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

Xamarin.iOS Cant Deploy on Iphone

Image
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ height:90px;width:728px;box-sizing:border-box; } -1 I have a windows laptop and a mac mini my problem is that It wont deploy on iphone if I use Visual Studio Xamarin on windows to install my app, but it works fine with Visual Studio For Mac. Here's what I get after build succeded on Visual Studio Xamarin on windows : 1>------ Build started: Project: FinalCustomerApp.iOS, Configuration: Debug iPhone ------ 1> Connecting to Mac server 192.168.8.100... 1> FinalCustomerApp.iOS -> C:UsersJeremy PaulDesktopFinalCustomerAppFinalCustomerAppFinalCustomerApp.iOSbiniPhoneDebugFinalCustomerApp.iOS.exe 1> Detected signing identity: 1> Code Signing Key: &quo
Read more

Glorious Revolution

Image
"The Bloodless Revolution" redirects here. For a history of the vegetarian movement, see The Bloodless Revolution (book). This article is about the English revolution of 1688. For the revolution of 1868 in Spain, see Glorious Revolution (Spain). For other uses, see Glorious Revolution (disambiguation). Glorious Revolution The Prince of Orange lands at Torbay Date 1688–1689 Location British Isles Also known as Revolution of 1688 War of the English Succession Bloodless Revolution Participants English, Welsh and Scottish society, Dutch forces Outcome Replacement of James II by William III and Mary II Jacobite rising of 1689 Williamite War in Ireland War with France; England and Scotland join Grand Alliance Drafting of the Bill of Rights 1689 Part of a series on the History of England Timeline Prehistoric Britain Roman Britain Sub-Roman Britain Medieval period Economy in the Middle Ages Anglo-Saxon period
Read more

Dulmage-Mendelsohn matrix decomposition in Python

Image
0 Matlab has a function called dmperm that computes the so-called Dulmage–Mendelsohn decomposition of a n x n matrix. From wikipedia, the Dulmage–Mendelsohn is a partition of the vertices of a bipartite graph into subsets, with the property that two adjacent vertices belong to the same subset if and only if they are paired with each other in a perfect matching of the graph. Looking both on scipy and numpy, I could not find this function, nor some similar version. Is it possible to implement it using basic linear algebra operations? Any idea if this is implemented in some Python package? python matlab linear-algebra graph-theory matrix-decomposition share | improve this question
Read more