players={
{uuid = "abc",name = "TheEisbaer"},
{uuid= "def",name ="Eisbaer68"},
{uuid= "ghj",name = "kevin"}
}
list={name = "TheEisbaer", name = "Eisbaer68"}
With print(list.name) it prints "Eisbaer68".
How do I get it to print "TheEisbaer"?
-
Can you do something like print(players[3].uuid) or how would one do that?
If I understand (and believe me, it's not easy) what you're trying to do:
First of all:
list={name = "TheEisbaer", name = "Eisbaer68"}
is equivalent to
list={name = "Eisbaer68"}
or, more clearly, perhaps:
list={}
list.name = "TheEisbaer"
list.name = "Eisbaer68"
As you use the same key twice in the same table, the most recent key value overwrites the previous one.
It seems you want to achieve the equivalent of a 'join' in databases. If you want to display (or, in general, filter) those 'records' from players that have their 'name' appear also in list, maybe something like this:
players =
{
{uuid= 'abc', name = 'TheEisbaer' },
{uuid= 'def', name = 'Eisbaer68' },
{uuid= 'ghj', name = 'kevin' },
}
list = { TheEisbaer=true, Eisbaer68=true }
for _,t in ipairs(players) do
if list[t.name] then --if key exists in list table ...
print(t.name .. ' => ' .. t.uuid)
end
end
Here the list has keys to make it simpler to lookup. You could also do it differently but it would probably require a nested FOR loop to go through all possible combinations between the two tables.
Related
The problem with the ECMA standard for sort of Object.keys() is known:
Object.keys() handle all keys with integer (example: 168), including integer as strings (example: "168"), as a integer. The result is, both are the same (168 === "168"), and overwrite itself.
var object = {};
object["168"] = 'x';
object[168] = 'y';
Object.keys(object); // Array [ "168" ]
object[Object.keys(object)]; // "y"
Interestingly, all keys (including pure integer keys) are returned as a string.
The ecma262 wrote about this: All keys will be handle as a integer, expect the key is a String but is not an array index.
https://tc39.es/ecma262/#sec-ordinaryownpropertykeys
That should tell us: 168 === "168". A toString() do not solve the problem.
var object = {};
object[[3].toString()] = 'z';
object[[1].toString()] = 'x';
object[[2].toString()] = 'y';
Object.keys(object);
// Array(3) [ "1", "2", "3" ]
Paradoxically, in this case, only integer apply as "enumerable" (it's ignoring array.sort(), that sort also strings with letters.).
My question about this is simple: How can i prevent the sort function in Object.keys()? I have testet the Object.defineProperties(object, 1, {value: "a", enumerable: true/false}), but that mean not realy enumerable in the case of integer or string or integer-like string. It means only should it be counted with or not. It means "counted" like omit (if it false), not "enumerabled" like ascending or descending.
A answere like that is not a good answer: Please use only letters [a-zA-Z] or leastwise a letter at the first position of keyword.
What I want: That the keys are not sorted, but output in the order in which they were entered, whether integer, string or symbol.
Disclaimer: Please solutions only in JavaScript.
Javascript Objects are unordered by their nature. If you need an ordered object-like variable I would suggest using a map.
To achieve what you're looking for with a map instead of object you'd do something like the below:
var map1 = new Map();
map1.set("123", "c");
map1.set(123, "b");
var iterator1 = map1.keys();
var myarray = [];
for (var i = 0; i < map1.size; i++) {
myarray.push(iterator1.next().value);
}
console.log(myarray);
// Array ["123", 123]
Unfortunately it's not compatible with IE and I'm not sure how else you could achieve what you need without it. A quick Google did return something about jQuery maps, though.
If you don't want to use jQuery and still need to support IE some points are below:
Is there anything stopping you using an array rather than JS object to store the data you need? This will retain the order per your requirements unlike objects. You could have an object entry in each iteration which represents the key then use a traditional foreach to obtain them as an array. I.e.
The array:
var test_array = [
{key: 123, value: 'a value here'},
{key: "123", value: 'another value here'}
];
// console.log(test_array);
Getting the keys:
var test_array_keys = [];
test_array.forEach(function(obj) { test_array_keys.push(obj['key']); } );
// console.log(test_array_keys);
Then if you needed to check whether the key exists before adding a new entry (to prevent duplicates) you could do:
function key_exists(key, array)
{
return array.indexOf(key) !== -1;
}
if(key_exists('12345', test_array_keys))
{
// won't get here, this is just for example
console.log('Key 12345 exists in array');
}
else if(key_exists('123', test_array_keys))
{
console.log('Key 123 exists in array');
}
Would that work? If not then the only other suggestion would be keeping a separate array alongside the object which tracks the keys and is updated when an entry is added or removed to/from the object.
Object Keys sorted and store in array
First Creating student Object. then sort by key in object,last keys to store in array
const student={tamil:100, english:55, sci:85,soc:57}
const sortobj =Object.fromEntries(Object.entries(student).sort())
console.log(Object.keys(sortobj))
use map instead of an object.
let map = new Map()
map.set("a", 5)
map.set("d", 6)
map.set("b", 12)
to sort the keys (for example, to update a chart data)
let newMap = new Map([...map.entries()].sort())
let keys = Array.from(newMap.keys()) // ['a','b','d']
let values = Array.from(newMap.values()) // [5,12,6]
I am trying to assign multiple values for one variable in a table. One for the string name, and one for an integer. The code would go:
items = {
potion = "Potion", 100
}
I do not know how to formally write this, and how to call for those specific values.
(Do you call it like this?)
io.write(item.potion.1) --> Potion
io.write(item.potion.2) --> 100
(Or something else?)
Please help. :I
You can assign those values to a table indexed by numbers or identifiers:
-- identifiers
items = {
potion = {name = "Potion", value = 100},
}
print(items.potion.name, items.potion.value)
-- numeric indexes
items = {
potion = {"Potion", 100},
}
print(items.potion[1], items.potion[2])
I personally prefer the former approach (as it's more maintainable, even though a bit more verbose), but either one should work.
Lua allows for multiple assignments to multiple variables.
like so:
potion, value = "Potion", 100
but this can not be done inside a table definition.
items = {
potion = "Potion", 100
}
What your code here is doing is setting potion to the value "Potion" and then the , ends the assignment. The next assignment is 100 which will be assigned to a default key, in this case 1.
In side a table you end each assignment with a , so your tables contents are equal to:
items = {
potion = "Potion",
[1] = 100
}
To accomplish the desired behavior you can nest tables:
items = {
potion = {
"Potion",
100
}
}
This example can be accessed like items.potion[1] not like items.potion.1 this is because the . notation can't be used with a key that begins with a number.
Looking to get info from an array inside an array, without having exact info basically.
local cfg_raids = {
[2] =
{
["10:17"] = {
raidName = "Rats - Thais",
Event_Type = "Raid Activated",
Storage = 1234,
alreadyExecuted = false
},
["10:20"] = {
raidName = "Testing this shit",
Event_Type = "Raid Activated",
Storage = 1235,
alreadyExecuted = false
},
},
[3] =
{
["12:00"] = {
raidName = "OrcsThais",
Event_Type = "Raid Activated",
Storage = 1236,
alreadyExecuted = false
},
},
Trying to Grab the time randomly without actually having the exact time stamp.
So like when the script activates the timestamp array ["10:17"] it grabs all the next arrays info ["10:20"] without actually knowing the ["10:20"]
OPEN TIBIA INFORMATION: http://otland.net/threads/looking-for-some-assistance-on-a-script.216303/
With non-integer keys like that you can't really do it. You can try using the next function to get the next key from your current key but you have no guarantees which next key you will get if there are more than two keys in the table (you can not even guarantee that it will be consistently the same next key).
You could use integer indices in that table and make time a field of the table and then simply use the next integer as your next key if that works however.
You could also store the times used as keys, in whatever order you want, in the integer indices in the table (or some other table) and use that without needing to redo the table itself (e.g. cfg_raids = { [2] = { "10:17", "10:20", ["10:17"] = {...}, ["10:20"] = {...} } }).
I need some help with my lua script for a game. I need to check if my inventory in the game contains any id from a list.
Here's a piece of my list:
local Game_Items = {
{id = 7436, name = "angelic axe", value = 5000},
{id = 3567, name = "blue robe", value = 10000},
{id = 3418, name = "bonelord shield", value = 1200},
{id = 3079, name = "boots of haste", value = 30000},
{id = 7412, name = "butcher's axe", value = 18000},
{id = 3381, name = "crown armor", value = 12000}
}
The following code might look a bit weird since you don't know what it's for, but it's basically this: the list above is a list of items in my game, and inside the game theres an inventory where you can keep items and stuff. Now I want to check if my inventory contains any of those IDs.
I tried adding 2 of the id's manually and it worked, but my list of items contains over 500 items in total and I don't want to write them all out. Is there a way to put the whole list and check if it's in there somehow?
if not table.contains({ 3035, 3043, Game_Items[id] }, tempItemCounter.id) then
This is what I tried so far. Those two first id's work 3035 and 3043, then I tried all my whole list and only check the Ids. but I dont know how to do that. That code does not work. Could anyone just help me include the whole list of id's in the table.contains ?
Basically wanna include my whole list in that line, without typing out all IDs manually.
Shouldn't Game_Items[id] work? Doesn't that mean all the "id" inside "Game_Items"?
Thanks!
No it doesn't mean that. If foo is a table, then foo[id] looks for a field in foo that is called whatever id refers to, such as a string (so if id is 1 you will get foo[1], if id is "bar" you will get foo.bar, etc).
You can't do it in one line, but you can create a function that will allow you to write your if condition. I'm not sure what tempItemCounter is but assuming that your inventory is a map of keys to entries of the form
inventory = {
[1234] = {....},
[1235] = {....},
...
}
where each integer key is unique, and assuming you want true only if all items are in inventory, then you could do this:
function isAllInInventory(items, inventory)
for i,item in ipairs(items) do
if inventory[item.id] == nil
return false
end
end
return true
end
if isAllInInventory(Game_Items, inventory) then
...
end
I have been working on a project and Stack Overflow has helped me with a few problems so far, so I am very thankful!
My question is this:
I have an array like this:
var records:Object = {};
var arr:Array = [
records["nh"] = { medinc:66303, statename:"New Hampshire"},
records["ct"] = { medinc:65958, statename:"Connecticut"},
records["nj"] = { medinc:65173, statename:"New Jersey"},
records["md"] = { medinc:64596, statename:"Maryland"},
etc... for all 50 states. And then I have the array sorted reverse numerically (descending) like this:
arr.sortOn("medinc", Array.NUMERIC);
arr.reverse();
Can I call the name of the record (i.e. "nj" for new jersey) and then get the value from the numeric position above and below the record in the array?
Basically, medinc is medium income of US states, and I am trying to show a ranking system... a user would click Texas for example, and it would show the medinc value for Texas, along with the state the ranks one position below and the state that ranks one position above in the array.
Thanks for your help!
If you know the object, you can use the array.indexOf().
var index:int = records.indexOf(records["nj"]);
var above:Object;
var below:Object;
if(index + 1 < records.length){ //make sure your not already at the top
above = records[index+1];
}
if(index > 0){ //make sure your not already at the bottom
below = records[index-1];
}
I think this is the answer based on my understanding of your data.
var index:int = arr.indexOf(records["nh"]);
That will get you the index of the record that was clicked on and then for find the ones below and above just:
var clickedRecord:Object = arr[index]
var higherRecord:Object = arr[index++]
var lowerRecord:Object = arr[index--]
Hope that answers your question
Do you really need records to be hash?
If no, you can simply move key to record field and change records to simple array:
var records: Array = new Array();
records.push({ short: "nh", medinc:66303, statename:"New Hampshire"}),
records.push({ short: "ct", medinc:65958, statename:"Connecticut"}),
....
This gives you opportunity to create class for State, change Array to Vector and make all of this type-safe, what is always good.
If you really need those keys, you can add objects like above (with "short" field) in the same way you are doing it now (maybe using some helper function which will help to avoid typing shortname twice, like addState(records, data) { records[data.short] = data }).
Finally, you can also keep those records in two objects (or an object and an array or whatever you need). This will not be expensive, if you will create state object once and keep references in array/object/vector. It would be nice idea if you need states sorted on different keys often.
This is not really a good way to have your data set up - too much typing (you are repeating "records", "medinc", "statename" over and over again, while you definitely could've avoided it, for example:
var records:Array = [];
var states:Array = ["nh", "ct", "nj" ... ];
var statenames:Array = ["New Hampshire", "Connecticut", "New Jersey" ... ];
var medincs:Array = [66303, 65958, 65173 ... ];
var hash:Object = { };
function addState(state:String, medinc:int, statename:String, hash:Object):Object
{
return hash[state] = { medinc: medinc, statename: statename };
}
for (var i:int; i < 50; i++)
{
records[i] = addState(states[i], medincs[i], statenames[i], hash);
}
While you have done it already the way you did, that's not essential, but this could've saved you some keystrokes, if you haven't...
Now, onto your search problem - first of all, true, it would be worth to sort the array before you search, but if you need to search an array by the value of the parameter it was sorted on, there is a better algorithm for that. That is, if given the data in your example, your specific task was to find out in what state the income is 65958, then, knowing that array is sorted on income you could employ binary search.
Now, for the example with 50 states the difference will not be noticeable, unless you do it some hundreds of thousands times per second, but in general, the binary search would be the way to go.
If the article in Wiki looks too long to read ;) the idea behind the binary search is that at first you guess that the searched value is exactly in the middle of the array - you try that assumption and if you guessed correct, return the index you just found, else - you select the interval containing the searched value (either one half of the array remaining) and do so until you either find the value, or check the same index - which would mean that the value is not found). This reduces asymptotic complexity of the algorithm from O(n) to O(log n).
Now, if your goal was to find the correspondence between the income and the state, but it wasn't important how that scales with other states (i.e. the index in the array is not important), you could have another hash table, where the income would be the key, and the state information object would be the value, using my example above:
function addState(state:String, medinc:int, statename:String,
hash:Object, incomeHash:Object):Object
{
return incomeHash[medinc] =
hash[state] = { medinc: medinc, statename: statename };
}
Then incomeHash[medinc] would give you the state by income in O(1) time.