avoiding creating a new object with linq

Question

i am not very familiar with linq syntax, and i am not sure if this query is the perfect fit of what i am trying to achieve but its working perfectly. how can i make it better and is it possible avoiding the use of a new tuple or a new object?

byte[] ShuffledBytes= new byte[20];
byte[] Indecies = new byte[20]; //holds the right index for each byte in Bytes

    var orderdBytes = 
                    Indecies.
                    Zip(ShuffledBytes, (i, b) => new Tuple<byte,byte>(b,i)).
                    OrderBy(o => o.Item2).
                    Select(o => o.Item1).
                    ToArray();

If you do not want to transform your result into a list of some kind of objects, what do you expect the linq statement to do? — MichaC
– MichaC, Commented Jan 4, 2014 at 1:38
@MichaC its just that i am creating an object just for ordering, and in the end result i just want a byte[], also was wondering if anyone would do it the same way — user1492051
– user1492051, Commented Jan 4, 2014 at 1:39

tinstaafl · Accepted Answer · 2014-01-04 02:13:20Z

6

I think want you want is Array.Sort rather than LINQ. One of the overloads uses one array as the key and the other as the items to sort:

Array.Sort(Indecies, ShuffledBytes);

No extra objects needed ShuffledBytes is sorted according to the values in Indecies.

Another option would be to use a sorted dictionary or a list of keyvaluepair's, rather than 2 arrays.

edited Jan 4, 2014 at 2:13

answered Jan 4, 2014 at 1:58

tinstaafl

6,9782 gold badges17 silver badges22 bronze badges

Sign up to request clarification or add additional context in comments.

1 Comment

user1492051 Over a year ago

woah thats just perfect!

Collectives™ on Stack Overflow

avoiding creating a new object with linq

1 Answer 1

1 Comment

Your Answer

Hot Network Questions

Collectives™ on Stack Overflow

1 Answer 1

1 Comment

Your Answer

Sign up or log in

Post as a guest

Related