find closest item in keyed collection

[Steve Richter]

Does the .NET framework provide a class which will find the item in
the collection with a key which is closest ( greater than or equal,
less than or equal ) to the keys of the collection?

ex: collection keys are 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80

find key which is >= 35.

would return the 30 key.

thanks,

[Marc Gravell]

Oops; "Single" should have been "First"...

Marc

[christery]

Still dont understand why >=35 isnt 40... some new math I did miss?

//CY

[Marc Gravell]

If the poster is looking for the nearest property to a particular

address,
then his numbers may indeed be keys.

Yes; I was thrown by the OP *only* mentioning a single series of
numeric data, rather than two.
I followed up with a post acknowledging this. Although lets be fair -
a lot of things could have been a little clearer in the original
question.

Marc

[=?Utf-8?B?RmFtaWx5IFRyZWUgTWlrZQ==?=]

"Marc Gravell" wrote:

If the poster is looking for the nearest property to a particular
address,
then his numbers may indeed be keys.

Yes; I was thrown by the OP *only* mentioning a single series of
numeric data, rather than two.
I followed up with a post acknowledging this. Although lets be fair -
a lot of things could have been a little clearer in the original
question.

Marc

You are right on both counts. Sorry, I responded before seeing the other
posts. You gave a slick solution.

>

[Ben Voigt [C++ MVP]]

"Steve Richter" <St************@gmail.comwrote in message
news:3a**********************************@q3g2000h sg.googlegroups.com...

Does the .NET framework provide a class which will find the item in
the collection with a key which is closest ( greater than or equal,
less than or equal ) to the keys of the collection?

ex: collection keys are 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80

find key which is >= 35.

would return the 30 key.

Maintain a SortedList containing these keys, SortedList can find the closest
(or following, or preceding) entry in O(log N) time.

>
thanks,

[Liz]

"Ben Voigt [C++ MVP]" <rb*@nospam.nospamwrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

>
"Steve Richter" <St************@gmail.comwrote in message
news:3a**********************************@q3g2000h sg.googlegroups.com...

>Does the .NET framework provide a class which will find the item in
the collection with a key which is closest ( greater than or equal,
less than or equal ) to the keys of the collection?

ex: collection keys are 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80

find key which is >= 35.

would return the 30 key.

Maintain a SortedList containing these keys, SortedList can find the
closest (or following, or preceding) entry in O(log N) time.

with what method? do you mean by iterating the list ?

I think the OP was looking for a function of the sort you used to see in
xBASE dialects ... think it was called SOFTSEEK(), which would return either
the key sought or the next highest-valued key, if any ... I'm not aware of
such a function in the Framework

[Steve Richter]

On Dec 17, 5:46 pm, "Liz" <[e-mail]:

"Ben Voigt [C++ MVP]" <[e-mail] in messagenews:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gb l...

"Steve Richter" <[e-mail] in message
news:3a**********************************@q3g2000h sg.googlegroups.com...

Does the .NET framework provide a class which will find the item in
the collection with a key which is closest ( greater than or equal,
less than or equal ) to the keys of the collection?

ex: collection keys are 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80

find key which is >= 35.

would return the 30 key.

Maintain a SortedList containing these keys, SortedList can find the
closest (or following, or preceding) entry in O(log N) time.

with what method? do you mean by iterating the list ?

I think the OP was looking for a function of the sort you used to see in
xBASE dialects ... think it was called SOFTSEEK(), which would return either
the key sought or the next highest-valued key, if any ... I'm not aware of
such a function in the Framework

thanks for the responses ( and sorry for the confusion on what I
intended as <= 35 ).

what I have is a text file concatenated as a single string. As I scan
and parse the string I want to be able to determine the line number
and position in the line of any offset in the string. As I concat the
text lines, the line number and start/end offset in the string of the
line would be stored in a collection. When I find something at offset
2022 in the string, I want to find in the collection of "line numbers/
start offset in the string" the offset which is <= 2022. That would
tell me the text file line number.

-Steve

[Marc Gravell]

One-way searches are fortunately easier than 2-way proximity... you
get to stop sooner ;-p
If this is volume usage, then the LINQ approach I posted earlier would
be a poor choice (it would sort each time); Ben mentioned a SortedList
which may be helpful... I can't only see equality methods myself, but
you could perhaps simply walk the list until you find one that is >
2022 and return the previous (if you see what I mean...).

Of course, if you are adding to the list in sequence, you could just
use a regular list, and do the same walk.
If you are adding to the list while iterating, it is probably just the
last element.

Just for completeness (to contrast to my prior post); in LINQ terms
this is:

IDictionary<int, stringdata = new SortedList<int,
string{
{20, "a"}, {30, "b"}, {40, "c"}, {50, "d"},
{60, "e"}, {70, "f"}, {80, "g"}
};
KeyValuePair<int, stringresult =
data.TakeWhile(x =x.Key <= 35).Last();

(I'm using TakeWhile here since we know the data is sorted; hence it
will stop reading when it finds something that doesn't meet the <= 35
condition).

Of course, if you are generally accessing recent data you may be
better keeping the list inverted (perhaps even just a List<Tand
Insert at 0; or use a custom comparer to automatically invert the list
in-place [very easy]) and check for the first match:

KeyValuePair<int, stringresult =
data.SkipWhile(x =x.Key 35).First();

Marc

[Ben Voigt [C++ MVP]]

"Marc Gravell" <ma**********@gmail.comwrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

One-way searches are fortunately easier than 2-way proximity... you get to
stop sooner ;-p
If this is volume usage, then the LINQ approach I posted earlier would be
a poor choice (it would sort each time); Ben mentioned a SortedList which
may be helpful... I can't only see equality methods myself, but you could
perhaps simply walk the list until you find one that is 2022 and return
the previous (if you see what I mean...).

Ack! SortedList.IndexOfKey doesn't return the index for not found items,
while List.BinarySearch does. But you can't run BinarySearch on a sorted
list! An extension method would be good...

So either reimplement BinarySearch to work on a SortedList or use List and
List.BinarySearch and keep the list sorted yourself.

>
Of course, if you are adding to the list in sequence, you could just use a
regular list, and do the same walk.
If you are adding to the list while iterating, it is probably just the
last element.

Just for completeness (to contrast to my prior post); in LINQ terms this
is:

IDictionary<int, stringdata = new SortedList<int, string{
{20, "a"}, {30, "b"}, {40, "c"}, {50, "d"},
{60, "e"}, {70, "f"}, {80, "g"}
};
KeyValuePair<int, stringresult =
data.TakeWhile(x =x.Key <= 35).Last();

(I'm using TakeWhile here since we know the data is sorted; hence it will
stop reading when it finds something that doesn't meet the <= 35
condition).

Of course, if you are generally accessing recent data you may be better
keeping the list inverted (perhaps even just a List<Tand Insert at 0; or
use a custom comparer to automatically invert the list in-place [very
easy]) and check for the first match:

KeyValuePair<int, stringresult =
data.SkipWhile(x =x.Key 35).First();

Marc

[Liz]

// Array.BinarySearch (find next closest match)

Array i2 = Array.CreateInstance(typeof(string), 8);

i2.SetValue("Anne", 0);
i2.SetValue("Bob", 1);
i2.SetValue("Chris", 2);
i2.SetValue("Donna", 3);
i2.SetValue("Elizabeth", 4);
i2.SetValue("Glenn", 5);
i2.SetValue("Franklin", 6);
i2.SetValue("Helene", 7);

int j = Array.BinarySearch(i2, "DonnaB");
if (j<0)
j = ~j;

MessageBox.Show(i2.GetValue(j).ToString()); // ==Elizabeth


"Ben Voigt [C++ MVP]" <rb*@nospam.nospamwrote in message
news:O6**************@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>
"Marc Gravell" <ma**********@gmail.comwrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>One-way searches are fortunately easier than 2-way proximity... you get
to stop sooner ;-p
If this is volume usage, then the LINQ approach I posted earlier would be
a poor choice (it would sort each time); Ben mentioned a SortedList which
may be helpful... I can't only see equality methods myself, but you could
perhaps simply walk the list until you find one that is 2022 and return
the previous (if you see what I mean...).

Ack! SortedList.IndexOfKey doesn't return the index for not found items,
while List.BinarySearch does. But you can't run BinarySearch on a sorted
list! An extension method would be good...

So either reimplement BinarySearch to work on a SortedList or use List and
List.BinarySearch and keep the list sorted yourself.

>>
Of course, if you are adding to the list in sequence, you could just use
a regular list, and do the same walk.
If you are adding to the list while iterating, it is probably just the
last element.

Just for completeness (to contrast to my prior post); in LINQ terms this
is:

IDictionary<int, stringdata = new SortedList<int, string{
{20, "a"}, {30, "b"}, {40, "c"}, {50, "d"},
{60, "e"}, {70, "f"}, {80, "g"}
};
KeyValuePair<int, stringresult =
data.TakeWhile(x =x.Key <= 35).Last();

(I'm using TakeWhile here since we know the data is sorted; hence it will
stop reading when it finds something that doesn't meet the <= 35
condition).

Of course, if you are generally accessing recent data you may be better
keeping the list inverted (perhaps even just a List<Tand Insert at 0;
or use a custom comparer to automatically invert the list in-place [very
easy]) and check for the first match:

KeyValuePair<int, stringresult =
data.SkipWhile(x =x.Key 35).First();

Marc

[christery]

Ben, Tested that on the original q, as I understand it, the "close
find" shuld give 40 if asked 39...

Array i2 = Array.CreateInstance(typeof(short),7);

// given 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80

i2.SetValue((short)20, 0);
i2.SetValue((short)30, 1);
i2.SetValue((short)40, 2);
i2.SetValue((short)50, 3);
i2.SetValue((short)60, 4);
i2.SetValue((short)70, 5);
i2.SetValue((short)80, 6);

// given 35
int j = Array.BinarySearch(i2, (short)35);
if (j < -1)
j = ~j-1;

Console.WriteLine("35 -" +
i2.GetValue(j).ToString()); // 30

// testing low 10
j = Array.BinarySearch(i2, (short)10);
if (j < -1)
j = ~j - 1;
else // Oops
j = 0;
Console.WriteLine("10 -" +
i2.GetValue(j).ToString()); // 20

// testing high 100
j = Array.BinarySearch(i2, (short)100);
if (j < -1)
j = ~j - 1;

Console.WriteLine("100 -" +
i2.GetValue(j).ToString()); // 80

// testing close 39
j = Array.BinarySearch(i2, (short)39);
if (j < -1)
j = ~j - 1;

Console.WriteLine("39 -" +
i2.GetValue(j).ToString()); // 30 = Fail, should return 40 or what?

//CY

[Liz]

<ch*******@gmail.comwrote in message
news:1d**********************************@1g2000hs l.googlegroups.com...

Ben, Tested that on the original q, as I understand it, the "close
find" shuld give 40 if asked 39...

that was my doing, not Ben's; yes, you should get 40 if the predicate is
39, and you do; what I'm not clear on is why you're subtracting 1 from the
bitwise complement of the result ... and why you're testing for "j < -1"

if (j < -1)
j = ~j-1;

should be:

if (j < 0)
j = ~j;

BUT, I should have done some bounds checking where the predicate is greater
than the highest valued item in the array:

if (j < i2.Length)
MessageBox.Show(i2.GetValue(j).ToString());
else
MessageBox.Show("Cannot return a value");

>
Array i2 = Array.CreateInstance(typeof(short),7);

// given 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80

i2.SetValue((short)20, 0);
i2.SetValue((short)30, 1);
i2.SetValue((short)40, 2);
i2.SetValue((short)50, 3);
i2.SetValue((short)60, 4);
i2.SetValue((short)70, 5);
i2.SetValue((short)80, 6);

// given 35
int j = Array.BinarySearch(i2, (short)35);
if (j < -1)
j = ~j-1;

Console.WriteLine("35 -" +
i2.GetValue(j).ToString()); // 30

// testing low 10
j = Array.BinarySearch(i2, (short)10);
if (j < -1)
j = ~j - 1;
else // Oops
j = 0;
Console.WriteLine("10 -" +
i2.GetValue(j).ToString()); // 20

// testing high 100
j = Array.BinarySearch(i2, (short)100);
if (j < -1)
j = ~j - 1;

Console.WriteLine("100 -" +
i2.GetValue(j).ToString()); // 80

// testing close 39
j = Array.BinarySearch(i2, (short)39);
if (j < -1)
j = ~j - 1;

Console.WriteLine("39 -" +
i2.GetValue(j).ToString()); // 30 = Fail, should return 40 or what?

//CY

[Ben Voigt [C++ MVP]]

"Liz" <li*@tiredofspam.comwrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>
<ch*******@gmail.comwrote in message
news:1d**********************************@1g2000hs l.googlegroups.com...

>Ben, Tested that on the original q, as I understand it, the "close
find" shuld give 40 if asked 39...

BinarySearch doesn't give you the closest element by default, it gives you
the address of the closest greater element. The element right before is
(due to sorting) the closest smaller element, and you may therefore use
whichever of the two you prefer. This is still O(log N), because there is
no extra expense as the length of the list increases.

If your list is less than about 64 elements you are better off with a single
pass linear search.

If your elements are fairly evenly distributed (or according to a known
distribution) then you can do much better than a binary search by estimating
the location of the element sought.

>
that was my doing, not Ben's; yes, you should get 40 if the predicate is
39, and you do; what I'm not clear on is why you're subtracting 1 from
the bitwise complement of the result ... and why you're testing for "j
< -1"

>if (j < -1)
j = ~j-1;

should be:

if (j < 0)
j = ~j;

BUT, I should have done some bounds checking where the predicate is
greater than the highest valued item in the array:

if (j < i2.Length)
MessageBox.Show(i2.GetValue(j).ToString());
else
MessageBox.Show("Cannot return a value");

>>
Array i2 = Array.CreateInstance(typeof(short),7);

// given 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80

i2.SetValue((short)20, 0);
i2.SetValue((short)30, 1);
i2.SetValue((short)40, 2);
i2.SetValue((short)50, 3);
i2.SetValue((short)60, 4);
i2.SetValue((short)70, 5);
i2.SetValue((short)80, 6);

// given 35
int j = Array.BinarySearch(i2, (short)35);
if (j < -1)
j = ~j-1;

Console.WriteLine("35 -" +
i2.GetValue(j).ToString()); // 30

// testing low 10
j = Array.BinarySearch(i2, (short)10);
if (j < -1)
j = ~j - 1;
else // Oops
j = 0;
Console.WriteLine("10 -" +
i2.GetValue(j).ToString()); // 20

// testing high 100
j = Array.BinarySearch(i2, (short)100);
if (j < -1)
j = ~j - 1;

Console.WriteLine("100 -" +
i2.GetValue(j).ToString()); // 80

// testing close 39
j = Array.BinarySearch(i2, (short)39);
if (j < -1)
j = ~j - 1;

Console.WriteLine("39 -" +
i2.GetValue(j).ToString()); // 30 = Fail, should return 40 or what?

//CY

[Bill Butler]

"Liz" <li*@tiredofspam.comwrote in message
news:uC**************@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>
// Array.BinarySearch (find next closest match)

Array i2 = Array.CreateInstance(typeof(string), 8);

i2.SetValue("Anne", 0);
i2.SetValue("Bob", 1);
i2.SetValue("Chris", 2);
i2.SetValue("Donna", 3);
i2.SetValue("Elizabeth", 4);
i2.SetValue("Glenn", 5);
i2.SetValue("Franklin", 6);
i2.SetValue("Helene", 7);

<snip>
<off topic>
Why would you declare an array of strings with that syntax?
I mean, it works, but why subject yourself to that icky looking code.
How about
string[] X = new string[]{"Anne", "Bob", "Chris", "Donna", "Elizabeth",
"Glenn", "Franklin", "Helene"};

Just curious
Bill

[Liz]

"Bill Butler" <qw****@asdf.comwrote in message
news:Dikaj.8038$8y4.8009@trnddc07...

>Array i2 = Array.CreateInstance(typeof(string), 8);

i2.SetValue("Anne", 0);
i2.SetValue("Bob", 1);
i2.SetValue("Chris", 2);
i2.SetValue("Donna", 3);
i2.SetValue("Elizabeth", 4);
i2.SetValue("Glenn", 5);
i2.SetValue("Franklin", 6);
i2.SetValue("Helene", 7);

Why would you declare an array of strings with that syntax?
I mean, it works, but why subject yourself to that icky looking code.

How about
string[] X = new string[]{"Anne", "Bob", "Chris", "Donna", "Elizabeth",
"Glenn", "Franklin", "Helene"};

The original question presented was how to get a "soft" match in an array
using BinarySearch, i.e.: if no match, return the next highest value in the
array; so far as I know, there's no (straightforward) way to get there from
string[] x = {..,..,.. } syntax ...

who cares about the "ickiness" of syntax? it's all machine code out the
door; in a real-world example, you'd iterate it up with no muss, no fuss in
5-10 lines of code wrapping array.SetValue(a,n) in a loop ... but if you
have a better solution to do the soft match, I'm all ears ... assume the
array would be of significant size, not length = 8 ...

[Bill Butler]

"Liz" <li*@tiredofspam.comwrote in message
news:Oe**************@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>
"Bill Butler" <qw****@asdf.comwrote in message
news:Dikaj.8038$8y4.8009@trnddc07...

>>Array i2 = Array.CreateInstance(typeof(string), 8);

i2.SetValue("Anne", 0);
i2.SetValue("Bob", 1);
i2.SetValue("Chris", 2);
i2.SetValue("Donna", 3);
i2.SetValue("Elizabeth", 4);
i2.SetValue("Glenn", 5);
i2.SetValue("Franklin", 6);
i2.SetValue("Helene", 7);

>Why would you declare an array of strings with that syntax?
I mean, it works, but why subject yourself to that icky looking code.

>How about
string[] X = new string[]{"Anne", "Bob", "Chris", "Donna",
"Elizabeth", "Glenn", "Franklin", "Helene"};

The original question presented was how to get a "soft" match in an
array using BinarySearch, i.e.: if no match, return the next highest
value in the array; so far as I know, there's no (straightforward)
way to get there from string[] x = {..,..,.. } syntax ...

I did Add "off topic" right before I asked (which you edited out).
I have no quibble over the Binary search suggestion, It is what I would
have suggested.
My question has nothing to do with that.
I simply wanted to know why you would Array.CreateInstance instead of
the more common syntax for array creation?
Is there some benefit that I am unaware of?

As I said "Just Curious"

Bill

[Liz]

"Bill Butler" <qw****@asdf.comwrote in message
news:jQlaj.28814$JW4.27575@trnddc05...

>>How about
string[] X = new string[]{"Anne", "Bob", "Chris", "Donna", "Elizabeth",
"Glenn", "Franklin", "Helene"};

>The original question presented was how to get a "soft" match in an array
using BinarySearch, i.e.: if no match, return the next highest value in
the array; so far as I know, there's no (straightforward) way to get
there from string[] x = {..,..,.. } syntax ...

I did Add "off topic" right before I asked (which you edited out).
I have no quibble over the Binary search suggestion, It is what I would
have suggested.
My question has nothing to do with that.
I simply wanted to know why you would Array.CreateInstance instead of the
more common syntax for array creation?
Is there some benefit that I am unaware of?

Bill,

First of all, your comment was not off-topic ....

I simply wanted to know why you would Array.CreateInstance instead of the
more common syntax for array creation?

that's what I responded to .... you can't do this:

string[] X = new string[]{"Anne", "Bob", "Chris", "Donna",
"Elizabeth", "Glenn", "Franklin", "Helene"};

X.BinarySearch("DonnaZ");

Do you know a way to initiate a BinarySearch using the array initialization
syntax you propose here?

[Bill Butler]

"Liz" <li*@tiredofspam.comwrote in message
news:%2***************@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>
"Bill Butler" <qw****@asdf.comwrote in message
news:jQlaj.28814$JW4.27575@trnddc05...

<snip>

Bill,

First of all, your comment was not off-topic ....

>I simply wanted to know why you would Array.CreateInstance instead of
the more common syntax for array creation?

that's what I responded to .... you can't do this:

string[] X = new string[]{"Anne", "Bob", "Chris", "Donna",
"Elizabeth", "Glenn", "Franklin", "Helene"};

X.BinarySearch("DonnaZ");

Do you know a way to initiate a BinarySearch using the array
initialization syntax you propose here?

Array.BinarySearch(X,"DonnaZ");

[Peter Duniho]

On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 20:13:53 -0800, Liz <li*@tiredofspam.comwrote:

[...]

>I simply wanted to know why you would Array.CreateInstance instead of
the
more common syntax for array creation?

that's what I responded to .... you can't do this:

string[] X = new string[]{"Anne", "Bob", "Chris", "Donna",
"Elizabeth", "Glenn", "Franklin", "Helene"};

X.BinarySearch("DonnaZ");

You can't do that even initializing the array as you did. There's no
Array.BinarySearch() overload that takes a single parameter. There's not
even an instance method version of BinarySearch.

Do you know a way to initiate a BinarySearch using the array
initialization
syntax you propose here?

There are a number of overloads for Array.BinarySearch. Any of them would
work equally well, whether you initialize the array using the syntax you
posted or the syntax Bill posted. For example:

Array.BinarySearch(X, "DonnaZ");

I'm with Bill. I don't see any advantage at all to using the syntax you
posted. It's incredibly unwieldy, difficult to read, and doesn't even
provide a typed array. I'm at a loss to understand why you'd prefer that
syntax to the normal array declaration syntax.

Pete

[Liz]

"Bill Butler" <qw****@asdf.comwrote in message
news:Q8maj.16909$TZ4.3302@trnddc02...

>>I simply wanted to know why you would Array.CreateInstance instead of
the more common syntax for array creation?

that's what I responded to .... you can't do this:

string[] X = new string[]{"Anne", "Bob", "Chris", "Donna",
"Elizabeth", "Glenn", "Franklin", "Helene"};

X.BinarySearch("DonnaZ");

Do you know a way to initiate a BinarySearch using the array
initialization syntax you propose here?

Array.BinarySearch(X,"DonnaZ");

There ya go ... I learn something new every day :)

I do think the string[] X = { ... } is more useful for relatively small
lists like this example, though ... (where you really can just walk the
array instead of using a BinarySearch)

[Liz]

"Peter Duniho" <Np*********@nnowslpianmk.comwrote in message
news:op***************@petes-computer.local...
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 20:13:53 -0800, Liz <li*@tiredofspam.comwrote:
<< I'm with Bill. I don't see any advantage at all to using the syntax you
posted. It's incredibly unwieldy, difficult to read, and doesn't even
provide a typed array >>

yeah, it's awkward but more because of the series of arr.SetValue(string,
n); statements than anything else; I *don't* prefer it; my focus from the
original question was the behavior of BinarySearch to fetch the next highest
value on no-match ... not the mechanics of constructing the array to search
<< I'm at a loss to understand why you'd prefer that syntax to the normal
array declaration syntax >>

what do you consider "normal" ? string[] x = { a, b, c } is fine, but only
for a smallish sample of known elements ...

anyway, do you really think there's an incredible difference in readability
or wieldiness in these two:

string[] x = new string[4500];
for (int n = 0; n < 4500; n++)
{
x[n] = "Value" + n.ToString();
}
Array x = Array.CreateInstance( typeof(string), 4500 );
for (int n = 0; n < 4500; n++)
{
x.SetValue( "Value" + n.ToString(), n );
}

I think I'd give the first one a slight edge mainly because it has a more
familiar feel to "C" family programmers .... but that's about it ... OTOH,
it would be what I would normally use based on that familiarity factor ...

[Peter Duniho]

On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 23:55:16 -0800, Liz <li*@tiredofspam.comwrote:

yeah, it's awkward but more because of the series of arr.SetValue(string,
n); statements than anything else; I *don't* prefer it; my focus from
the
original question was the behavior of BinarySearch to fetch the next
highest
value on no-match ... not the mechanics of constructing the array to
search

If you don't prefer that syntax, then why did you write it? Was it that
you believed that using that syntax was the only way to get access to the
BinarySearch() method? Or was there something else that compelled you to
write it that way?

I don't prefer that syntax, and I would _never_ initialize an array of a
known type using that syntax.

<< I'm at a loss to understand why you'd prefer that syntax to the normal
array declaration syntax >>

what do you consider "normal" ? string[] x = { a, b, c } is fine, but
only
for a smallish sample of known elements ...

I don't know what that means. No matter how many elements you have, it's
always easier to write a list of them, than to write a list of them
contained in a long list of calls to Array.SetValue(). In the former
case, you have each item, plus a comma and optionally a space. In the
latter case, you have each item, plus a semi-colon, and optionally a space
and/or newline, to which you also have to add the name of the array plusa
period plus the method name "SetValue" plus a pair of parentheses.

Can you describe a scenario in which the syntax you've offered is more
compact or is in any describable way better than the normal syntax?

And yes...the "string[] x = ..." syntax is definitely the normal syntax.
You're the first person I've ever seen use the other syntax when the type
of the array elements was known.

anyway, do you really think there's an incredible difference in
readability
or wieldiness in these two:

Yes, absolutely. I find the latter arbitrarily and significantly awkward.

Besides, with the first example you get a variable that has the actual
type of the array. With the latter, there's no compile-time protection
against coding errors, nor do you get any help with Intellisense for that
matter.

I see literally no value at all in the second example, except of course
when you don't know the array type in the first place (but then you
couldn't write "typeof(string)"...you'd have to have an actual Type
variable to pass in there).

Pete