I'm playing with QuickSort and LINQ, and want to separate the sequence into item before, equal-to, and after a pivot.
Here's wha开发者_JS百科t I have so far:
public static Tuple<IEnumerable<T>, IEnumerable<T>, IEnumerable<T>> ComparativeWhere<T>(this IEnumerable<T> source, T t)
where T : IComparable<T>
{
return new Tuple<IEnumerable<T>, IEnumerable<T>, IEnumerable<T>>(
source.Where(x => x.CompareTo(t) < 0),
source.Where(x => x.CompareTo(t) == 0),
source.Where(x => x.CompareTo(t) > 0)
);
}
What's the best way to do this? Is this the best implementation, or is there a better one? Or should I be using a library function I don't know about?
If performance is an issue (and when sorting it usually is, although this is just for fun), I would suggest possibly not using anything built in, because the way you're doing it, is your calling Where 3 times, which causes the enumerable to be iterated 3 times. I would just do this:
public static Tuple<IEnumerable<T>, IEnumerable<T>, IEnumerable<T>> ComparativeWhere<T>(this IEnumerable<T> source, T t)
where T : IComparable<T>
{
var list1 = new List<T>();
var list2 = new List<T>();
var list3 = new List<T>();
foreach (var item in source)
{
if (item.CompareTo(t) < 0)
{
list1.Add(item);
}
if (item.CompareTo(t) == 0)
{
list2.Add(item);
}
if (item.CompareTo(t) > 0)
{
list3.Add(item);
}
}
return new Tuple<IEnumerable<T>, IEnumerable<T>, IEnumerable<T>>(list1, list2, list3);
}
Of course the two drawbacks with this approach is that you're creating 3 new lists, and it's no longer lazily executed, but everything in life is a trade off isn't it? :)
精彩评论