Sometimes I define a
System.Collections.Generic.Dictionary(Of Key, ...)

but actually I only use the Key part. Is there any collection which I
can use
which is similar to a Dictionary, but without the value part ?
I mean just a list of unique key Object , with a O(1) retrieval
operation ?

-Pam

All collections have value parts. If your keys are strings, use
System.Collections.Specialized.StringCollection. Otherwise, try

dim Valueless as new Dictionary(of KeyType, KeyType)
Valueless.add(key, key)

At least this way you don't have two objects floating around memory - just
one with two references.

Mike Ober.

"pamela fluente" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> Sometimes I define a
> System.Collections.Generic.Dictionary(Of Key, ...)
>
> but actually I only use the Key part. Is there any collection which I
> can use
> which is similar to a Dictionary, but without the value part ?
> I mean just a list of unique key Object , with a O(1) retrieval
> operation ?
>
> -Pam
>
>

On Feb 13, 12:03 am, "pamela fluente" <pamelaflue...@libero.it> wrote:
> Sometimes I define a
> System.Collections.Generic.Dictionary(Of Key, ...)
>
> but actually I only use the Key part. Is there any collection which I
> can use
> which is similar to a Dictionary, but without the value part ?
> I mean just a list of unique key Object , with a O(1) retrieval
> operation ?
>
> -Pam

I'm particularly fond of
System.Collections.ObjectModel.KeyedCollection(Of Key, Item). It's
usefull when the item is also the key, or the key is a property of the
item itself. Unfortunately its an abstract class, which means you must
inherit it, because there's a GetKeyForItem method that needs
implementation. Indexed access is O(1), while keyed access is near
O(1) -- or so the docs say. Besides, it has the definite advantage (to
me) that it keeps the insertion order (which a Dictionary won't).

HTH.

Regards,

Branco.

On 13 Feb, 04:50, "Michael D. Ober" <obermd.@.alum.mit.edu.nospam>
wrote:
> All collections have value parts. If your keys are strings, use
> System.Collections.Specialized.StringCollection.

The times I need keys only are often those where the object is also
used as a key (through an appropriate comparer).

Otherwise, try
>
> dim Valueless as new Dictionary(of KeyType, KeyType)
> Valueless.add(key, key)

Yes that's what I am doing. Or else I do Valueless.add(key, Nothing)
(is this better?) which anyway seems quite awkward to me.

>
> At least this way you don't have two objects floating around memory - just
> one with two references.
>
> Mike Ober.
>

On 13 Feb, 06:45, "Branco Medeiros" <branco.medei...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 13, 12:03 am, "pamela fluente" <pamelaflue...@libero.it> wrote:
>
> > Sometimes I define a
> > System.Collections.Generic.Dictionary(Of Key, ...)
>
> > but actually I only use the Key part. Is there any collection which I
> > can use
> > which is similar to a Dictionary, but without the value part ?
> > I mean just a list of unique key Object , with a O(1) retrieval
> > operation ?
>
> > -Pam
>
> I'm particularly fond of
> System.Collections.ObjectModel.KeyedCollection(Of Key, Item). It's
> usefull when the item is also the key, or the key is a property of the
> item itself. Unfortunately its an abstract class, which means you must
> inherit it, because there's a GetKeyForItem method that needs
> implementation. Indexed access is O(1), while keyed access is near
> O(1) -- or so the docs say. Besides, it has the definite advantage (to
> me) that it keeps the insertion order (which a Dictionary won't).

Hmm I might give it a try. Isn't strange that there isn't a collection
of keys only ? I think it could be nice to have it

>
> HTH.
>
> Regards,
>
> Branco.