I would like to loop through two lists using a For each loop.
dim data as list(of pointpairlist)
For each recLine in records
For Each chan In recLine.channels and d in data
d.add( func(chan) )
Next
next
note: each record line has one sample from each channel recorded. ie each record line is a slice of a 32 sensor recordings. I want to build up a x,y list of data points for each channel (the x axis is common to all channels)
Is there some way to do it similar to what i have above (avoiding indexing variables)
The best way to iterate over two different collections in a single loop is to use indexers.
For index As Integer = 0 To recLine.channels.Count - 1
data(index) = func(chan(index))
Next
As #0xA3 comments, you can also a while loop, calling GetEnumerator, MoveNext and Current directly on each collection, but this buys you nothing.
I realize you want to avoid using indexers, but there is no simple language support for anything else.
This is the case also for C#.
Why do you need to avoid indexers?
Nest the loops. I cannot reverse-engineer the actual declarations from the snippet, but something like this:
Dim data As List(Of PointPairList)
''...
For Each point In data
For Each chan In point.recLine
func(chan)
Next
Next
Related
I am trying to write, in order to export on txt file, information in two listbox with the same number of rows. I have to export them with the following format: Listbox1, Listbox2. In order to do this, I've tried to use the following code:
Using writer = New StreamWriter(SaveFileDialog1.FileName)
For Each o As Object In Form3.ListBox1.Items And Form3.ListBox2.Items
writer.WriteLine(o)
Next
End Using
I'm receiving the following error:
BC30452 Operator 'And' is not defined for types 'ListBox.ObjectCollection' and 'ListBox.ObjectCollection'.
I've also tried to perform three For Each loops, the first for the LB1, the second for the commas and the third for LB2, but I'm having it exported with content on single lines. How could I solve this?
If you use Enumerable.Zip, as suggested in another answer, then you can make the code more succinct by doing away with the explicit loop:
File.WriteAllLines(SaveFileDialog1.FileName,
Form3.ListBox1.
Items.
Cast(Of Object).
Zip(Form3.ListBox2.
Items.
Cast(Of Object),
Function(x1, x2) $"{x1}, {x2}"))
If you didn't use Zip then you can use a loop this way:
Dim items1 = Form3.ListBox1.Items
Dim items2 = Form3.ListBox2.Items
Using writer = New StreamWriter(SaveFileDialog1.FileName)
For i = 0 To Math.Min(items1.Count, items2.Count)
writer.WriteLine($"{items1(i)}, {items2(i)}")
Next
End Using
The Math.Min part is just in case there are different numbers of items in each ListBox. If you know there aren't then you can do away with that and just use one Count. If there might be different counts but you want to output all items then the code would become slightly more complex to handle that.
As the error message says, the syntax you attempted is simply not valid. There's no feature in VB.NET that does that sort of thing.
However, the .NET Framework API does provide a means for something similar, which would probably work in your case. See Enumerable.Zip(). You can use it like this:
Using writer = New StreamWriter(SaveFileDialog1.FileName)
For Each o As String In Form3.ListBox1.Items.Cast(Of Object).Zip(Form3.ListBox2.Items.Cast(Of Object), Function(x1, x2) x1 & ", " & x2)
writer.WriteLine(o)
Next
End Using
Since you said that both list boxes have the same number of items we can use the number of items in the first listbox less one (indexes start at zero) in a For loop.
I used a StringBuilder so the code does not have to throw away and create a new string on each iteration.
I used an interpolated string indicate by the $ preceding the string. This means I can insert variables in braces, right along with literals.
Call .ToString on the StringBuilder to write to the text file.
Private Sub SaveListBoxes()
Dim sb As New StringBuilder
For i = 0 To ListBox1.Items.Count - 1
sb.AppendLine($"{ListBox1.Items(i)}, {ListBox2.Items(i)}")
Next
File.WriteAllText("C:\Users\xxx\Desktop\ListBoxText.txt", sb.ToString)
End Sub
I am trying to program a way to read a text file and match all the values and their quantites. For example if the text file is like this:
Bread-10 Flour-2 Orange-2 Bread-3
I want to create a list with the total quantity of all the common words. I began my code, but I am having trouble understanding to to sum the values. I'm not asking for anyone to write the code for me but I am having trouble finding resources. I have the following code:
Dim query = From data In IO.File.ReadAllLines("C:\User\Desktop\doc.txt")
Let name As String = data.Split("-")(0)
Let quantity As Integer = CInt(data.Split("-")(1))
Let sum As Integer = 0
For i As Integer = 0 To query.Count - 1
For j As Integer = i To
Next
Thanks
Ok, lets break this down. And I not seen the LET command used for a long time (back in the GWBASIC days!).
But, that's ok.
So, first up, we going to assume your text file is like this:
Bread-10
Flour-2
Orange-2
Bread-3
As opposed to this:
Bread-10 Flour-2 Orange-2 Bread-3
Now, we could read one line, and then process the information. Or we can read all lines of text, and THEN process the data. If the file is not huge (say a few 100 lines), then performance is not much of a issue, so lets just read in the whole file in one shot (and your code also had this idea).
Your start code is good. So, lets keep it (well ok, very close).
A few things:
We don't need the LET for assignment. While older BASIC languages had this, and vb.net still supports this? We don't need it. (but you will see examples of that still floating around in vb.net - especially for what we call "class" module code, or "custom classes". But again lets just leave that for another day.
Now the next part? We could start building up a array, look for the existing value, and then add it. However, this would require a few extra arrays, and a few extra loops.
However, in .net land, we have a cool thing called a dictionary.
And that's just a fancy term of for a collection VERY much like an array, but it has some extra "fancy" features. The fancy feature is that it allows one to put into the handly list things by a "key" name, and then pull that "value" out by the key.
This saves us a good number of extra looping type of code.
And it also means we don't need a array for the results.
This key system is ALSO very fast (behind the scene it uses some cool concepts - hash coding).
So, our code to do this would look like this:
Note I could have saved a few lines here or there - but that would make this code hard to read.
Given that you look to have Fortran, or older BASIC language experience, then lets try to keep the code style somewhat similar. it is stunning that vb.net seems to consume even 40 year old GWBASIC type of syntax here.
Do note that arrays() in vb.net do have some fancy "find" options, but the dictionary structure is even nicer. It also means we can often traverse the results with out say needing a for i = 1 to end of array, and having to pull out values that way.
We can use for each.
So this would work:
Dim MyData() As String ' an array() of strings - one line per array
MyData = File.ReadAllLines("c:\test5\doc.txt") ' read each line to array()
Dim colSums As New Dictionary(Of String, Integer) ' to hold our values and sum them
Dim sKey As String
Dim sValue As Integer
For Each strLine As String In MyData
sKey = Split(strLine, "-")(0)
sValue = Split(strLine, "-")(1)
If colSums.ContainsKey(sKey) Then
colSums(sKey) = colSums(sKey) + sValue
Else
colSums.Add(sKey, sValue)
End If
Next
' display results
Dim KeyPair As KeyValuePair(Of String, Integer)
For Each KeyPair In colSums
Debug.Print(KeyPair.Key & " = " & KeyPair.Value)
Next
The above results in this output in the debug window:
Bread = 13
Flour = 2
Orange = 2
I was tempted here to write this code using just pure array() in vb.net, as that would give you a good idea of the "older" types of coding and syntax we could use here, and a approach that harks all the way back to those older PC basic systems.
While the dictionary feature is more advanced, it is worth the learning curve here, and it makes this problem a lot easier. I mean, if this was for a longer list? Then I would start to consider introduction of some kind of data base system.
However, without some data system, then the dictionary feature is a welcome approach due to that "key" value lookup ability, and not having to loop. It also a very high speed system, so the result is not much looping code, and better yet we write less code.
According to the language specification guide for VB.NET Section 10.9.3
The enumerator expression in a for each loop is copied over into
memory.
If I have a list of 10000 objects that list will be in memory twice for the code below?
dim myList as new list(of bobs)
'put 10000 bobs in my list
for each x In myList
'do something
next
If I were generating the list from a linqQuery or some other such query it would make sense to generate that list at the for each loop statement thus not having the list in memory twice for example.
for each x in myList.where(function(x) x.name = Y)
'do something
next
If the LINQ query is unreadable on the for each loop, do I forgo readability and just put it on the for each loop declaration line?
Should I declare the list in its own variable and just bite the bullet and have the list exist twice in memory?
that list will be in memory twice for the code below
No, it won't. In your case, the spec is talking about the variable "x" here - not the entire collection. Remember, and enumerator (any IEnumerable<T> or similar) doesn't necessarily even have items in memory. When created via an iterator in C#, for example, you can have "collections" that are generated as you enumerate over them. There isn't a "list" of objects (necessarily) that could be copied, even if the language wanted to do so.
Is the linq query is unreadable on the for each loop
In many cases, I prefer filtering this way. You can just as easily move this outside of the loop, if you want to make it more clear, as well:
Dim filteredCollection = myList.Where(Function(x) x.name = Y)
For Each x in filteredCollection
There is no disadvantage to doing this if you find it more readable.
Simplified, I have a List(Of MyObj), and I want to iterate through that list and compare each element to all other elements in the same list, excluding (if possible) the same element. I have a solution that works, but it's slow and uses double For loops. It may possibly have also summoned Cthulhu from his sleep.
Is there a better approach? Linq, perhaps? Or some fancy algorithm? This below is a sanitized version of what I have:
Dim MyList As New List(Of MyObj)({Obj1, Obj2, Obj3, Obj4, Obj5, Obj6})
If MyList.Count > 0 Then
For i = 0 To (MyList.Count - 1) Step 1
For j As Int32 = 0 To (MyList.Count - 1) Step 1
If MyList(i).GetHashCode = MyList(j).GetHashCode Then
Continue For
Else
If MyList(i).SomeFunction(MyList(j)) Then
Call DoSomething()
End If
End If
Next j
Next i
Else
' Error Code Here.
End If
This will work in O(M*N) where N is ObjCount and M is the number of non-duplicate objects. Your current solution is O(N^2).
You need a Hash Function. You can determine whether GetHashCode will suffice or whether you need to implement Sha1.
Instantiate a HashSet (or HashTable, depending on your Hash Function)
Add each object, if it does not already exist, into the HashSet or HashTable.
For each object in the HashSet, execute SomeFunction() against every other object in the HashSet. If you dump into an array and iterate via indexes, you only have to compare indexes, rather than objects.
For i as integer = 0 to MyHashResultsArray.Count - 1
For j as integer = 0 to MyHashResultsArray.Count - 1
if i <> j then
MyHashResultsArray(i).DoSomething(j)
end if
next
next
Important
This is only a good solution IF there exists a significant amount of duplicates, perhaps a duplicate-level of 10% would be necessary to consider this solution, except for very large values of N. If N gets too large, a re-engineering of the application may be necessary to hopefully avoid the need for M actions against M objects.
Edit
Much of the comment discussion was based upon my misunderstanding of the Author's needs regarding the DoSomething() function.
Barring any potential problems with using GetHashCode to check for object equality (best not to do this - it'll only bite you at some point - and it's probably this that has awakened Cthulhu!), your solution is about as fast as it's likely to get.
Sure, you can tweak it, but it will remain O(N^2), that is, the runtime will be of the order of the square of the number of elements in your list. If you double the number of elements, your runtime will increase by a factor of 4.
See if this will work
MyList.Select(Function(x) MyList.Except(New () {x}).ToList().ForEach(Sub(y) Do
If x.SomeFunction(y) Then
DoSomething()
End If
End Sub))
I have this code to return a list of fund sources for our organization.
Dim FundSourceList As New List(Of FundSource)
Dim fs As New FundSource
If results.Count > 0 Then
For Each result In results
fs.FundID = result.Item("strFundID")
fs.FundDescription = result.Item("txtFundIDDescr")
fs.ShortFundDescription = result.Item("txtFundIDDescrShort")
FundSourceList.Add(fs)
Next
End If
Return FundSourceList
The problem is that when I loop through the resulting FundSourceList all it shows is the last value. For example, if I have three fund sources (state, federal, athletic), then when I use this code to loop through all I get listed is athletic, athletic, athletic.
For Each FundSource In FundSources
Debug.Print(FundSource.FundDescription)
Next
So I change the code to this. I moved the creation of the fs variable inside the loop.
Dim results = From result In dsResult.Tables(0) Select result
Dim FundSourceList As New List(Of FundSource)
If results.Count > 0 Then
For Each result In results
Dim fs As New FundSource
fs.FundID = result.Item("strFundID")
fs.FundDescription = result.Item("txtFundIDDescr")
fs.ShortFundDescription = result.Item("txtFundIDDescrShort")
FundSourceList.Add(fs)
Next
End If
Return FundSourceList
This works fine but now I'm creating a new class over and over again. It seems a little inefficient to me. Can I not create the class outside the loop and use it over and over again? Thanks.
If you have 3 fund sources, you need three FundSource objects. It's as simple as that. I don't know what's inefficient about it...
How can you add 3 fund sources to your list but just create one?
You're not actually creating a class - the class is the code definition for the methods and properties. When you use the New operation, you're creating an instance of that class, which results in an object. When you have a list of objects, like FundSourceList, you want the items in it to be individual objects. So yes, the solution you have at the bottom is correct. You mention efficiency concerns - when you instantiate the object, basically all that is happening (in this case) is some memory is being allocated to store the variables (and some references for the managed memory, but you don't need to worry about that here). This is necessary and is optimized under-the-hood, so you shouldn't need to worry about that either.
You can't instantiate the object outside of the loop to achieve the result you're after.
This is because your object would be a reference type.
By instantiating outside of the loop, you would create one reference to your object.
When iterating through your results and setting the properties, you'll be using that same reference over and over.
All you're adding to the list on each iteration is the same reference, which by the end of the loop, will refer to an object containing the last values in your result set.
By creating new objects inside the loop, you create new references - each pointing to a new FundSource. Your loop now writes into a fresh object, and get your desired results.