Can this switch and while loop be simplified in C#?












1















while (p3.Alive || p2.Alive)

        {

            Random rnd = new Random();

            int victim = rnd.Next(1, 3);



            switch (victim)

            {

                case 1:

                    p1.Attack(p2, 2);

                    break;

                case 2:

                    p1.Attack(p3, 2);

                    break;

            }



            Thread.Sleep(2000);

        }


p2 and p3 and objects of class Person. They are about to be killed off on random by the killer, p1. But when I look at it, I feel like there could be a better solution because what if I had 1000 objects of class Person ready to be killed? I just can't seem to get the p2 and p3 to be easily programmed variables.



The while loop is the same. What if I had 1000 objects. Or even just 10. How can I write this so that the condition is "while anyone but the killer is alive" and an "if" or "switch" which attacks anyone chosen by the Random rnd?



The question is badly written in the topic. I don't know how I could summarize all this into a short question. I'll edit it if anyone has a good suggestion. Thank you.






c#







share|improve this question




















  • 1





    Why not have a list of players?

    – stuartd
    Nov 16 '18 at 10:51






  • 2





    Don't create a new Random object at each iteration, that could make the outcomes predictable because they all start at 'the first number from a semi-random list'. You are probably being saved here by the Sleep(2000), but still it's never a good idea and never needed.

    – Peter B
    Nov 16 '18 at 10:51








  • 1





    Also this code makes it possible to attack a player that is not alive anymore. Waste of "attack resources" and a big logic flaw.

    – Peter B
    Nov 16 '18 at 10:54











  • @PeterB Hey, I did as you said and tested it and it works better now, thank you. How can I prevent him from attacking someone if already dead then? What would you do?

    – Furnus
    Nov 16 '18 at 12:25
















1















while (p3.Alive || p2.Alive)

        {

            Random rnd = new Random();

            int victim = rnd.Next(1, 3);



            switch (victim)

            {

                case 1:

                    p1.Attack(p2, 2);

                    break;

                case 2:

                    p1.Attack(p3, 2);

                    break;

            }



            Thread.Sleep(2000);

        }


p2 and p3 and objects of class Person. They are about to be killed off on random by the killer, p1. But when I look at it, I feel like there could be a better solution because what if I had 1000 objects of class Person ready to be killed? I just can't seem to get the p2 and p3 to be easily programmed variables.



The while loop is the same. What if I had 1000 objects. Or even just 10. How can I write this so that the condition is "while anyone but the killer is alive" and an "if" or "switch" which attacks anyone chosen by the Random rnd?



The question is badly written in the topic. I don't know how I could summarize all this into a short question. I'll edit it if anyone has a good suggestion. Thank you.






c#







share|improve this question




















  • 1





    Why not have a list of players?

    – stuartd
    Nov 16 '18 at 10:51






  • 2





    Don't create a new Random object at each iteration, that could make the outcomes predictable because they all start at 'the first number from a semi-random list'. You are probably being saved here by the Sleep(2000), but still it's never a good idea and never needed.

    – Peter B
    Nov 16 '18 at 10:51








  • 1





    Also this code makes it possible to attack a player that is not alive anymore. Waste of "attack resources" and a big logic flaw.

    – Peter B
    Nov 16 '18 at 10:54











  • @PeterB Hey, I did as you said and tested it and it works better now, thank you. How can I prevent him from attacking someone if already dead then? What would you do?

    – Furnus
    Nov 16 '18 at 12:25














1












1








1








while (p3.Alive || p2.Alive)

        {

            Random rnd = new Random();

            int victim = rnd.Next(1, 3);



            switch (victim)

            {

                case 1:

                    p1.Attack(p2, 2);

                    break;

                case 2:

                    p1.Attack(p3, 2);

                    break;

            }



            Thread.Sleep(2000);

        }


p2 and p3 and objects of class Person. They are about to be killed off on random by the killer, p1. But when I look at it, I feel like there could be a better solution because what if I had 1000 objects of class Person ready to be killed? I just can't seem to get the p2 and p3 to be easily programmed variables.



The while loop is the same. What if I had 1000 objects. Or even just 10. How can I write this so that the condition is "while anyone but the killer is alive" and an "if" or "switch" which attacks anyone chosen by the Random rnd?



The question is badly written in the topic. I don't know how I could summarize all this into a short question. I'll edit it if anyone has a good suggestion. Thank you.






c#







share|improve this question
















while (p3.Alive || p2.Alive)

        {

            Random rnd = new Random();

            int victim = rnd.Next(1, 3);



            switch (victim)

            {

                case 1:

                    p1.Attack(p2, 2);

                    break;

                case 2:

                    p1.Attack(p3, 2);

                    break;

            }



            Thread.Sleep(2000);

        }


p2 and p3 and objects of class Person. They are about to be killed off on random by the killer, p1. But when I look at it, I feel like there could be a better solution because what if I had 1000 objects of class Person ready to be killed? I just can't seem to get the p2 and p3 to be easily programmed variables.



The while loop is the same. What if I had 1000 objects. Or even just 10. How can I write this so that the condition is "while anyone but the killer is alive" and an "if" or "switch" which attacks anyone chosen by the Random rnd?



The question is badly written in the topic. I don't know how I could summarize all this into a short question. I'll edit it if anyone has a good suggestion. Thank you.






c#




c#






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Nov 16 '18 at 10:55









stuartd

51.4k1199128




51.4k1199128










asked Nov 16 '18 at 10:49









FurnusFurnus

93




93








  • 1





    Why not have a list of players?

    – stuartd
    Nov 16 '18 at 10:51






  • 2





    Don't create a new Random object at each iteration, that could make the outcomes predictable because they all start at 'the first number from a semi-random list'. You are probably being saved here by the Sleep(2000), but still it's never a good idea and never needed.

    – Peter B
    Nov 16 '18 at 10:51








  • 1





    Also this code makes it possible to attack a player that is not alive anymore. Waste of "attack resources" and a big logic flaw.

    – Peter B
    Nov 16 '18 at 10:54











  • @PeterB Hey, I did as you said and tested it and it works better now, thank you. How can I prevent him from attacking someone if already dead then? What would you do?

    – Furnus
    Nov 16 '18 at 12:25














  • 1





    Why not have a list of players?

    – stuartd
    Nov 16 '18 at 10:51






  • 2





    Don't create a new Random object at each iteration, that could make the outcomes predictable because they all start at 'the first number from a semi-random list'. You are probably being saved here by the Sleep(2000), but still it's never a good idea and never needed.

    – Peter B
    Nov 16 '18 at 10:51








  • 1





    Also this code makes it possible to attack a player that is not alive anymore. Waste of "attack resources" and a big logic flaw.

    – Peter B
    Nov 16 '18 at 10:54











  • @PeterB Hey, I did as you said and tested it and it works better now, thank you. How can I prevent him from attacking someone if already dead then? What would you do?

    – Furnus
    Nov 16 '18 at 12:25








1




1





Why not have a list of players?

– stuartd
Nov 16 '18 at 10:51





Why not have a list of players?

– stuartd
Nov 16 '18 at 10:51




2




2





Don't create a new Random object at each iteration, that could make the outcomes predictable because they all start at 'the first number from a semi-random list'. You are probably being saved here by the Sleep(2000), but still it's never a good idea and never needed.

– Peter B
Nov 16 '18 at 10:51







Don't create a new Random object at each iteration, that could make the outcomes predictable because they all start at 'the first number from a semi-random list'. You are probably being saved here by the Sleep(2000), but still it's never a good idea and never needed.

– Peter B
Nov 16 '18 at 10:51






1




1





Also this code makes it possible to attack a player that is not alive anymore. Waste of "attack resources" and a big logic flaw.

– Peter B
Nov 16 '18 at 10:54





Also this code makes it possible to attack a player that is not alive anymore. Waste of "attack resources" and a big logic flaw.

– Peter B
Nov 16 '18 at 10:54













@PeterB Hey, I did as you said and tested it and it works better now, thank you. How can I prevent him from attacking someone if already dead then? What would you do?

– Furnus
Nov 16 '18 at 12:25





@PeterB Hey, I did as you said and tested it and it works better now, thank you. How can I prevent him from attacking someone if already dead then? What would you do?

– Furnus
Nov 16 '18 at 12:25












2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















3














This seems like it is essentially a coin toss with 2 outcomes; 2 outcomes can be modelled with the "conditional" operator:



var target = rnd.Next(0,2) == 0 ? p2 : p3;

pi.Attack(target);


For larger groups, having the possible targets in a list or array may be useful; then you can essentially do:



var target = list[rnd.Next(list.Count)];


Or with C# 8, "switch expressions" may be useful:



var target = rnd.Next(4) switch (

   case 0: p1,

   case 1: p2,

   case 2: p3,

   case 3: p4,

   case _: default

);





share|improve this answer


























  • The ternary operator is costly in term of processing.

    – Hassaan
    Nov 16 '18 at 10:59






  • 4





    @Hassaan it is a single conditional jump (typically brtrue or brfalse - or their "short" forms) - certainly not "expensive" by most definitions; it may cause a CPU branch prediction fail, and there are cases where that might be relevant, but frankly, that is going to be absolutely nothing compared to the cost of generating the next random number, so: I'm going to ignore it completely. In the scenario presented, a conditional is absolutely free

    – Marc Gravell♦
    Nov 16 '18 at 11:03





















3














Fixes for all issues:




  • Only make one Random object

  • Use a List to avoid repeated code

  • Don't attack opponents that are no longer Alive


using System.Collections.Generic;             // provides the List type



Random rnd = new Random();

var opponents = new List<Player> { p2, p3 };  // add more as needed



while (true)

{

    opponents.RemoveAll(x => !x.Alive);  // only keep live enemies (efficient: does not create new List)

    if (opponents.Count == 0)            // if nobody left --> exit loop

        break;



    int victim = rnd.Next(0, opponents.Count);

    p1.Attack(opponents[victim]);

    Thread.Sleep(2000);

}





share|improve this answer





















  • 1





    creating an array every time, and using the Where predicate each time - are both unnecessarily expensive here; I'd be more inclined to populate a list at the start, and basically do var target = opponents[victim]; p1.Attack(target); if (!target.IsAlive) { opponents.Remove(target); }

    – Marc Gravell♦
    Nov 16 '18 at 11:07













  • Thanks, probably a better approach, unless opponents could also die for other reasons (e.g. old age) outside the control of this loop ;-)

    – Peter B
    Nov 16 '18 at 11:08






  • 2





    indeed; in that case, List<T> has a predicate-based remove all method, so - before picking a target: opponents.RemoveAll(x => !x.IsAlive); - the predicate will be hoisted into a static by the C# compiler, so that it doesn't cost an allocation per call

    – Marc Gravell♦
    Nov 16 '18 at 11:10






  • 1





    Followed through. Just a thought: maybe SO should introduce PRs and Code Reviews for answers (and questions!)

    – Peter B
    Nov 16 '18 at 12:08











  • @PeterB This looks good, but I would still here have to add the 1000 people to the array. - I also don't understand what we're doing with the Where and x equal to or less than x.Alive and all that. What are we asking? - And what is opponents.length in the if statement?

    – Furnus
    Nov 16 '18 at 12:36














Your Answer






StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53336331%2fcan-this-switch-and-while-loop-be-simplified-in-c%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes








2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









3














This seems like it is essentially a coin toss with 2 outcomes; 2 outcomes can be modelled with the "conditional" operator:



var target = rnd.Next(0,2) == 0 ? p2 : p3;

pi.Attack(target);


For larger groups, having the possible targets in a list or array may be useful; then you can essentially do:



var target = list[rnd.Next(list.Count)];


Or with C# 8, "switch expressions" may be useful:



var target = rnd.Next(4) switch (

   case 0: p1,

   case 1: p2,

   case 2: p3,

   case 3: p4,

   case _: default

);





share|improve this answer


























  • The ternary operator is costly in term of processing.

    – Hassaan
    Nov 16 '18 at 10:59






  • 4





    @Hassaan it is a single conditional jump (typically brtrue or brfalse - or their "short" forms) - certainly not "expensive" by most definitions; it may cause a CPU branch prediction fail, and there are cases where that might be relevant, but frankly, that is going to be absolutely nothing compared to the cost of generating the next random number, so: I'm going to ignore it completely. In the scenario presented, a conditional is absolutely free

    – Marc Gravell♦
    Nov 16 '18 at 11:03


















3














This seems like it is essentially a coin toss with 2 outcomes; 2 outcomes can be modelled with the "conditional" operator:



var target = rnd.Next(0,2) == 0 ? p2 : p3;

pi.Attack(target);


For larger groups, having the possible targets in a list or array may be useful; then you can essentially do:



var target = list[rnd.Next(list.Count)];


Or with C# 8, "switch expressions" may be useful:



var target = rnd.Next(4) switch (

   case 0: p1,

   case 1: p2,

   case 2: p3,

   case 3: p4,

   case _: default

);





share|improve this answer


























  • The ternary operator is costly in term of processing.

    – Hassaan
    Nov 16 '18 at 10:59






  • 4





    @Hassaan it is a single conditional jump (typically brtrue or brfalse - or their "short" forms) - certainly not "expensive" by most definitions; it may cause a CPU branch prediction fail, and there are cases where that might be relevant, but frankly, that is going to be absolutely nothing compared to the cost of generating the next random number, so: I'm going to ignore it completely. In the scenario presented, a conditional is absolutely free

    – Marc Gravell♦
    Nov 16 '18 at 11:03
















3












3








3







This seems like it is essentially a coin toss with 2 outcomes; 2 outcomes can be modelled with the "conditional" operator:



var target = rnd.Next(0,2) == 0 ? p2 : p3;

pi.Attack(target);


For larger groups, having the possible targets in a list or array may be useful; then you can essentially do:



var target = list[rnd.Next(list.Count)];


Or with C# 8, "switch expressions" may be useful:



var target = rnd.Next(4) switch (

   case 0: p1,

   case 1: p2,

   case 2: p3,

   case 3: p4,

   case _: default

);





share|improve this answer















This seems like it is essentially a coin toss with 2 outcomes; 2 outcomes can be modelled with the "conditional" operator:



var target = rnd.Next(0,2) == 0 ? p2 : p3;

pi.Attack(target);


For larger groups, having the possible targets in a list or array may be useful; then you can essentially do:



var target = list[rnd.Next(list.Count)];


Or with C# 8, "switch expressions" may be useful:



var target = rnd.Next(4) switch (

   case 0: p1,

   case 1: p2,

   case 2: p3,

   case 3: p4,

   case _: default

);






share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited Nov 16 '18 at 11:01

























answered Nov 16 '18 at 10:56









Marc Gravell♦Marc Gravell

793k19821602565




793k19821602565













  • The ternary operator is costly in term of processing.

    – Hassaan
    Nov 16 '18 at 10:59






  • 4





    @Hassaan it is a single conditional jump (typically brtrue or brfalse - or their "short" forms) - certainly not "expensive" by most definitions; it may cause a CPU branch prediction fail, and there are cases where that might be relevant, but frankly, that is going to be absolutely nothing compared to the cost of generating the next random number, so: I'm going to ignore it completely. In the scenario presented, a conditional is absolutely free

    – Marc Gravell♦
    Nov 16 '18 at 11:03





















  • The ternary operator is costly in term of processing.

    – Hassaan
    Nov 16 '18 at 10:59






  • 4





    @Hassaan it is a single conditional jump (typically brtrue or brfalse - or their "short" forms) - certainly not "expensive" by most definitions; it may cause a CPU branch prediction fail, and there are cases where that might be relevant, but frankly, that is going to be absolutely nothing compared to the cost of generating the next random number, so: I'm going to ignore it completely. In the scenario presented, a conditional is absolutely free

    – Marc Gravell♦
    Nov 16 '18 at 11:03



















The ternary operator is costly in term of processing.

– Hassaan
Nov 16 '18 at 10:59





The ternary operator is costly in term of processing.

– Hassaan
Nov 16 '18 at 10:59




4




4





@Hassaan it is a single conditional jump (typically brtrue or brfalse - or their "short" forms) - certainly not "expensive" by most definitions; it may cause a CPU branch prediction fail, and there are cases where that might be relevant, but frankly, that is going to be absolutely nothing compared to the cost of generating the next random number, so: I'm going to ignore it completely. In the scenario presented, a conditional is absolutely free

– Marc Gravell♦
Nov 16 '18 at 11:03







@Hassaan it is a single conditional jump (typically brtrue or brfalse - or their "short" forms) - certainly not "expensive" by most definitions; it may cause a CPU branch prediction fail, and there are cases where that might be relevant, but frankly, that is going to be absolutely nothing compared to the cost of generating the next random number, so: I'm going to ignore it completely. In the scenario presented, a conditional is absolutely free

– Marc Gravell♦
Nov 16 '18 at 11:03















3














Fixes for all issues:




  • Only make one Random object

  • Use a List to avoid repeated code

  • Don't attack opponents that are no longer Alive


using System.Collections.Generic;             // provides the List type



Random rnd = new Random();

var opponents = new List<Player> { p2, p3 };  // add more as needed



while (true)

{

    opponents.RemoveAll(x => !x.Alive);  // only keep live enemies (efficient: does not create new List)

    if (opponents.Count == 0)            // if nobody left --> exit loop

        break;



    int victim = rnd.Next(0, opponents.Count);

    p1.Attack(opponents[victim]);

    Thread.Sleep(2000);

}





share|improve this answer





















  • 1





    creating an array every time, and using the Where predicate each time - are both unnecessarily expensive here; I'd be more inclined to populate a list at the start, and basically do var target = opponents[victim]; p1.Attack(target); if (!target.IsAlive) { opponents.Remove(target); }

    – Marc Gravell♦
    Nov 16 '18 at 11:07













  • Thanks, probably a better approach, unless opponents could also die for other reasons (e.g. old age) outside the control of this loop ;-)

    – Peter B
    Nov 16 '18 at 11:08






  • 2





    indeed; in that case, List<T> has a predicate-based remove all method, so - before picking a target: opponents.RemoveAll(x => !x.IsAlive); - the predicate will be hoisted into a static by the C# compiler, so that it doesn't cost an allocation per call

    – Marc Gravell♦
    Nov 16 '18 at 11:10






  • 1





    Followed through. Just a thought: maybe SO should introduce PRs and Code Reviews for answers (and questions!)

    – Peter B
    Nov 16 '18 at 12:08











  • @PeterB This looks good, but I would still here have to add the 1000 people to the array. - I also don't understand what we're doing with the Where and x equal to or less than x.Alive and all that. What are we asking? - And what is opponents.length in the if statement?

    – Furnus
    Nov 16 '18 at 12:36


















3














Fixes for all issues:




  • Only make one Random object

  • Use a List to avoid repeated code

  • Don't attack opponents that are no longer Alive


using System.Collections.Generic;             // provides the List type



Random rnd = new Random();

var opponents = new List<Player> { p2, p3 };  // add more as needed



while (true)

{

    opponents.RemoveAll(x => !x.Alive);  // only keep live enemies (efficient: does not create new List)

    if (opponents.Count == 0)            // if nobody left --> exit loop

        break;



    int victim = rnd.Next(0, opponents.Count);

    p1.Attack(opponents[victim]);

    Thread.Sleep(2000);

}





share|improve this answer





















  • 1





    creating an array every time, and using the Where predicate each time - are both unnecessarily expensive here; I'd be more inclined to populate a list at the start, and basically do var target = opponents[victim]; p1.Attack(target); if (!target.IsAlive) { opponents.Remove(target); }

    – Marc Gravell♦
    Nov 16 '18 at 11:07













  • Thanks, probably a better approach, unless opponents could also die for other reasons (e.g. old age) outside the control of this loop ;-)

    – Peter B
    Nov 16 '18 at 11:08






  • 2





    indeed; in that case, List<T> has a predicate-based remove all method, so - before picking a target: opponents.RemoveAll(x => !x.IsAlive); - the predicate will be hoisted into a static by the C# compiler, so that it doesn't cost an allocation per call

    – Marc Gravell♦
    Nov 16 '18 at 11:10






  • 1





    Followed through. Just a thought: maybe SO should introduce PRs and Code Reviews for answers (and questions!)

    – Peter B
    Nov 16 '18 at 12:08











  • @PeterB This looks good, but I would still here have to add the 1000 people to the array. - I also don't understand what we're doing with the Where and x equal to or less than x.Alive and all that. What are we asking? - And what is opponents.length in the if statement?

    – Furnus
    Nov 16 '18 at 12:36
















3












3








3







Fixes for all issues:




  • Only make one Random object

  • Use a List to avoid repeated code

  • Don't attack opponents that are no longer Alive


using System.Collections.Generic;             // provides the List type



Random rnd = new Random();

var opponents = new List<Player> { p2, p3 };  // add more as needed



while (true)

{

    opponents.RemoveAll(x => !x.Alive);  // only keep live enemies (efficient: does not create new List)

    if (opponents.Count == 0)            // if nobody left --> exit loop

        break;



    int victim = rnd.Next(0, opponents.Count);

    p1.Attack(opponents[victim]);

    Thread.Sleep(2000);

}





share|improve this answer















Fixes for all issues:




  • Only make one Random object

  • Use a List to avoid repeated code

  • Don't attack opponents that are no longer Alive


using System.Collections.Generic;             // provides the List type



Random rnd = new Random();

var opponents = new List<Player> { p2, p3 };  // add more as needed



while (true)

{

    opponents.RemoveAll(x => !x.Alive);  // only keep live enemies (efficient: does not create new List)

    if (opponents.Count == 0)            // if nobody left --> exit loop

        break;



    int victim = rnd.Next(0, opponents.Count);

    p1.Attack(opponents[victim]);

    Thread.Sleep(2000);

}






share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited Nov 16 '18 at 12:10

























answered Nov 16 '18 at 11:03









Peter BPeter B

13.6k52046




13.6k52046








  • 1





    creating an array every time, and using the Where predicate each time - are both unnecessarily expensive here; I'd be more inclined to populate a list at the start, and basically do var target = opponents[victim]; p1.Attack(target); if (!target.IsAlive) { opponents.Remove(target); }

    – Marc Gravell♦
    Nov 16 '18 at 11:07













  • Thanks, probably a better approach, unless opponents could also die for other reasons (e.g. old age) outside the control of this loop ;-)

    – Peter B
    Nov 16 '18 at 11:08






  • 2





    indeed; in that case, List<T> has a predicate-based remove all method, so - before picking a target: opponents.RemoveAll(x => !x.IsAlive); - the predicate will be hoisted into a static by the C# compiler, so that it doesn't cost an allocation per call

    – Marc Gravell♦
    Nov 16 '18 at 11:10






  • 1





    Followed through. Just a thought: maybe SO should introduce PRs and Code Reviews for answers (and questions!)

    – Peter B
    Nov 16 '18 at 12:08











  • @PeterB This looks good, but I would still here have to add the 1000 people to the array. - I also don't understand what we're doing with the Where and x equal to or less than x.Alive and all that. What are we asking? - And what is opponents.length in the if statement?

    – Furnus
    Nov 16 '18 at 12:36
















  • 1





    creating an array every time, and using the Where predicate each time - are both unnecessarily expensive here; I'd be more inclined to populate a list at the start, and basically do var target = opponents[victim]; p1.Attack(target); if (!target.IsAlive) { opponents.Remove(target); }

    – Marc Gravell♦
    Nov 16 '18 at 11:07













  • Thanks, probably a better approach, unless opponents could also die for other reasons (e.g. old age) outside the control of this loop ;-)

    – Peter B
    Nov 16 '18 at 11:08






  • 2





    indeed; in that case, List<T> has a predicate-based remove all method, so - before picking a target: opponents.RemoveAll(x => !x.IsAlive); - the predicate will be hoisted into a static by the C# compiler, so that it doesn't cost an allocation per call

    – Marc Gravell♦
    Nov 16 '18 at 11:10






  • 1





    Followed through. Just a thought: maybe SO should introduce PRs and Code Reviews for answers (and questions!)

    – Peter B
    Nov 16 '18 at 12:08











  • @PeterB This looks good, but I would still here have to add the 1000 people to the array. - I also don't understand what we're doing with the Where and x equal to or less than x.Alive and all that. What are we asking? - And what is opponents.length in the if statement?

    – Furnus
    Nov 16 '18 at 12:36










1




1





creating an array every time, and using the Where predicate each time - are both unnecessarily expensive here; I'd be more inclined to populate a list at the start, and basically do var target = opponents[victim]; p1.Attack(target); if (!target.IsAlive) { opponents.Remove(target); }

– Marc Gravell♦
Nov 16 '18 at 11:07







creating an array every time, and using the Where predicate each time - are both unnecessarily expensive here; I'd be more inclined to populate a list at the start, and basically do var target = opponents[victim]; p1.Attack(target); if (!target.IsAlive) { opponents.Remove(target); }

– Marc Gravell♦
Nov 16 '18 at 11:07















Thanks, probably a better approach, unless opponents could also die for other reasons (e.g. old age) outside the control of this loop ;-)

– Peter B
Nov 16 '18 at 11:08





Thanks, probably a better approach, unless opponents could also die for other reasons (e.g. old age) outside the control of this loop ;-)

– Peter B
Nov 16 '18 at 11:08




2




2





indeed; in that case, List<T> has a predicate-based remove all method, so - before picking a target: opponents.RemoveAll(x => !x.IsAlive); - the predicate will be hoisted into a static by the C# compiler, so that it doesn't cost an allocation per call

– Marc Gravell♦
Nov 16 '18 at 11:10





indeed; in that case, List<T> has a predicate-based remove all method, so - before picking a target: opponents.RemoveAll(x => !x.IsAlive); - the predicate will be hoisted into a static by the C# compiler, so that it doesn't cost an allocation per call

– Marc Gravell♦
Nov 16 '18 at 11:10




1




1





Followed through. Just a thought: maybe SO should introduce PRs and Code Reviews for answers (and questions!)

– Peter B
Nov 16 '18 at 12:08





Followed through. Just a thought: maybe SO should introduce PRs and Code Reviews for answers (and questions!)

– Peter B
Nov 16 '18 at 12:08













@PeterB This looks good, but I would still here have to add the 1000 people to the array. - I also don't understand what we're doing with the Where and x equal to or less than x.Alive and all that. What are we asking? - And what is opponents.length in the if statement?

– Furnus
Nov 16 '18 at 12:36







@PeterB This looks good, but I would still here have to add the 1000 people to the array. - I also don't understand what we're doing with the Where and x equal to or less than x.Alive and all that. What are we asking? - And what is opponents.length in the if statement?

– Furnus
Nov 16 '18 at 12:36




















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid …



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53336331%2fcan-this-switch-and-while-loop-be-simplified-in-c%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







-

Popular posts from this blog

Bressuire

Image
Subprefecture and commune in Nouvelle-Aquitaine, France Bressuire Subprefecture and commune Chateau de Bressuire and the Eglise Notre-Dame Coat of arms Location of Bressuire Bressuire Show map of France Bressuire Show map of Nouvelle-Aquitaine Coordinates: 46°50′27″N 0°29′14″W  /  46.8408°N 0.4872°W  / 46.8408; -0.4872 Coordinates: 46°50′27″N 0°29′14″W  /  46.8408°N 0.4872°W  / 46.8408; -0.4872 Country France Region Nouvelle-Aquitaine Department Deux-Sèvres Arrondissement Bressuire Canton Bressuire Government  • Mayor .mw-parser-output .nobold{font-weight:normal} (2014–20) Jean Michel Bernier Area 1 180.59 km 2 (69.73 sq mi) Population (2014) 2 19,300  • Density 110/km 2 (280/sq mi) Time zone UTC+01:00 (CET)  • Summer (DST) UTC+02:00 (CEST) INSEE/Postal code 79049 /79300 Elevation 98–236 m (322–774 ft) (avg. 173 m or 568 ft) 1 French Land Register data, which exclude
Read more

Vorschmack

Image
Vorschmack Ukrainian Jewish-style vorschmack served on rye bread Course Hors d'oeuvre Region or state Eastern Europe Associated national cuisine Ashkenazi Jewish, Finnish, German, Ukrainian, Polish, Russian Main ingredients Ground meat and/or fish Cookbook: Vorschmack   Media: Vorschmack Vorschmack or forshmak (Yiddish: פֿאָרשמאַק ‎, from archaic German Vorschmack , "foretaste" [1] or "appetizer" [2] ) is an originally East European dish made of salty minced fish or meat. Different variants of this dish are especially common in Ashkenazi Jewish and Finnish cuisine. Some varieties are also known in Russian and Polish cuisine. Contents 1 In Jewish cuisine 2 In Russian cuisine 3 In Polish cuisine 4 In Finnish cuisine 5 See also 6 References In Jewish cuisine According to Gil Marks, the German name points to the possible Germanic origin of this dish. [1] William Pokhlyobkin descr
Read more

Quarantine

Image
For other uses, see Quarantine (disambiguation). Signal flag "Lima" called the "Yellow Jack" which when flown in harbor means ship is under quarantine. A simple yellow flag (also called the "Yellow Jack") had historically been used to signal quarantine (it stands for Q among signal flags), but now indicates the opposite, as a signal of a ship free of disease that requests boarding and inspection. A quarantine is used to separate and restrict the movement of people; it is 'a restraint upon the activities or communication of persons or the transport of goods designed to prevent the spread of disease or pests', for a certain period of time. [1] This is often used in connection to disease and illness, such as those who may possibly have been exposed to a communicable disease. [2] The term is often erroneously used to mean medical isolation, which is "to separate ill persons who have a communicable disease from those who are healthy
Read more