• 0

[C#] Assign values in dictionary


Question

Hi, I have say a

Dictionary<Color, int> myDict;

And I want to do this:

foreach (var kvPair in myDict) {
     kvPair.Value = 0; // not necessarily always 0, could be calculated per-value, whatever
}

But this triggers a compiler error:

Property or indexer 'System.Collections.Generic.KeyValuePair<Color,int>.Value' cannot be assigned to -- it is read only

How can I do this?

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/871176-c-assign-values-in-dictionary/
Share on other sites

14 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0

You can't alter a collection in a foreach loop, convert it to a normal for loop.

*Nevermind* that would be adding/removing the collection item...

for(int i=0; i< myDict.Values; i++)

{

kvPair....

}

  • 0
  On 01/02/2010 at 02:36, Calum said:

Does it work if you try the following?

foreach (KeyValuePair kvPair in myDict) {
     kvPair.Value = 0; // not necessarily always 0, could be calculated per-value, whatever
}

C# will infer System.Collections.Generic.KeyValuePair if you put var, so it's equivalent.

Actually I know of a way, but it's ugly and wastes CPU cycles:

foreach (Color color in Enum.GetValues(typeof(Color))) {
     myDict[color] = 0;
}

I'm wondering if I should use another container or if there's a more idiomatic way.

  • 0
  On 01/02/2010 at 02:41, Dr_Asik said:

C# will infer System.Collections.Generic.KeyValuePair if you put var, so it's equivalent.

Actually I know of a way, but it's ugly and wastes CPU cycles:

foreach (Color color in Enum.GetValues(typeof(Color))) {
     myDict[color] = 0;
}

I'm wondering if I should use another container or if there's a more idiomatic way.

Not using KVPs I don't think, since KVP objects are basically read-only once they have been instantiated for reasons which are beyond me (Why make the value member read-only?). I was going suggest using a SortedDictionary object since they're implemented as a binary tree and you could use a depth-first search to basically loop through the whole collection, but the OrderedDictionary object doesn't provide the facility to do it.

I was also going to suggest foreach'ing through the "Keys" collection, but I suspect that that would be less efficient than what you suggested.

I would say that it would be easier just to take the performance hit in this case, since the lookup time for a Dictionary is close to O(1) since its implemented as a hash table. Unless its a completely performance critical piece of code, in which case you might need to look into some of the other collection types.

  • 0

As previously stated, KeyValuePair<K, V> is a structure (read: not class) with read-only properties. The reasons behind this is that structures perform better when they are immutable. It's better to instantiate a new instance of a KeyValuePair<K, V> then to try and modify it's content. That being said, you can't modify an enumeration, this is also be design, so:

foreach (var pair in myDict) {
  pair.Value = 0; // This will fail because of read-only properties.
}

foreach (var pair in myDict) {
  pair = new KeyValuePair&lt;...&gt; // Won't work as you are modifying a read-only variable.
}

Whereas:

foreach (Color key in myDict.Keys) {
  myDict[key] = 0; // Make the modification here
}

... should work, as the you are enumerating over a collection of keys, not KeyValuePair<Color, int> items, and can modify the contents of the dictionary correctly.

  • Like 3
  • 0
  On 01/02/2010 at 09:18, Antaris said:

As previously stated, KeyValuePair<K, V> is a structure (read: not class) with read-only properties. The reasons behind this is that structures perform better when they are immutable.

And now I know! Thanks Antaris, have some Rep! :D

  • 0
  On 01/02/2010 at 09:18, Antaris said:

Whereas:

foreach (Color key in myDict.Keys) {
  myDict[key] = 0; // Make the modification here
}

... should work, as the you are enumerating over a collection of keys, not KeyValuePair<Color, int> items, and can modify the contents of the dictionary correctly.

Well, I'm afraid it doesn't, after testing it, I get a runtime error on the second iteration saying it cannot continue because the collection has been modified. So, back to iterating over Enum.GetValues for now. :unsure:
  • 0
  On 01/02/2010 at 18:28, Dr_Asik said:

Well, I'm afraid it doesn't, after testing it, I get a runtime error on the second iteration saying it cannot continue because the collection has been modified. So, back to iterating over Enum.GetValues for now. :unsure:

You get an error because the Keys collection is invalid after changing the value. Now, you can get around this by iterating over a list which temporarily holds the keys. That way, you get a List<Color> which contains all keys at that certain point. This list is not managed by the Dictionary and therefore won't be invalidated when you make changes to the Dictionary.

foreach (Color key in myDict.Keys.ToList()) {
    myDict[key] = 0; // Make the modification here
}

This appears to be the fastest and safest way to do this, so go and make good use of it. :)

  • 0
  On 01/02/2010 at 18:43, Calculator said:

foreach (Color key in myDict.Keys.ToList()) {
    myDict[key] = 0; // Make the modification here
}

This appears to be the fastest and safest way to do this, so go and make good use of it. :)

So are the keys cached in an array (or equivalent) then? I figured that it wouldn't be, whereas the enum values would just be known, making it less safe, but faster. Am I way off then?

  • 0
  On 01/02/2010 at 19:04, Majesticmerc said:

So are the keys cached in an array (or equivalent) then? I figured that it wouldn't be, whereas the enum values would just be known, making it less safe, but faster. Am I way off then?

Enum.GetValues() creates an array, while myDict.Keys.ToList() creates a List. Either way, allocation of a container every time. I don't like either, but it seems there's no other way.

It's a bit silly, but anyhow if I was writing for ideal performance I'd be using C++ so I guess it's tolerable.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Yeah define not catching up then to see the next part of this then
    • RoboForm 9.7.7 by Razvan Serea RoboForm is the top-rated Password Manager and Web Form Filler that completely automates password entering and form filling. RoboForm makes logging into Web sites and filling forms faster, easier, and more secure. RoboForm memorizes and securely stores each user name and password the first time you log into a site, then automatically supplies them when you return. RoboForm's powerful Logins feature eliminates the manual steps of logging into any online account. With just one click RoboForm will navigate to a Web site, enter your username and password and click the submit button for you. Completing long registration or checkout forms is also a breeze. Simply click on your RoboForm Identity and RoboForm fills-in the entire form for you. You no longer need to remember all your passwords. You remember one Master Password, and RoboForm remembers the rest. This allows you to use stronger passwords, making your online experience more secure. RoboForm uses strong AES encryption for complete data security. The all new RoboForm comes with Chrome and Safari browser support, iPhone/iPad and Android support, as well a brand new RoboForm Everywhere license for use on unlimited computers and mobile devices. RoboForm 9.7.7 changelog: Show RF Desktop unlock UI when user selects "Unlock" in RF Desktop UI. Fixed blank icon appeared in the Windows taskbar for RF Editor. Miscellaneous bug fixes. Download: RoboForm 9.7.7 | 42.2 MB (Free, paid upgrade available) View: RoboForm Website Get alerted to all of our Software updates on Twitter at @NeowinSoftware
    • LG G5 was the last memorable phone I had. The Samsung and Pixels and have had since have been disappointing and boring.
    • Isn't the CPU used to calculate the parity for the RAID? If so, the combination of SSDs and 10GBe might make the CPU more important
    • yeah GSMA began working to enable end to end encryption between android and iphone last year and apparently a new standard was developed. apple has said that they would implement this in "future software updates" but i haven't heard anything since march, the time this was all reported on. shortly after, i read on forbes that the FBI suggests not sending texts between iphone and android because they're unencrypted. i use signal to chat with my wife but i'd rather just use messages tbh (she has an iphone), i'm not really a 3rd party guy haha
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      SteveJaye earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • One Month Later
      MadMung0 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Month Later
      Uranus_enjoyer earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Philsl earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Jaclidio hoy earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      433
    2. 2
      ATLien_0
      156
    3. 3
      +FloatingFatMan
      149
    4. 4
      Nick H.
      64
    5. 5
      +thexfile
      62
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!