I am passing a few optional arguments to a function as a tuple, since all of these have to be passed together or not at all. I would like to be able to iterate over the elements of the tuple numerically, and perform an operation on each item. For example:
Public Function myFunction(Optional t As Tuple(Of Integer, String, SomeType) = Nothing) As Integer
For i = 0 to 2
someCollection(i).someMethod(t(i)) 'Pseudocode for accessing ith item in tuple
Next
End Function
One way to resolve the problem would be to use a list, but then I lose the ability to enforce the number of members (which will always be fixed) and the types of each member. Another way would be to write out the statement three times with t.Item1, t.Item2 etc, but this is ugly.
Is there any way to access the nth item in a tuple?
Note: I would like to accomplish this with a tuple if at all possible, even though I am aware I could create alternate method signatures.
(Sure, I’ll turn this into an answer!)
You can put the items into an array for convenience; maintaining the type isn’t really an issue at that point, since if you’re doing the same thing with all of them they need to have some sort of common base class or interface.
Dim a() As Object = {t.Item1, t.Item2, t.Item3}
Then just iterate over that.
Related
I have a list of Longs in Kotlin and I want to make them strings for UI purposes with maybe some prefix or altered in some way. For example, adding "$" in the front or the word "dollars" at the end.
I know I can simply iterate over them all like:
val myNewStrings = ArrayList<String>()
longValues.forEach { myNewStrings.add("$it dollars") }
I guess I'm just getting nitpicky, but I feel like there is a way to inline this or change the original long list without creating a new string list?
EDIT/UPDATE: Sorry for the initial confusion of my terms. I meant writing the code in one line and not inlining a function. I knew it was possible, but couldn't remember kotlin's map function feature at the time of writing. Thank you all for the useful information though. I learned a lot, thanks.
You are looking for a map, a map takes a lambda, and creates a list based on the result of the lambda
val myNewStrings = longValues.map { "$it dollars" }
map is an extension that has 2 generic types, the first is for knowing what type is iterating and the second what type is going to return. The lambda we pass as argument is actually transform: (T) -> R so you can see it has to be a function that receives a T which is the source type and then returns an R which is the lambda result. Lambdas doesn't need to specify return because the last line is the return by default.
You can use the map-function on List. It creates a new list where every element has been applied a function.
Like this:
val myNewStrings = longValues.map { "$it dollars" }
In Kotlin inline is a keyword that refers to the compiler substituting a function call with the contents of the function directly. I don't think that's what you're asking about here. Maybe you meant you want to write the code on one line.
You might want to read over the Collections documentation, specifically the Mapping section.
The mapping transformation creates a collection from the results of a
function on the elements of another collection. The basic mapping
function is
map().
It applies the given lambda function to each subsequent element and
returns the list of the lambda results. The order of results is the
same as the original order of elements.
val numbers = setOf(1, 2, 3)
println(numbers.map { it * 3 })
For your example, this would look as the others said:
val myNewStrings = longValues.map { "$it dollars" }
I feel like there is a way to inline this or change the original long list without creating a new string list?
No. You have Longs, and you want Strings. The only way is to create new Strings. You could avoid creating a new List by changing the type of the original list from List<Long> to List<Any> and editing it in place, but that would be overkill and make the code overly complex, harder to follow, and more error-prone.
Like people have said, unless there's a performance issue here (like a billion strings where you're only using a handful) just creating the list you want is probably the way to go. You have a few options though!
Sequences are lazily evaluated, when there's a long chain of operations they complete the chain on each item in turn, instead of creating an intermediate full list for every operation in the chain. So that can mean less memory use, and more efficiency if you only need certain items, or you want to stop early. They have overhead though so you need to be sure it's worth it, and for your use-case (turning a list into another list) there are no intermediate lists to avoid, and I'm guessing you're using the whole thing. Probably better to just make the String list, once, and then use it?
Your other option is to make a function that takes a Long and makes a String - whatever function you're passing to map, basically, except use it when you need it. If you have a very large number of Longs and you really don't want every possible String version in memory, just generate them whenever you display them. You could make it an extension function or property if you like, so you can just go
fun Long.display() = "$this dollars"
val Long.dollaridoos: String get() = "$this.dollars"
print(number.display())
print(number.dollaridoos)
or make a wrapper object holding your list and giving access to a stringified version of the values. Whatever's your jam
Also the map approach is more efficient than creating an ArrayList and adding to it, because it can allocate a list with the correct capacity from the get-go - arbitrarily adding to an unsized list will keep growing it when it gets too big, then it has to copy to another (larger) array... until that one fills up, then it happens again...
I would like to populate a listbox with a list of installed printers in VB.net.
This works:
Dim printerList As System.Drawing.Printing.PrinterSettings.StringCollection
printerList = System.Drawing.Printing.PrinterSettings.InstalledPrinters
For Each printerName In printerList
ListBox1.Items.Add(printerName)
Next
This does not work:
ListBox1.Items.AddRange(printerList)
...because of the following type-conversion error:
Public Sub AddRange (value As
System.Windows.Forms.ListBox.ObjectCollection)': Value of type
'System.Drawing.Printing.PrinterSettings.StringCollection' cannot be
converted to 'System.Windows.Forms.ListBox.ObjectCollection'.
Is it possible to directly cast one to the other for use in AddRange() as shown? Or is the loop the only (or most efficient) way?
Well, you're dealing with 2 collections that were created before the more modern generic lists and enumerables, so their use is less fluid.
In this case, the AddRange method accepts either another ObjectCollection instance (not your case), or an array of Objects. If you want to benefit from the latter, you'll need to transform the StringCollection instance to an array of Objects. Here is how this can be done:
ListBox1.Items.AddRange(printerList.Cast(Of Object)().ToArray())
That said, I would stick with your current For Each loop. It is very readable, and doesn't create an intermediate array. But, I doubt either choice will make much difference, so pick your favorite.
I have a class call CalcArray that has an array of doubles called Amounts(), and two ints, StartPeriod and EndPeriod.
The user almost always wants to interact with the items in the array, not the Periods or the object itself. So ideally, I'd like:
property AnAmount() as CalcArray 'So the user can talk to the object if they need to
property AnAmount(i as Integer) as Double 'So the user can just get the value directly
This seems to work sometimes and not others. Is this simply a syntax issue? or is such an overload not possible?
You can do this with a function returning a different based on how it is called. Especially since you have a param, a function might be more appropriate:
Public Function AnAmount(Of T)(parm As SomeType) As T
to use it:
Dim n as Decimal
n = AnAmount(Of Decimal)(foo)
Its very useful as a way to avoid returning an object and then have to use CType to convert the return. In this case, an amount implies a value type, but the function would accept Point, Rectangle etc as T, so you might need to check valid type requests.
You may be bumping into the limitation that a function or property cannot vary by only the return type. In general if the signature has changed, the output type can change also on an overload. Look out also for the limitation for using default properties requires an argument. In some cases class inheritance is the issue, properties and functions being shadowed may explicitly be required to nominate Shadows, Overloads, Overrides etc. or the shadowing will be disallowed by the language.
If these don't cover the cases you've seen, try to catch an example of the problem and study all locations of the same named property in your solution, reporting the results here.
In C# if I have the following object:
IEnumerable<Product> products;
and if I want to get how many elements it contains I use:
int productCount = products.Count();
but it looks like there is no such method in VB.NET. Anybody knows how to achieve the same result in VB.NET?
Count is available in VB.NET:
Dim x As New List(Of String)
Dim count As Integer
x.Add("Item 1")
x.Add("Item 2")
count = x.Count
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb535181.aspx#Y0
In later versions of .net, there is an extension method called Count() associated with IEnumerable<T>, which will use IList<T>.Count() or ICollection.Count() if the underlying enumerator supports either of those, or will iteratively count the items if it does not.
An important caveat not always considered with this: while an IEnumerable<DerivedType> may generally be substituted for an IEnumerable<BaseType>, a type which implements IList<DerivedType> but does not implement ICollection may be efficiently counted when used as an IEnumerable<DerivedType>, but not when cast as IEnumerable<BaseType> (even though the class would support an IList<DerivedType>.Count() method which would return the correct result, the system wouldn't look for that--it would look for IList<BaseType> instead, which would not be implemented.
In general, IEnumerable won't have a Count unless the underlying collection supports (eg List).
Think about what needs to happen for a generic IEnumerable to implement a Count method. Since the IEnumerable only executes when data is requested, in order to perform a Count, it needs to iterate through till the end keeping track of how many elements it has found.
Generally, this iteration will come to an end but you can setup a query that loops forever. Count is either very costly time-wise or dangerous with IEnumerable.
I am attempting to create a generic function that the students in my introductory VB .NET course can use to search a single dimension array of a structure.
My structure and array look like this:
Private Structure Survey
Dim idInteger As Integer
Dim membersInteger As Integer
Dim incomeInteger As Integer
Dim stateString As String
Dim belowPovertyLevelBoolean As Boolean
End Structure
Private incomeSurvey(199) As Survey
My generic function header looks like:
Private Function FindSurveyItem(Of xType As Structure)
(ByVal surveyIDInInt As Integer, ByVal surveyArrayIn() As xType) As Integer
??????
End Function
My call to the function looks like:
If FindSurveyItem(Of Survey)(CInt(idTextBox.Text), incomeSurvey) <> -1 Then
My question is: Is there a way to reference the individual structure fields in the array from inside the function? I was trying to make it generic so that the student could simply pass their array into the function - their structure may be named differently than mine and the field names may be different.
I suspect there are other ways to deal with this situation, but I was trying to keep it to just a simple single-dimension array of a structure. I don't think it is possible to do what I want, but I wondered what others thought.
Is there a way to reference the individual structure fields in the array from inside the function?
Generic instead of an array you need a collection type. Add LINQ Code:
Dim Surveys = From svys In xType
Where svys.idInteger = surveyIDInInt
Select svys
For Each rSurveys In svys
'''' Your Code
Next
This is rough answer fill in the details (I know imagine LINQ without SQL DB!!)
If you have a genric type parameter T you are only able to access members of instances of T that are known to exist at compile time. As every type derives from Object you have only the members of Object availiable - ToString(), GetType(), GetHashCode(), and Equals().
If you want to access other members you have to constrain what T is allowed to be. In your situation a interface would be the way to go. See MSDN for details.
You could also try to use reflection or check the actual type at runtime an perform a cast. The first is hard to impossible to do if you do not know much about the types you will get. And the later requires you to know possible types at compiletime and will not work in your situation, too.
Another way might be to pass a delegate to the search method that performs the actual comparison.
What you're looking for are predicates, if using ,net 3.5
dim arr() as structure
Array.Find(arr, function(item)(item.MyMember = MemberToMatch))
More combersome in earlier versions, see here for more info
The point being, that your function would look very like an implementation of Array.Find (if you didn't want to use the function provided), and the students would need to write their own predicate function.
No, there isn't. You can't know the type at compile time, therefore you cannot access members of that type. You would need change from a structure to a class that must implement IComparable so that you can use CompareTo between the item you pass in and the array you are passing in.
Though it's not entirely clear what you are trying to do within your method so I'm guessing by the name of the method.
You can use reflection to get those fields, but in this case that wouldn't have much meaning. How would you know that the passed type has the field you're looking for? There are other problems with that code as well.
Instead, to do this I would normally create an interface for something like this that had a public ID property, and constrain my input to the function to implement that interface, or as others mentioned use a built-in feature in the clr.
But that may be ahead of where your students are. If you just want an example of a generic function, my suggestion is to show them a type-safe implementation of the old vb imediate if function:
Public Function IIf(Of T)(ByVal Expression As Boolean, ByVal TruePart As T, ByVal FalsePart As T) AS T
If Expression Then Return TruePart Else Return FalsePart
End Function
Note that this is obsolete, too, as in VS2008 and beyond you can use the new If operator instead, which will work better with type inference and won't try to evaluate the expression that isn't returned.