Related
I want to access an existing array of UInt64 as if it is an array of Int8. Key requirement is efficiency - I don't want to copy or reallocate the data, just have direct access. I don't want side effects (for example I want to be able to continue to use the uint64Array after this block of code has executed, was reading about rebinding having undefined side effects.)
I tried doing this with Swift 4.2:
var uint64Array = [UInt64](repeating: 0, count: 100)
uint64Array.withUnsafeMutableBufferPointer() {
uint64Pointer in
uint64Pointer.withMemoryRebound(to: Int8.self) { // <- Error occurs here.
int8Pointer in
int8Pointer[0] = 1
int8Pointer[1] = 2
int8Pointer[2] = 3
int8Pointer[3] = 4
}
}
However I get a Fatal Error at runtime on the following line:
uint64Pointer.withMemoryRebound(to: Int8.self) {
Is this the right approach? If so, why am I getting the Fatal Error?
I think the problem is that you can't bind to a different type directly as per this note in the docs:
Only use this method to rebind the buffer’s memory to a type with the same size and stride as the currently bound Element type. To bind a region of memory to a type that is a different size, convert the buffer to a raw buffer and use the bindMemory(to:) method.
If bytes is what you're after then the quickest route is:
var uint64Array = [UInt64](repeating: 0, count: 100)
uint64Array.withUnsafeMutableBytes { x in
x[0] = 1
x[1] = 2
x[3] = 3
x[4] = 4
}
If you have another type you'd like to use you can do it like this:
var uint64Array = [UInt64](repeating: 0, count: 100)
uint64Array.withUnsafeMutableBufferPointer() {
uint64Pointer in
let x = UnsafeMutableRawBufferPointer(uint64Pointer).bindMemory(to: Int32.self)
x[0] = 1
x[1] = 2
x[3] = 3
x[4] = 4
}
Thanks to #brindy for solving this one. Here is an extension implementation that is as clean as I could get it.
The extension:
extension Array {
mutating func bindMutableMemoryTo<T,R>(_ type: T.Type, _ closure: (UnsafeMutableBufferPointer<T>) throws -> R) rethrows -> R {
return try self.withUnsafeMutableBytes() {
return try closure($0.bindMemory(to: type))
}
}
}
Usage:
var uint64Array = [UInt64](repeating: 0, count: 100)
uint64Array.bindMutableMemoryTo(Int8.self) {
int8Pointer in
int8Pointer[0] = 1 // LSB of uint64Array[0]
int8Pointer[1] = 2
int8Pointer[2] = 3
int8Pointer[3] = 4 // MSB of uint64Array[0]
}
I want to order an object by a parameter. But this parameter is not a value but an array of values.
class MyObject:{
var arrayOfDoubles: [Double]
}
I´ve solved how to order the param arrayOfDoubles
self.arrayOfDoubles.sorted(by: >)
My problem now is how to order the array myObjects by the param arrayOfDoubles
myObjects: [MyObject]
I´ve tried this solution, but it only works when the param is a number, not an array of numbers
myObjects.sorted(by: { $0.arrayOfDoubles > $1.arrayOfDoubles })
This might not be exactly what you want, because I can't figure out what you want (and I'm not sure you do either). But in general your problems will be over if you define a custom struct and make it Equatable and Comparable. Then you can just sort using > or < directly, like this:
struct Pair : Comparable {
let ix1:Int
let ix2:Int
init(_ ix1: Int, _ ix2:Int) {
self.ix1 = ix1; self.ix2 = ix2
}
static func ==(lhs:Pair, rhs:Pair) -> Bool {
return lhs.ix1 == rhs.ix1 && lhs.ix2 == rhs.ix2
}
static func <(lhs:Pair, rhs:Pair) -> Bool {
return lhs.ix1 < rhs.ix1 && lhs.ix2 < rhs.ix2
}
}
let array1 = [Pair(1,3), Pair(10,11), Pair(0,1)]
let array2 = array1.sorted(by:>)
// [{ix1 10, ix2 11}, {ix1 1, ix2 3}, {ix1 0, ix2 1}]
As I say, that's only an example; tweak it so that it says what you mean (if you even know what you mean).
For instance, if this Pair is now to be a property of another object type Obj, that's trivial in just the same way:
struct Obj {
let pair : Pair
}
let array3 = [Obj(pair:Pair(1,3)), Obj(pair:Pair(10,11)), Obj(pair:Pair(0,1))]
let array4 = array3.sorted {$0.pair > $1.pair}
I believe that's the sort of language your question says you'd like to use...
I'd like a function runningSum on an array of numbers a (or any ordered collection of addable things) that returns an array of the same length where each element i is the sum of all elements in A up to an including i.
Examples:
runningSum([1,1,1,1,1,1]) -> [1,2,3,4,5,6]
runningSum([2,2,2,2,2,2]) -> [2,4,6,8,10,12]
runningSum([1,0,1,0,1,0]) -> [1,1,2,2,3,3]
runningSum([0,1,0,1,0,1]) -> [0,1,1,2,2,3]
I can do this with a for loop, or whatever. Is there a more functional option? It's a little like a reduce, except that it builds a result array that has all the intermediate values.
Even more general would be to have a function that takes any sequence and provides a sequence that's the running total of the input sequence.
The general combinator you're looking for is often called scan, and can be defined (like all higher-order functions on lists) in terms of reduce:
extension Array {
func scan<T>(initial: T, _ f: (T, Element) -> T) -> [T] {
return self.reduce([initial], combine: { (listSoFar: [T], next: Element) -> [T] in
// because we seeded it with a non-empty
// list, it's easy to prove inductively
// that this unwrapping can't fail
let lastElement = listSoFar.last!
return listSoFar + [f(lastElement, next)]
})
}
}
(But I would suggest that that's not a very good implementation.)
This is a very useful general function, and it's a shame that it's not included in the standard library.
You can then generate your cumulative sum by specializing the starting value and operation:
let cumSum = els.scan(0, +)
And you can omit the zero-length case rather simply:
let cumSumTail = els.scan(0, +).dropFirst()
Swift 4
The general sequence case
Citing the OP:
Even more general would be to have a function that takes any sequence
and provides a sequence that's the running total of the input
sequence.
Consider some arbitrary sequence (conforming to Sequence), say
var seq = 1... // 1, 2, 3, ... (CountablePartialRangeFrom)
To create another sequence which is the (lazy) running sum over seq, you can make use of the global sequence(state:next:) function:
var runningSumSequence =
sequence(state: (sum: 0, it: seq.makeIterator())) { state -> Int? in
if let val = state.it.next() {
defer { state.sum += val }
return val + state.sum
}
else { return nil }
}
// Consume and print accumulated values less than 100
while let accumulatedSum = runningSumSequence.next(),
accumulatedSum < 100 { print(accumulatedSum) }
// 1 3 6 10 15 21 28 36 45 55 66 78 91
// Consume and print next
print(runningSumSequence.next() ?? -1) // 120
// ...
If we'd like (for the joy of it), we could condense the closure to sequence(state:next:) above somewhat:
var runningSumSequence =
sequence(state: (sum: 0, it: seq.makeIterator())) {
(state: inout (sum: Int, it: AnyIterator<Int>)) -> Int? in
state.it.next().map { (state.sum + $0, state.sum += $0).0 }
}
However, type inference tends to break (still some open bugs, perhaps?) for these single-line returns of sequence(state:next:), forcing us to explicitly specify the type of state, hence the gritty ... in in the closure.
Alternatively: custom sequence accumulator
protocol Accumulatable {
static func +(lhs: Self, rhs: Self) -> Self
}
extension Int : Accumulatable {}
struct AccumulateSequence<T: Sequence>: Sequence, IteratorProtocol
where T.Element: Accumulatable {
var iterator: T.Iterator
var accumulatedValue: T.Element?
init(_ sequence: T) {
self.iterator = sequence.makeIterator()
}
mutating func next() -> T.Element? {
if let val = iterator.next() {
if accumulatedValue == nil {
accumulatedValue = val
}
else { defer { accumulatedValue = accumulatedValue! + val } }
return accumulatedValue
}
return nil
}
}
var accumulator = AccumulateSequence(1...)
// Consume and print accumulated values less than 100
while let accumulatedSum = accumulator.next(),
accumulatedSum < 100 { print(accumulatedSum) }
// 1 3 6 10 15 21 28 36 45 55 66 78 91
The specific array case: using reduce(into:_:)
As of Swift 4, we can use reduce(into:_:) to accumulate the running sum into an array.
let runningSum = arr
.reduce(into: []) { $0.append(($0.last ?? 0) + $1) }
// [2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12]
By using reduce(into:_:), the [Int] accumulator will not be copied in subsequent reduce iterations; citing the Language reference:
This method is preferred over reduce(_:_:) for efficiency when the
result is a copy-on-write type, for example an Array or a
Dictionary.
See also the implementation of reduce(into:_:), noting that the accumulator is provided as an inout parameter to the supplied closure.
However, each iteration will still result in an append(_:) call on the accumulator array; amortized O(1) averaged over many invocations, but still an arguably unnecessary overhead here as we know the final size of the accumulator.
Because arrays increase their allocated capacity using an exponential
strategy, appending a single element to an array is an O(1) operation
when averaged over many calls to the append(_:) method. When an array
has additional capacity and is not sharing its storage with another
instance, appending an element is O(1). When an array needs to
reallocate storage before appending or its storage is shared with
another copy, appending is O(n), where n is the length of the array.
Thus, knowing the final size of the accumulator, we could explicitly reserve such a capacity for it using reserveCapacity(_:) (as is done e.g. for the native implementation of map(_:))
let runningSum = arr
.reduce(into: [Int]()) { (sums, element) in
if let sum = sums.last {
sums.append(sum + element)
}
else {
sums.reserveCapacity(arr.count)
sums.append(element)
}
} // [2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12]
For the joy of it, condensed:
let runningSum = arr
.reduce(into: []) {
$0.append(($0.last ?? ($0.reserveCapacity(arr.count), 0).1) + $1)
} // [2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12]
Swift 3: Using enumerated() for subsequent calls to reduce
Another Swift 3 alternative (with an overhead ...) is using enumerated().map in combination with reduce within each element mapping:
func runningSum(_ arr: [Int]) -> [Int] {
return arr.enumerated().map { arr.prefix($0).reduce($1, +) }
} /* thanks #Hamish for improvement! */
let arr = [2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2]
print(runningSum(arr)) // [2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12]
The upside is you wont have to use an array as the collector in a single reduce (instead repeatedly calling reduce).
Just for fun: The running sum as a one-liner:
let arr = [1, 2, 3, 4]
let rs = arr.map({ () -> (Int) -> Int in var s = 0; return { (s += $0, s).1 } }())
print(rs) // [1, 3, 6, 10]
It does the same as the (updated) code in JAL's answer, in particular,
no intermediate arrays are generated.
The sum variable is captured in an immediately-evaluated closure returning the transformation.
If you just want it to work for Int, you can use this:
func runningSum(array: [Int]) -> [Int] {
return array.reduce([], combine: { (sums, element) in
return sums + [element + (sums.last ?? 0)]
})
}
If you want it to be generic over the element type, you have to do a lot of extra work declaring the various number types to conform to a custom protocol that provides a zero element, and (if you want it generic over both floating point and integer types) an addition operation, because Swift doesn't do that already. (A future version of Swift may fix this problem.)
Assuming an array of Ints, sounds like you can use map to manipulate the input:
let arr = [0,1,0,1,0,1]
var sum = 0
let val = arr.map { (sum += $0, sum).1 }
print(val) // "[0, 1, 1, 2, 2, 3]\n"
I'll keep working on a solution that doesn't use an external variable.
I thought I'd be cool to extend Sequence with a generic scan function as is suggested in the great first answer.
Given this extension, you can get the running sum of an array like this: [1,2,3].scan(0, +)
But you can also get other interesting things…
Running product: array.scan(1, *)
Running max: array.scan(Int.min, max)
Running min: array.scan(Int.max, min)
Because the implementation is a function on Sequence and returns a Sequence, you can chain it together with other sequence functions. It is efficient, having linear running time.
Here's the extension…
extension Sequence {
func scan<Result>(_ initialResult: Result, _ nextPartialResult: #escaping (Result, Self.Element) -> Result) -> ScanSequence<Self, Result> {
return ScanSequence(initialResult: initialResult, underlying: self, combine: nextPartialResult)
}
}
struct ScanSequence<Underlying: Sequence, Result>: Sequence {
let initialResult: Result
let underlying: Underlying
let combine: (Result, Underlying.Element) -> Result
typealias Iterator = ScanIterator<Underlying.Iterator, Result>
func makeIterator() -> Iterator {
return ScanIterator(previousResult: initialResult, underlying: underlying.makeIterator(), combine: combine)
}
var underestimatedCount: Int {
return underlying.underestimatedCount
}
}
struct ScanIterator<Underlying: IteratorProtocol, Result>: IteratorProtocol {
var previousResult: Result
var underlying: Underlying
let combine: (Result, Underlying.Element) -> Result
mutating func next() -> Result? {
guard let nextUnderlying = underlying.next() else {
return nil
}
previousResult = combine(previousResult, nextUnderlying)
return previousResult
}
}
One solution using reduce:
func runningSum(array: [Int]) -> [Int] {
return array.reduce([], combine: { (result: [Int], item: Int) -> [Int] in
if result.isEmpty {
return [item] //first item, just take the value
}
// otherwise take the previous value and append the new item
return result + [result.last! + item]
})
}
I'm very late to this party. The other answers have good explanations. But none of them have provided the initial result, in a generic way. This implementation is useful to me.
public extension Sequence {
/// A sequence of the partial results that `reduce` would employ.
func scan<Result>(
_ initialResult: Result,
_ nextPartialResult: #escaping (Result, Element) -> Result
) -> AnySequence<Result> {
var iterator = makeIterator()
return .init(
sequence(first: initialResult) { partialResult in
iterator.next().map {
nextPartialResult(partialResult, $0)
}
}
)
}
}
extension Sequence where Element: AdditiveArithmetic & ExpressibleByIntegerLiteral {
var runningSum: AnySequence<Element> { scan(0, +).dropFirst() }
}
For communicating with a BLE characteristic, I have a Swift struct that looks like:
struct Packet {
var control1:UInt8 = 0
var control2:UInt8 = 0
var payload:(UInt8,UInt8,UInt8,UInt8,UInt8,UInt8,UInt8,UInt8,UInt8,UInt8,UInt8,UInt8,UInt8,UInt8,UInt8,UInt8) = (0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0)
init(control1:UInt8, control2:UInt8) {
self.control1 = control1
self.control2 = control2
}
}
I have payload defined as a tuple, because that seems to be the only way to have an array (of bytes in this case) of fixed size embedded in a Swift struct. Verbose, but whatever.
I have a big ol' source:[UInt8] that I want to pull swatches of into that Packet struct, so I can send them via BLE to the remote device. When I do:
var packet = Packet(control1: self.pageIndex, control2: sentenceIndex)
let offset = (Int(self.pageIndex) * self.pageSize) + (Int(sentenceIndex) * self.sentenceSize)
let limit = offset + self.sentenceSize
packet.payload = self.source[offset..<limit]
For the last line, I get the rather confusing error:
Cannot subscript a value of type '[UInt8]'
Cryptic I say, because it actually can. If I take the assignment to the packet.payload out, it has no problem subscripting the value.
What I'm really interested in at a higher level, is how one puts together a struct with a fixed size array of bytes, and then copies swatches of a large buffer into those. I would like to both understand the above, as well as know how to solve my problem.
UPDATE:
I ended up backing up a little, influenced by both answers below, and rethinking. My main driving force was that I wanted a simple/clever way to have convert a struct with an internal array to/from NSData, primary in BLE communications. What I ended up doing was:
struct Packet {
var pageIndex:UInt8 = 0
var sentenceIndex:UInt8 = 0
var payload:ArraySlice<UInt8> = []
var nsdata:NSData {
let bytes:[UInt8] = [self.pageIndex, self.sentenceIndex] + self.payload
return NSData(bytes: bytes, length: bytes.count)
}
}
Not the most efficient because I have to create the intermediate [UInt8] array, but I decided that a simple way to convert didn't exist, that I'd have to do things with as conversions or memcpy and friends.
I'm not sure which of the two below to mark as an answer, since both influenced what I ended up with.
There are two ugly/simple solutions:
To assign each member of the tuple separately:
var offset = ...
packet.payload = (source[offset++], source[offset++], ... , source[offset++])
To just copy the raw memory (recommended)
var values = Array(source[offset..<limit])
memcpy(&packet.payload, &values, sentenceSize)
Note that it's possible to create an array from a tuple:
func tupleToArray<T>(tuple: Any, t: T.Type) -> [T] {
return Mirror(reflecting: tuple).children.flatMap{ $0.value as? T }
}
tupleToArray((1, 2, 3, 4, 5), t: Int.self) // [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
But the other way around doesn't work, as Swift's reflection is read-only.
Another much more complicated but more beautiful solution would be to use Dependent Types, which enables you to have arrays with compile-time known length. Check out this great blog post, in which he also mentions this post on the Apple Developer forums which is basically what you'd need:
let vector = 3.0 ⋮ 4.0 ⋮ 5.0 // [3.0, 4.0, 5.0]
vector[1] // 4.0
vector.count // 3
sizeofValue(vector) // 3 * 8 ( same size as a tuple with 3 elements)
First of all don't use tuples to create contiguous arrays of memory. Go ahead and use the [UInt8] type. I would recommend using a stride function to create your indices for you like this. You will have to handle the case of your data source not being a multiple of the Packet payload size.
struct Packet {
var control1: UInt8 = 0
var control2: UInt8 = 0
static let size = 16
var payload = [UInt8].init(count: Packet.size, repeatedValue: 0)
init(control1: UInt8, control2: UInt8) {
self.control1 = control1
self.control2 = control2
}
}
// random values between 0...255
let blob = (0..<(Packet.size * 3)).map{_ in UInt8(arc4random_uniform(UInt32(UInt8.max)))}
for index in 0.stride(through: blob.count - 1, by: Packet.size) {
var packet = Packet(control1: 4, control2: 5)
packet.payload[0..<Packet.size] = blob[index..<index + Packet.size]
print(packet.payload)
}
As far as the cannot subscript error, I encountered that too. I suspect that this has changed recently. I was able to eliminate the error by matching the packet indice slice with the data source slice.
UPDATE
A commenter correctly pointed out that Packet structure contained a reference to an Array and therefore did not meet the OP's need. While I was focused more on iterating through a large data source using stride, here is an alternative using an untyped [UInt8] for such a simple data structure.
// payload size in count of UInt8
let size = 16
// field offsets
let control1 = 0
let control2 = 1
let payload = 2..<(2 + size)
// random values between 0...255
let blob = (0..<size * 3).map{_ in UInt8(arc4random_uniform(UInt32(UInt8.max)))}
for index in 0.stride(through: blob.count - 1, by: size) {
var buffer = [UInt8](count: 2 + size, repeatedValue: 0)
buffer[control1] = 255
buffer[control2] = 0
buffer[payload] = blob[index..<index + size]
let data = NSData(bytesNoCopy: &buffer, length: buffer.count, freeWhenDone: false)
// send data
}
Consider the following silly, simple example:
let arr = ["hey", "ho"]
let doubled = arr.map {$0 + $0}
let capitalized = arr.map {$0.capitalizedString}
As you can see, I'm processing the same initial array in multiple ways in order to end up with multiple processed arrays.
Now imagine that arr is very long and that I have many such processes generating many final arrays. I don't like the above code because we are looping multiple times, once for each map call. I'd prefer to loop just once.
Now, obviously we could handle this by brute force, i.e. by starting with multiple mutable arrays and writing into all of them on each iteration:
let arr = ["hey", "ho"]
var doubled = [String]()
var capitalized = [String]()
for s in arr {
doubled.append(s + s)
capitalized.append(s.capitalizedString)
}
Fine. But now we don't get the joy of using map. So my question is: is there a better, Swiftier way? In a hazy way I imagine myself using map, or something like map, to generate something like a tuple and magically splitting that tuple out into all resulting arrays as we iterate, as if I could say something like this (pseudocode, don't try this at home):
let arr = ["hey", "ho"]
let (doubled, capitalized) = arr.map { /* ???? */ }
If I were designing my own language, I might even permit a kind of splatting by assignment into a pseudo-array of lvalues:
let arr = ["hey", "ho"]
let [doubled, capitalized] = arr.map { /* ???? */ }
No big deal if it can't be done, but it would be fun to be able to talk this way.
How about a function, multimap, that takes a collection of transformations, and applies each one, returning them as an array of arrays:
// yay protocol extensions
extension SequenceType {
// looks like T->U works OK as a constraint
func multimap
<U, C: CollectionType
where C.Generator.Element == Generator.Element->U>
(transformations: C) -> [[U]] {
return transformations.map {
self.map($0)
}
}
}
Then use it like this:
let arr = ["hey", "ho"]
let double: String->String = { $0 + $0 }
let uppercase: String->String = { $0.uppercaseString }
arr.multimap([double, uppercase])
// returns [["heyhey", "hoho"], ["HEY", "HO"]]
Or it might be quite nice in variadic form:
extension SequenceType {
func multimap<U>(transformations: (Generator.Element->U)...) -> [[U]] {
return self.multimap(transformations)
}
}
arr.multimap({ $0 + $0 }, { $0.uppercaseString })
Edit: if you want separate variables, I think the best you can do is a destructure function (which you have to declare n times for each n-tuple unfortunately):
// I don't think this can't be expressed as a protocol extension quite yet
func destructure<C: CollectionType>(source: C) -> (C.Generator.Element,C.Generator.Element) {
precondition(source.count == 2)
return (source[source.startIndex],source[source.startIndex.successor()])
}
// and, since it's a function, let's declare pipe forward
// to make it easier to call
infix operator |> { }
func |> <T,U>(lhs: T, rhs: T->U) -> U {
return rhs(lhs)
}
And then you can declare the variables like this:
let (doubled,uppercased)
= arr.multimap({ $0 + $0 }, { $0.uppercaseString }) |> destructure
Yes this is a teensy bit inefficient because you have to build the array then rip it apart – but that’s really not going to be material, since the arrays are copy-on-write and we’re talking about a small number of them in the outer array.
edit: an excuse to use the new guard statement:
func destructure<C: Sliceable where C.SubSlice.Generator.Element == C.Generator.Element>(source: C) -> (C.Generator.Element,C.Generator.Element) {
guard let one = source.first else { fatalError("empty source") }
guard let two = dropFirst(source).first else { fatalError("insufficient elements") }
return (one,two)
}
What is wrong with your suggestion of tuple?
let arr = ["hey", "ho"]
let mapped = arr.map {e in
return (e + e, e.capitalizedString)
}
How about this, we process 'capitalized' array while we map the 'doubled' array:
let arr = ["hey", "ho"]
var capitalized = [String]()
let doubled = arr.map {(var myString) -> String in
capitalized.append(myString.capitalizedString)
return myString + myString
}
//doubled ["heyhey", "hoho"]
//capitalized: ["Hey", "Ho"]