Will the following code compile and if yes what will be the result of it ?

static void Main(string[] args)
{
    int[] array = new[] {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10};

    Func<int, int> func = i => {
                          Console.Write(array[i]);
                          return i;
                     };

    var result = array.Where(e => e <= func(2)).ToArray ();
}

What you need then, is a rectangle packer, an algorithm that arranges as many smaller rectangles on a larger rectangle as can possibly fit.

The Nuclex.Support assembly contains several rectangle packing algorithms in the Nuclex.Support.Packing namespace offering various levels of compromises between space efficiency and runtime performance. All of these algorithms have been implemented as classes with a common interface, so, once implemented, you can easily switch forth and back between different algorithms to find the one best suites for your purpose.

Currently, there are three different packing algorithms for you to choose:

	The Simple Packer This packer is optimized for runtime performance. It does sacrifice a bit of space, but the time needed to find a position for a new rectangle is O(1). In english, that means it doesn’t take longer to search for a suitable position, no matter how many rectangles have been added to the packing area.
	The Cygon Packer Named after your humble webmaster, this algorithm is highly efficient in its space usage and offers reasonable performance. It will never exceed O(n) time but generally achieves almost O(1) on average. English translation: Search time is usually constant and guaranteed to never exceed a linear increase (so when you’ve got 99 rectangles already packed and add the 100th one, it guarantees that search time will at most be 1% longer than the time taken for the previous rectangle).
	The Arevalo Packer Named after Javier Arevalo, who posted his implementation of this packer on flipcode back in the golden times. This algorithm offers very good space efficiency and runs in slightly less then O(n) time. Just to be consistent, in english, that means, the time needed to find a suitable place for a new rectangle will only increase linearly.

You can download the C# version of the algorithms from here.

The usage is very simple :

	Point PP;
	var ARP = new ArevaloRectanglePacker(200, 200);

	if(!ARP.TryPack(Width, Height, out PP)) {
		// Do something
	}
	else {
		// Do something else
	}

Forget for a second about .NET.
If someone asks you how much is 1.000025 – 0.000025 your answer will probably be “1″ and correct. An easy question, right ?

Now, let’s go back to .NET and check if our calculations are correct.

        static void Main(string[] args)
        {
            double d1 = 1.000025;
            double d2 = 0.000025;
            Console.WriteLine((d1 - d2) == 1);
        }

If you think the result will be “true”… well, it’s not.

Let’s see another example :

        static void Main(string[] args)
        {
            double d1 = 1.000025;
            double d2 = 0.000025;

            // Will result 1
            Console.WriteLine(d1 - d2);

            // Will result 0.99999999999999989
            Console.WriteLine((d1 - d2).ToString ("R"));
        }

For those who might not know, the meaning of ToString(“R”) is Round-trip.

This format is supported only for the Single and Double types. The round-trip specifier guarantees that a numeric value converted to a string will be parsed back into the same numeric value. When a numeric value is formatted using this specifier, it is first tested using the general format, with 15 spaces of precision for a Double and 7 spaces of precision for a Single. If the value is successfully parsed back to the same numeric value, it is formatted using the general format specifier. However, if the value is not successfully parsed back to the same numeric value, then the value is formatted using 17 digits of precision for a Double and 9 digits of precision for a Single.

So, what happened here ? Is it a bug ?
The answer is – NO, IT’S NOT A BUG ( and it’s not happening only on my computer ).

The thing is, that the above is about how .NET rounding a floating point number.
I won’t explain here the math ( there is already a great article explaining it ), and i won’t say don’t use floating point types.

You just need to know that when you are using it – be carefull, especialy in equations and formatting, otherwise your calculations will be wrong and your result not accurate.

Coming soon…