I have two arrays, array1 and array2. I understand that the first element in an array is 0.
array1 = [a, b, c, d,....z]
array2 = [1, 2, 3, 4,.....26]
So, if I say:
array1[0] = a
but, I am wanting:
array1[1] = a
array[2] = b
array[26] = z
I am new to Python 2.7 (third day learning) and learning about arrays and indexes, so this crossed my mind. Is this possible? I tried using loops such as:
for i in range(26)
i = array2 # barely started learning loops so parden me if this makes me look like I do not know what I am doing
I also know that I can just assign variables such shown below. This takes up a lot of space!
array2[0] = a
I am sure once I progress more using Python, I will figure this out, but in the meantime, I figured it would not hurt to ask.
If you want to fetch a when 1 is asked for use a closure that translates locations:
def fetch_with_shift(seq, shift):
def fetch(x):
return seq[x - shift]
return fetch
Use like this:
my_fetch = fetch_with_offset(s, 1)
my_fetch(1) # 'a'
Note: There is also already a string for that in the string module:
from string import lowercase
s = lowercase # "abc...z"
You can shift the array over by concatenating a None value to the front.
array1 = ["a", "b", ... "z"]
new_array = [None] + array1
Then, array1[1] will be a, and array1[2] will be b.
Related
I have been trying to randomize the values in an ordered array (ex:[0,1,2,3]) in Godot. There is supposed to be a shuffle() method for arrays, but it seems to be broken and always returns "null". I have found a workaround that uses a Fisher-Yates shuffle, but the resulting array is considered "unsorted" by the engine, and therefore when I try to use methods such as bsearch() to find a value by it's position, the results are unreliable at best.
My solution was to create a dictionary, comprised of an array containing the random values I have obtained, merged with a second array of equal length with (sorted) numbers (in numerical order) which I can then use as keys to access specific array positions when needed.
Question made simple...
In GDScript, how would you take 2 arrays..
ex: ARRAY1 = [0,1,2,3]
ARRAY2 = [a,b,c,d]
..and merge them to form a dictionary that looks like this:
MergedDictionary = {0:a, 1:b, 2:c, 3:d}
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Godot does not support "zip" methodology for merging arrays such as Python does, so I am stuck merging them manually. However... there is little to no documentation about how to do this in GDScript, despite my many hours of searching.
Try this:
var a = [1, 2, 3]
var b = ["a", "b", "c"]
var c = {}
if a.size() == b.size():
var i = 0
for element in a:
c[element] = b[i]
i += 1
print("Dictionary c: ", c)
If you want to add elements to a dictionary, you can assign values to the keys like existing keys.
Background:
Hey all, I am experimenting with external APIs and am trying to pull in all of the followers of a User from a site and apply some sorting.
I have refactored a lot of the code, HOWEVER, there is one part that is giving me a really tough time. I am convinced there is an easier way to implement this than what I have included and would be really grateful on any tips to do this in a much more eloquent way.
My goal is simple. I want to collapse an array of arrays of hashes (I hope that is the correct way to explain it) into one array of hashes.
Problem Description:
I have an array named f_collectionswhich has 5 elements. Each element is an array of size 200. Each sub-element of these arrays is a hash of about 10 key-value pairs. My best representation of this is as follows:
f_collections = [ collection1, collection2, ..., collection5 ]
collection1 = [ hash1, hash2, ..., hash200]
hash1 = { user_id: 1, user_name: "bob", ...}
I am trying to collapse this multi-dimensional array into one array of hashes. Since there are five collection arrays, this means the results array would have 1000 elements - all of which would be hashes.
followers = [hash1, hash2, ..., hash1000]
Code (i.e. my attempt which I do not want to keep):
I have gotten this to work with a very ugly piece of code (see below), with nested if statements, blocks, for loops, etc... This thing is a nightmare to read and I have tried my hardest to research ways to do this in a simpler way, I just cannot figure out how. I have tried flatten but it doesn't seem to work.
I am mostly just including this code to show I have tried very hard to solve this problem, and while yes I solved it, there must be a better way!
Note: I have simplified some variables to integers in the code below to make it more readable.
for n in 1..5 do
if n < 5
(0..199).each do |j|
if n == 1
nj = j
else
nj = (n - 1) * 200 + j
end
#followers[nj] = #f_collections[n-1].collection[j]
end
else
(0..199).each do |jj|
njj = (4) * 200 + jj
#followers[njj] = #f_collections[n-1].collection[jj]
end
end
end
Oh... so It is not an array objects that hold collections of hashes. Kind of. Lets give it another try:
flat = f_collection.map do |col|
col.collection
end.flatten
which can be shortened (and is more performant) to:
flat = f_collection.flat_map do |col|
col.collection
end
This works because the items in the f_collection array are objects that have a collection attribute, which in turn is an array.
So it is "array of things that have an array that contains hashes"
Old Answer follows below. I leave it here for documentation purpose. It was based on the assumption that the data structure is an array of array of hashes.
Just use #flatten (or #flatten! if you want this to be "inline")
flat = f_collections.flatten
Example
sub1 = [{a: 1}, {a: 2}]
sub2 = [{a: 3}, {a: 4}]
collection = [sub1, sub2]
flat = collection.flatten # returns a new collection
puts flat #> [{:a=>1}, {:a=>2}, {:a=>3}, {:a=>4}]
# or use the "inplace"/"destructive" version
collection.flatten! # modifies existing collection
puts collection #> [{:a=>1}, {:a=>2}, {:a=>3}, {:a=>4}]
Some recommendations for your existing code:
Do not use for n in 1..5, use Ruby-Style enumeration:
["some", "values"].each do |value|
puts value
end
Like this you do not need to hardcode the length (5) of the array (did not realize you removed the variables that specify these magic numbers). If you you want to detect the last iteration you can use each_with_index:
a = ["some", "home", "rome"]
a.each_with_index do |value, index|
if index == a.length - 1
puts "Last value is #{value}"
else
puts "Values before last: #{value}"
end
end
While #flatten will solve your problem you might want to see how DIY-solution could look like:
def flatten_recursive(collection, target = [])
collection.each do |item|
if item.is_a?(Array)
flatten_recursive(item, target)
else
target << item
end
end
target
end
Or an iterative solution (that is limited to two levels):
def flatten_iterative(collection)
target = []
collection.each do |sub|
sub.each do |item|
target << item
end
end
target
end
I'm very new to Ruby so please go easy on me. I have this small function that doesn't want to perform an intersection command. If I go into irb and enter the arrays then set the intersection command like: third_array = array1 & array2, third_array returns the common element. But when I run this snippet through irb, it just returns [ ]. Any suggestions?
class String
define_method(:antigrams) do |word2|
array1 = []
array2 = []
array1.push(self.split(""))
array2.push(word2.split(""))
third_array = array1 & array2
third_array
end
end
After looking at what you have, I think your code boils down to this:
class String
def antigrams(word)
self.chars & word.chars
end
end
"flurry".antigrams("flagrant")
# => ["f", "l", "r"]
If you're calling split('') on a word that's effectively the same as chars, though a lot less efficient. Another mistake was pushing a whole array into an array, which creates a nested array of the form [ [ 'f', 'l', ... ] ]. Since the two resulting array-of-arrays have nothing in common, their inner arrays are different, the & operation returns an empty array.
What you meant was to concatenate the one array to the other, something that can be done with += for example.
Whenever you're curious what's happening, either use irb to try out chunks of code, or p to debug at different points in your method.
What's the most idiomatic way to create an array from several variables without nil values?
Given these variables:
a = 1
b = nil
c = 3
I would like to create an array ary:
ary #=> [1, 3]
I could use Array#compact:
ary = [a, b, c].compact
ary #=> [1, 3]
But putting everything in an array just to remove certain elements afterwards doesn't feel right.
Using if statements on the other hand produces more code:
ary = []
ary << a if a
ary << b if b
ary << c if c
ary #=> [1, 3]
Is there another or a preferred way or are there any advantages or drawbacks using either of the above?
PS: false doesn't necessarily have to be considered. The variables are either truthy (numbers / strings / arrays / hashes) or nil.
If you are concerned about performance, best way would be probably to use destructive #compact! to avoid allocating memory for second array.
I was hoping for a way to somehow "skip" the nil values during array creation. But after thinking about this for a while, I realized that this can't be achieved because of Ruby's way to handle multiple values. There's no concept of a "list" of values, multiple values are always represented as an array.
If you assign multiple values, Ruby creates an array:
ary = 1, nil, 3
#=> [1, nil, 3]
Same for a method taking a variable number of arguments:
def foo(*args)
args
end
foo(1, nil, 3)
#=> [1, nil, 3]
So even if I would patch Array with a class method new_without_nil, I would end up with:
def Array.new_without_nil(*values)
values.compact!
values
end
This just moves the code elsewhere.
Everything is an object
From an OO point of view, there's nothing special about nil - it's an object like any other. Therefore, removing nil's is not different from removing 1's.
Using a bunch of if statements on the other hand is something I'm trying to avoid when writing object oriented code. I prefer sending messages to objects.
Regarding "advantages or drawbacks":
[...] with compact / compact!
creates full array and shrinks it as needed
short code, often fits in one line
is easily recognized
evaluates each item once
faster (compiled C code)
[...] with << and if statements
creates empty array and grows it as needed
long code, one line per item
purpose might not be as obvious
items can easily be commented / uncommented
evaluates each item twice
slower (interpreted Ruby code)
Verdict:
I'll use compact, might have been obvious.
Here is a solution that uses a hash.
With these values put in an array:
a = 1; b = nil; c = 3; d = nil; e = 10;
ary = [a, b, c, d, e]
There are two nil items in the result which would require a compact to remove both "nil" items.
However the same variables added to a hash:
a = 1; b = nil; c = 3; d = nil; e = 10;
hash = {a => nil, b => nil, c => nil, d => nil, e => nil}
There is just one "nil" item in the result which can easily be removed by hash.delete(nil).
If say I have an array and I would to iterate through the array, but do something different to the first and last element. How should I do that?
Taking the below code as example, how do I alert element a and e?
array = [a,b,c,d,e]
for element in array
console.log(element)
Thanks.
You can retrieve the first and last elements by using array destructuring with a splat:
[first, ..., last] = array
This splat usage is supported in CoffeeScript >= 1.7.0.
The vanilla way of accessing the first and last element of an array is the same as in JS really: using the index 0 and length - 1:
console.log array[0], array[array.length - 1]
CoffeeScript lets you write some nice array destructuring expressions:
[first, mid..., last] = array
console.log first, last
But i don't think it's worth it if you're not going to use the middle elements.
Underscore.js has some helper first and last methods that can make this more English-like (i don't want to use the phrase "self-explanatory" as i think any programmer would understand array indexing). They are easy to add to the Array objects if you don't want to use Underscore and you don't mind polluting the global namespace (this is what other libraries, like Sugar.js, do):
Array::first ?= (n) ->
if n? then #[0...(Math.max 0, n)] else #[0]
Array::last ?= (n) ->
if n? then #[(Math.max #length - n, 0)...] else #[#length - 1]
console.log array.first(), array.last()
Update
This functions also allow you to get the n first or last elements in an array. If you don't need that functionality then the implementation would be much simpler (just the else branch basically).
Update 2
CoffeeScript >= 1.7 lets you write:
[first, ..., last] = array
without generating an unnecessary array with the middle elements :D
The shortest way is here
array[-1..]
See this thread
https://github.com/jashkenas/coffee-script/issues/156
You can use just:
[..., last] = array
You can use slice to get last element. In javascript, slice can pass negative number like -1 as arguments.
For example:
array = [1, 2, 3 ]
console.log "first: #{array[0]}"
console.log "last: #{array[-1..][0]}"
be compiled into
var array;
array = [1, 2, 3];
console.log("first: " + array[0]);
console.log("last: " + array.slice(-1)[0]);
You can get the element and the index of the current element when iterating through the array using Coffeescript's for...in. See the following code, replace the special_process_for_element and normal_process_for_element with your code.
array = [a, b, c, d]
FIRST_INDEX = 0
LAST_INDEX = array.length - 1
for element, index in array
switch index
when FIRST_INDEX, LAST_INDEX
special_process_for_element
else
normal_process_for_element
sample
Here's a working code