tags:

views:

7109

answers:

15

I Have an array X of 10 elements. I would like to create a new array containing all the elements from X that begin at index 3 and ends in index 7. Sure I can easily write a loop that will do it for me but I would like to keep my code cleaner as possible.I also think its stupid to write methods that already exists. Is there a method in C# that can do it for me ?

Somethign like (pseudo code):

Array NewArray = oldArray.createNewArrayFromRange(int BeginIndex , int EndIndex)

Edit In addition to the proposals below , I also would like to ask whether Array.copy does a shallow copy , or it use something else to the copying (like "clone").

Edit

I started a bounty because no one didn't answer yet , Array.Copy doesn't fit my needs . I need the items in the new array to be clones. Array.copy is just a C-Style memcpy equivalent , its not what I looking for.

+23  A: 

You can use Array.Copy(...) to copy into the new array after you've created it, but I don't think there's a method which creates the new array and copies a range of elements.

If you're using .NET 3.5 you could use LINQ:

var newArray = array.Skip(3).Take(5).ToArray();

but that will be somewhat less efficient.

See this answer to a similar question for options for more specific situations.

Jon Skeet
Think there's a slight typo above it should say .Take(7)
Rune FS
@runefs: I hadn't actually noticed that there were actual figures in the question. The 3 and 10 were entirely random and coincidental! Will edit...
Jon Skeet
+1 I like this variation too. Jon, can you expand on why this is deemed less efficient?
Ian Roke
@Jon: To match the question, wouldn't that be "Take(5)"? @Ian: the Array.Copy approach doesn't involve an enumerator, and will most-likely be a straight memcopy...
Marc Gravell
@Marc: Yes indeed. Too much question skimming :)
Jon Skeet
@Ian: The LINQ approach introduces two levels of indirection (the iterators), has to explicitly skip over items, and doesn't know how big the final array is going to be beforehand. Consider taking the second half of a two-million-element array: a simple "create target array, copy" approach will just copy the required block without touching the other elements, and in one go. The LINQ approach will walk through the array until it reaches the start point, then start taking values, building up a buffer (increasing the buffer size and copying periodically). Much less efficient.
Jon Skeet
+33  A: 

You could add it as an extension method:

public static T[] SubArray<T>(this T[] data, int index, int length)
{
    T[] result = new T[length];
    Array.Copy(data, index, result, 0, length);
    return result;
}
static void Main()
{
    int[] data = { 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 };
    int[] sub = data.SubArray(3, 4); // contains {3,4,5,6}
}


Update re cloning (which wasn't obvious in the original question). If you really want a deep clone; something like:

public static T[] SubArrayDeepClone<T>(this T[] data, int index, int length)
{
    T[] arrCopy = new T[length];
    Array.Copy(data, index, arrCopy, 0, length);
    using (MemoryStream ms = new MemoryStream())
    {
        var bf = new BinaryFormatter();
        bf.Serialize(ms, arrCopy);
        ms.Position = 0;
        return (T[])bf.Deserialize(ms);
    }
}

This does require the objects to be serializable ([Serializable] or ISerializable), though. You could easily substitute for any other serializer as appropriate - XmlSerializer, DataContractSerializer, protobuf-net, etc.

Note that deep clone is tricky without serialization; in particular, ICloneable is hard to trust in most cases.

Marc Gravell
(obviously using an end index rather than a length is a simple change; I've posted "as is" because that is the more "typical" usage)
Marc Gravell
+1 I like this method Marc.
Ian Roke
what does Array.Copy does internally . is it shallow copy ? C-Style memcopy?
Yes, it is a memcopy-type copy.
Lasse V. Karlsen
So what you are actually telling me is that Array.Copy is good only for primitives.
No... just that with classes it'll copy the **reference** - it won't create a new instance.
Marc Gravell
but what if I want my references to be cloned?
Then... tough; it doesn't do that.... you'd probably need to use serialization to achieve something similar
Marc Gravell
see my answer for some alternates and a link to several implementations. the part about doing it to a sub array is really rather trivial, what you really want is the *cloning* bit and that's a complex and somewhat open question which depends entirely on your _expectations of what 'correct' behaviour should be_.
ShuggyCoUk
this is a pretty creative way of doing a deep copy, very nice
Stan R.
This is nice. And it especially good to point out that ICloneable is unreliable, because oh, is it ever.
Marcus Griep
+1  A: 

Array.ConstrainedCopy will work.

public static void ConstrainedCopy (
    Array sourceArray,
    int sourceIndex,
    Array destinationArray,
    int destinationIndex,
    int length
)
crauscher
That just copies the data; it won't create the new array etc; and if the array is new, we could use Array.Copy which is more efficient (no need for the additional checks/rollbacks).
Marc Gravell
Thats right, but creating a new Array is only one line of code and no new method is required. I agree that Array.Copy will work as well.
crauscher
+1  A: 

I think that the code you are looking for is:

Array.Copy(oldArray, 0, newArray, BeginIndex, EndIndex - BeginIndex)

Sean
I think I've been making some good friend's here.... same answer as you ;) and I got voted down plenty!! hah!! Anyhow, good times good times.
RandomNickName42
A: 

You can do this fairly easially;

    object[] foo = new object[10];
    object[] bar = null;    
    Array.Copy(foo, 3, bar, 0, 7);
RandomNickName42
No, bar will still be null. Array.Copy doesn't magically create a new array, especially since bar isn't passed with ref or out.
Zr40
oh ya hey, your right, i did this in a hurry whops, but hey, maybe when your writing critique's you should put the correction, constructuive critisism is so much more usefull for everybody.so before that array.copy you do a "bar = new object[7];"
RandomNickName42
+1  A: 

As an alternative to copying the data you can make a wrapper that gives you access to a part of the original array as if it was a copy of the part of the array. The advantage is that you don't get another copy of the data in memory, and the drawback is a slight overhead when accessing the data.

public class SubArray<T> : IEnumerable<T> {

   private T[] _original;
   private int _start;

   public SubArray(T[] original, int start, int len) {
      _original = original;
      _start = start;
      Length = len;
   }

   public T this[int index] {
      get {
         if (index < 0 || index >= Length) throw new IndexOutOfRangeException();
         return _original[_start + index];
      }
   }

   public int Length { get; private set; }

   public IEnumerator<T> GetEnumerator() {
      for (int i = 0; i < Length; i++) {
        yield return _original[_start + i];
      }
   }

   IEnumerator IEnumerable.GetEnumerator() {
      return GetEnumerator();
   }

}

Usage:

int[] original = { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 };
SubArray<int> copy = new SubArray<int>(original, 2, 2);

Console.WriteLine(copy.Length); // shows: 2
Console.WriteLine(copy[0]); // shows: 3
foreach (int i in copy) Console.WriteLine(i); // shows 3 and 4
Guffa
This looks like it's exactly what ArraySegment<> does...
Robert P
@Robert: No, it's not. Try to use an ArraySegment instead, and you see than you can neither access the items by index, not iterate throught the items.
Guffa
+10  A: 

I see you want to do Cloning, not just copying references. In this case you can use .Select to project array members to their clones. For example, if your elements implemented IClonable you could do something like this:

var newArray = array.Skip(3).Take(5).Select(eachElement => eachElement.Clone()).ToArray();
zvolkov
This requires .NET Framework 3.5.
Zr40
+6  A: 

Building on Marc's answer but adding the desired cloning behaviour

public static T[] CloneSubArray<T>(this T[] data, int index, int length)
    where T : ICloneable
{
    T[] result = new T[length];
    for (int i = 0; i < length; i++)
    { 
        var original = data[index + i];
        if (original != null)
            result[i] = (T)original.Clone();            
    return result;
}

And if implementing ICloneable is too much like hard work a reflective one using Håvard Stranden’s Copyable library to do the heavy lifting required.

using OX.Copyable;

public static T[] DeepCopySubArray<T>(
    this T[] data, int index, int length)
{
    T[] result = new T[length];
    for (int i = 0; i < length; i++)
    { 
        var original = data[index + i];
        if (original != null)
            result[i] = (T)original.Copy();            
    return result;
}

Note that the OX.Copyable implementation works with any of:

For the automated copy to work, though, one of the following statements must hold for instance:

  • Its type must have a parameterless constructor, or
  • It must be a Copyable, or
  • It must have an IInstanceProvider registered for its type.

So this should cover almost any situation you have. If you are cloning objects where the sub graph contains things like db connections or file/stream handles you obviously have issues but that it true for any generalized deep copy.

If you want to use some other deep copy approach instead this article lists several others so I would suggest not trying to write your own.

ShuggyCoUk
The first is probably the desired solution, as he is asking for cloning.Note that with the Copy method, you probably don't even have to check for null, as it is an extension method, if the method itself already does that thing. Worth a try.
Dykam
Yes I noted the null check but didn't want to confuse the OP in case he didn't read the source.
ShuggyCoUk
Just a sidenote: The latest version of Copyable on GitHub does not require objects to have a parameterless constructor. :) See http://github.com/havard/copyable
Håvard S
A: 

There's no single method that will do what you want. You will need to make a clone method available for the class in your array. Then, if LINQ is an option:

Foo[] newArray = oldArray.Skip(3).Take(5).Select(item => item.Clone()).ToArray();

class Foo
{
    public Foo Clone()
    {
        return (Foo)MemberwiseClone();
    }
}
Thorarin
A: 

Cloning elements in an array is not something that can be done in a universal way. Do you want deep cloning or a simple copy of all members?

Let's go for the "best effort" approach: cloning objects using the ICloneable interface or binary serialization:

public static class ArrayExtensions
{
  public static T[] SubArray<T>(this T[] array, int index, int length)
  {
    T[] result = new T[length];

    for (int i=index;i<length+index && i<array.Length;i++)
    {
       if (array[i] is ICloneable)
          result[i-index] = (T) ((ICloneable)array[i]).Clone();
       else
          result[i-index] = (T) CloneObject(array[i]);
    }

    return result;
  }

  private static object CloneObject(object obj)
  {
    BinaryFormatter formatter = new BinaryFormatter();

    using (MemoryStream stream = new MemoryStream())
    {
      formatter.Serialize(stream, obj);

      stream.Seek(0,SeekOrigin.Begin);

      return formatter.Deserialize(stream);
    }
  }
}

This is not a perfect solution, because there simply is none that will work for any type of object.

Philippe Leybaert
Shoudn't that be something like result[i-index] = (T)... ?
ongle
yes :) And not only that. The loop boundary is wrong. I'll fix it. Thanks!
Philippe Leybaert
A: 

As far as cloning goes, I don't think serialization calls your constructors. This may break class invariants if you're doing interesting things in the ctor's.

It seems the safer bet is virtual clone methods calling copy constructors.

protected MyDerivedClass(MyDerivedClass myClass) 
{
  ...
}

public override MyBaseClass Clone()
{
  return new MyDerivedClass(this);
}
Hans Malherbe
Whether serialization calls your constructors is up to the specific serializer. Some do, some don't. But those that don't typically offer callback support to allow you to do any fixups required.
Marc Gravell
This highlights another friction point of serialization: You have to provide default constructors.
Hans Malherbe
that again depends on the choice of serializer...
Marc Gravell
A: 

How about useing Array.ConstrainedCopy:

int[] ArrayOne = new int[8] {1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8};
int[] ArrayTwo = new int[5];
Array.ConstrainedCopy(ArrayOne, 3, ArrayTwo, 0, 7-3);


Below is my original post. It will not work

You could use Array.CopyTo:

int[] ArrayOne = new int[8] {1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8};
int[] ArrayTwo = new int[5];
ArrayOne.CopyTo(ArrayTwo,3); //starts copy at index=3 until it reaches end of
                             //either array
Mike
+3  A: 

Have you considered using ArraySegment?

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/1hsbd92d.aspx

Alex Black
Fantastic! If this does what I think it does, this solves my problem exactly.
Robert P
It probably does what you want, but it doesn't support the default array syntax, nor does it support IEnumerable, so its not especially clean.
Alex Black
+1  A: 

How about this:

public T[] CloneCopy(T[] array, int startIndex, int endIndex) where T : ICloneable
{
    T[] retArray = new T[endIndex - startIndex];
    for (int i = startIndex; i < endIndex; i++)
    {
        array[i - startIndex] = array[i].Clone();
    }
    return retArray;

}

You then need to implement the ICloneable interface on all of the classes you need to use this on but that should do it.

RCIX
A: 

I'm not sure how deep it really is, but:

MyArray.ToList<TSource>().GetRange(beginningIndex, endIndex).ToArray()

It's a bit of overhead, but it might cut out an unnecessary method.

SCNerd