I have an arraylist of objects, I would like to know the index within the arraylist of the object that contains a certain value, is there a built-in way to do the search?
I know I could simply iterate through the arraylist to find the correct value e.g. :
ReportToFind="6"
For i = 0 To ReportObjList.Count - 1
If ReportObjList.Item(i).ReportCode = ReportToFind Then
ReportName.Text = ReportObjList.Item(i).ReportName ' found it - show name
Exit For
End If
Next
Is the only other solution be to replace this code a binary search?
.Net 1.1
You need to use better data structures in the case that searching through a list is a problem. You can use a binary search for your arraylist in the case that your list is sorted with respect to the value to be searched. In other cases you would be better of using smarter data structures such as a binary tree or a map.
I don't know if .Net 1.1 has it, but you could try the .IndexOf method on your array list.
It looks like you need to index your reportObjectList by reportCode in addition to the item index.
You can do this either in a second parallel list with the reportCode as the index and the itemIndex as the value.
Related
Ok, I'm totally at a loss with this....
I think I have looked at every example and every code snippet around and still can't work out how to implement a custom sorter on my ObjectListView.
My primary column (column 0) contains numbers only (as a string) but is sorting all items by alphanumeric instead of numeric, meaning that it is doing something like this:
1
11
111
2
22
etc.
I am trying to find a relatively simple example of how to modify my ObjectListView to sort column 0 when it first loads, but I'm struggling.
I have converted over a custom class called ColumnSorter (from CodeProject) into VB and I'm calling the following delegate:
lvwColumnSorter = New CustomLVSorter.CustomLVSorter()
lsv_OpenTickets.CustomSorter = Sub(column As OLVColumn, order As SortOrder)
lvwColumnSorter.ColumnToSort = Ticket_Status.Index
lvwColumnSorter._SortModifier = CustomLVSorter.CustomLVSorter.SortModifiers.SortByText
lvwColumnSorter.OrderOfSort = SortOrder.Ascending
lsv_OpenTickets.ListViewItemSorter = lvwColumnSorter
End Sub
I get no errors, but I also get no change.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Well, are you sure you have looked at every example? I think there are a lot of resources on this one.
When you're using a list, datagridview, or any main form, you can adjust it to use a custom sorter. You create a custom IComparer, i.e. the definition of how you sort something. It can be as simple as converting the string (like yours) to an int with CInt() and returning -1 or +1 if it is greater or less than the last value. This is very common.
If you need help on the basics of how to do it, of course there are always the microsoft links that give you the basics such as Custom Sort I Comparer. But there is a stack flow that also follow your problem here: Custom sort C#
It's in C#, but there are many converters on that around here.
But the easiest way to get around it? Convert your string list into a integer list. Then it will sort perfectly.
I would like to know what is preferred...
Dim sLines() As String = s.Split(NewLine)
For each:
For Each sLines_item As String In sLines
.GetUpperBound:
For i As Integer = 0 To sLines.GetUpperBound(0)
I have no idea why the "For Each" was introduced for such cases. Until now I have only used .GetUpperBound, and I don't see any PRO for the "For Each".
Thank you
ps: When I use ."GetUpperBound(0)", I do know that I am iterating over the vector.
The "For Each" in contrast sounds like "I don't care in which order the vector is given to me". But that is just personal gusto, I guess.
Short answer: Do not use GetUpperBound(). The only advantage of GetUpperBound() is that it works for multi-dimensional arrays, where Length doesn't work. However, even that usage is outdated since there is Array.GetLength() available that takes the dimension parameter. For all other uses, For i = 0 to Array.Length - 1 is better and probably the fastest option.
It's largely a personal preference.
If you need to alter the elements of the array, you should use For i ... because changing sLines_item will not affect the corresponding array element.
If you need to delete elements of the array, you can iterate For i = ubound(sLines) to 0 step -1 (or the equivalent).
Short answer
You should always use For Each on IEnumerable types unless you have no other choice.
Long answer
Contrary to the popular understanding, For Each is not a syntactic sugar on top of For Next. It will not necessarily iterate over every element of its source. It is a syntactic sugar on top of IEnumerable.GetEnumerator(). For Each will first get an enumerator to its source then loop until it cannot enumerate further. Basically, it will be replaced by the following code. Keep in mind that this is an oversimplification.
' Ask the source for a way to enumerate its content in a forward only manner.
Dim enumerator As IEnumerator = sLines.GetEnumerator()
' Loop until there is no more element in front of us.
While enumerator.Next() Then
' Invoke back the content of the for each block by passing
' the currently enumerated element.
forEachContent.Invoke(enumerator.Current)
End While
The major difference between this and a classical For Next loop is that it does not depend on any length. This fixes two limitations in modern .NET languages. The first one has to do with the Count method. IEnumerable provides a Count method, but the implementation might not be able to keep track of the actual amount of elements it stores. Because of this, calling IEnumerable.Count might cause the source to be iterated over to actually count the amount of element it contains. Moreover, doing this as the end value for traditional For Next loop will cause this process to be done for every element in the loop. This is very slow. Here is an illustration of this process:
For i As Integer = 0 To source.Count() ' This here will cause Count to be
' evaluated for every element in source.
DoSomething(source(i))
Next
The use of For Each fixes this by never requesting the length of the source.
The second limitation it fixes is the lack of a concept for arrays with infinite amount of elements. An example of such cases would be an array containing every digit of PI where each digit is only calculated when you request them. This is where LINQ makes its entrance and really shines because it enables you to write the following code:
Dim piWith10DigitPrecision = From d In InfinitePiSource
Take 10
Dim piWith250DigitPrecision = From d In InfinitePiSource
Take 250
Dim infite2PiSource = From d In InfinitePiSource
Select d * 2
Now, in an infinite source, you cannot depend on a length to iterate over all of its elements. It has an infinite length thus making a traditional For Next loop an infinite loop. This does not change anything for the first two examples I have given with pi because we explicitly provides the amount of elements we want, but it does for the third one. When would you stop iterating? For Each, when combined with Yield (used by the Take operator), makes sure that you never iterate until you actually requests a specific value.
You might have already figured it out by now but these two things means that For Each effectively have no concept of bounds because it simply does not require them. The only use for GetLowerBound and GetUpperBound are for non-zero-indexed arrays. For instance, you might have an array that indexes values from 1 instead of zero. Even then, you only need GetLowerBound and Length. Obviously, this is only if the position of the element in the source actually matters. If it does not, you can still use For Each to iterate over all elements as it is bound agnostic.
Also, as already mentioned, GetLength should be used for zero-indexed multi-dimensional arrays, again, only if the position of the element matters and not just the element itself.
In String Template one can easily get an element of a Java Map within the template.
Is it possible to get the n-th element of an array in a similar way?
According to the String Template Cheat Sheet you can easily get the first or second element:
You can combine operations to say things like first(rest(names)) to get second element.
but it doesn't seem possible to get the n-th element easily. I usually transform my list into a map with list indexes as keys and do something like
map.("25")
Is there some easier/more straightforward way?
Sorry, there is no mechanism to get a[i].
There is no easy way getting n-th element of the list.
In my opinion this indicates that your view and business logic are not separated enough: knowledge of what magic number 25 means is spread in both tiers.
One possible solution might be converting list of values to object which provides meaning to the elements. For example, lets say list of String represents address lines, in which case instead of map.("3") you would write address.street.
I have a model:
class List:
data = ...
previous = models.ForeignKey('List', related_name='r1')
obj = models.ForeignKey('Obj', related_name='nodes')
This is one direction list containing reference to some obj of Obj class. I can reverse relation and get some list's all elements refering to obj by:
obj.nodes
But how Can I get the very last node? Without using raw sql, genering as little SQL queries by django as can.
obj.nodes is a RelatedManager, not a list. As with any manager, you can get the last queried element by
obj.nodes.all().reverse()[0]
This makes sense anyway only if there is any default order defined on the Node's Meta class, because otherwise the semantic of 'reverse' don't make any sense. If you don't have any specified order, set it explicitly:
obj.nodes.order_by('-pk')[0]
len(obj.nodes)-1
should give you the index of the last element (counting from 0) of your list
so something like
obj.nodes[len(obj.nodes)-1]
should give the last element of the list
i'm not sure it's good for your case, just give it a try :)
I see this question is quite old, but in newer versions of Django there are first() and last() methods on querysets now.
Well, you just can use [-1] index and it will return last element from the list. Maybe this question are close to yours:
Getting the last element of a list in Python
for further reading, Django does not support negative indexing and using something like
obj.nodes.all()[-1]
will raise an error.
in newer versions of Django you can use last() function on queryset to get the last item of your list.
obj.nodes.last()
another approach is to use len() function to get the index of last item of a list
obj.nodes[len(obj.nodes)-1]
i have a string that looks like this
"apples,fish,oranges,bananas,fish"
i want to be able to sort this list and get only the uniques. how do i do it in vb.net? please provide code
A lot of your questions are quite basic, so rather than providing the code I'm going to provide the thought process and let you learn from implementing it.
Firstly, you have a string that contains multiple items separated by commas, so you're going to need to split the string at the commas to get a list. You can use String.Split for that.
You can then use some of the extension methods for IEnumerable<T> to filter and order the list. The ones to look at are Enumerable.Distinct and Enumerable.OrderBy. You can either write these as normal methods, or use Linq syntax.
If you need to get it back into a comma-separated string, then you'll need to re-join the strings using the String.Join method. Note that this needs an array so Enumerable.ToArray will be useful in conjunction.
You can do it using LINQ, like this:
Dim input = "apples,fish,oranges,bananas,fish"
Dim strings = input.Split(","c).Distinct().OrderBy(Function(s) s)
I'm not a VB.NET programmer, but I can give you a suggestion:
Split the string into an array
Create a second array
Cycle through the first array, adding any value that is not in the second.
Upon completion, your second array will have only unique values.