in order. For this collection to be effective, type T must implement IComparable<T> or you need to supply an external IComparer<T>. Finally, the Stack<T> and Queue<T> are two very specific collections that allow you to handle a sequential collection of objects in very specific ways. The Stack<T> is a last-in-first-out (LIFO) container where items are added and removed from the top of the stack. Typically this is useful in situations where you want to stack actions and then be able to undo those actions in reverse order as needed. The Queue<T> on the other hand is a first-in-first-out container which adds items at the end of the queue and removes items from the front. This is useful for situations where you need to process items in the order in which they came, such as a print spooler or waiting lines. So that's the basic collections. Let's summarize what we've learned in a quick reference table.  Collection Ordered? Contiguous Storage? Direct Access? Lookup Efficiency Manipulate Efficiency Notes Dictionary No Yes Via Key Key: O(1) O(1) Best for high performance lookups. SortedDictionary Yes No Via Key Key: O(log n) O(log n) Compromise of Dictionary speed and ordering, uses binary search tree. SortedList Yes Yes Via Key Key: O(log n) O(n) Very similar to SortedDictionary, except tree is implemented in an array, so has faster lookup on preloaded data, but slower loads. List No Yes Via Index Index: O(1) Value: O(n) O(n) Best for smaller lists where direct access required and no ordering. LinkedList No No No Value: O(n) O(1) Best for lists where inserting/deleting in middle is common and no direct access required. HashSet No Yes Via Key Key: O(1) O(1) Unique unordered collection, like a Dictionary except key and value are same object. SortedSet Yes No Via Key Key: O(log n) O(log n) Unique ordered collection, like SortedDictionary except key and value are same object. Stack No Yes Only Top Top: O(1) O(1)* Essentially same as List<T> except only process as LIFO Queue No Yes Only Front Front: O(1) O(1) Essentially same as List<T> except only process as FIFO   The Original Collections: System.Collections namespace The original collection classes are largely considered deprecated by developers and by Microsoft itself. In fact they indicate that for the most part you should always favor the generic or concurrent collections, and only use the original collections when you are dealing with legacy .NET code. Because these collections are out of vogue, let's just briefly mention the original collection and their generic equivalents: ArrayList A dynamic, contiguous collection of objects. Favor the generic collection List<T> instead. Hashtable Associative, unordered collection of key-value pairs of objects. Favor the generic collection Dictionary<TKey,TValue> instead. Queue First-in-first-out (FIFO) collection of objects. Favor the generic collection Queue<T> instead. SortedList Associative, ordered collection of key-value pairs of objects. Favor the generic collection SortedList<T> instead. Stack Last-in-first-out (LIFO) collection of objects. Favor the generic collection Stack<T> instead. In general, the older collections are non-type-safe and in some cases less performant than their generic counterparts. Once again, the only reason you should fall back on these older collections is for backward compatibility with legacy code and libraries only. The Concurrent Collections: System.Collections.Concurrent namespace The concurrent collections are new as of .NET 4.0 and are included in the System.Collections.Concurrent namespace. These collections are optimized for use in situations where multi-threaded read and write access of a collection is desired. The concurrent queue, stack, and dictionary work much as you'd expect. The bag and blocking collection are more unique. Below is the summary of each with a link to a blog post I did on each of them. ConcurrentQueue Thread-safe version of a queue (FIFO). For more information see: C#/.NET Little Wonders: The ConcurrentStack and ConcurrentQueue ConcurrentStack Thread-safe version of a stack (LIFO). For more information see: C#/.NET Little Wonders: The ConcurrentStack and ConcurrentQueue ConcurrentBag Thread-safe unordered collection of objects. Optimized for situations where a thread may be bother reader and writer. For more information see: C#/.NET Little Wonders: The ConcurrentBag and BlockingCollection ConcurrentDictionary Thread-safe version of a dictionary. Optimized for multiple readers (allows multiple readers under same lock). For more information see C#/.NET Little Wonders: The ConcurrentDictionary BlockingCollection Wrapper collection that implement producers & consumers paradigm. Readers can block until items are available to read. Writers can block until space is available to write (if bounded). For more information see C#/.NET Little Wonders: The ConcurrentBag and BlockingCollection Summary The .NET BCL has lots of collections built in to help you store and manipulate collections of data. Understanding how these collections work and knowing in which situations each container is best is one of the key skills necessary to build more performant code. Choosing the wrong collection for the job can make your code much slower or even harder to maintain if you choose one that doesn’t perform as well or otherwise doesn’t exactly fit the situation. Remember to avoid the original collections and stick with the generic collections.  If you need concurrent access, you can use the generic collections if the data is read-only, or consider the concurrent collections for mixed-access if you are running on .NET 4.0 or higher.   Tweet Technorati Tags: C#,.NET,Collecitons,Generic,Concurrent,Dictionary,List,Stack,Queue,SortedList,SortedDictionary,HashSet,SortedSet

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3  | Next Page >