suppose you have an array with a number of strings in ActionScript3 and you want to test if a test string is "in" that array. "in" only works against the index with Arrays in AS3 (which is totally retardo if you ask me), though it does work with ojects, but we're not talking about objects.
Can someone improve (reduce) on this code I'm using now? I'm hoping to avoid defining a utility function - I'd like a nice elegant one-liner.
myArray.filter(function(item:*, i:int, a:Array) { return (item == testString); }).length
Since 0 == false we can use it in a test. Do note that testString's scope is defined in the containing function, encapsulated by the closure.
if (allowedProfiles.filter(function(item:*, i:int, a:Array) { return (item == name); }).length){ // yay! }
Use the Array.indexOf() method to see that the index of the string in the array is not -1 (not found):
var myArray:Array = ["hello", "world"];
trace(myArray.indexOf("hello")); // == 0;
trace(myArray.indexOf("goodbye")); // == -1
Why not just use indexOf()?
if(myArray.indexOf("testString") != -1) { // it's in there
Related
I was wondering if there's any method within Arrays that checks for equality ignoring order. By far, I did find this one:
test("test ignoring order"){
assert(Array(1,2,4,5).sameElements(Array(1,4,2,5)))
}
But it fails as the order is not the same:
org.scalatest.exceptions.TestFailedException: scala.Predef.intArrayOps(scala.Array.apply(1, 2, 4, 5)).sameElements[Int](scala.Predef.wrapIntArray(scala.Array.apply(1, 4, 2, 5))) was false
Is there any method to do this, inside or outside Arrays?
EDIT: I don't need to sort the arrays, I just want to compare them ignoring order.
A simple recursion will do it.
def isSame[T](arrA:Array[T], arrB:Array[T]) :Boolean =
arrA.length == arrB.length &&
(arrA.isEmpty || isSame(arrA.filterNot(_ == arrA.head)
,arrB.filterNot(_ == arrA.head)))
But #Tim's question is valid: What's your objection to the obvious and simple sorted solution?
Following will sort both the arrays and then equates them :
test("test ignoring order"){
assert(Array(1,2,4,5).sorted sameElements Array(1,4,2,5).sorted)
}
NOTEs:
You can use == instead of sameElements if you are working with some other collections apart from Array.
array1.toSet == array2.toSet won't work if one of the array has duplicates while other doesn't.
Is this working as expected ??
import scala.annotation.tailrec
def equalsIgnoringOrder(first:Array[Int], second:Array[Int]) : Boolean = {
def removeAtIndex(i:Int, array: Array[Int]) : Array[Int] = {
val buffer = array.toBuffer
buffer.remove(i)
buffer.toArray
}
#tailrec
def firstEqualSecondRec(i:Int, other:Array[Int]) : Boolean = {
if(other.isEmpty) true
else {
val el = first(i)
val index = other.indexOf(el)
if(index == -1) false
else firstEqualSecondRec(i+1, removeAtIndex(index, other))
}
}
if (first.length != second.length) false
else {
val startingIndex = 0
firstEqualSecondRec(startingIndex, second)
}
}
It's an older thread, but I just had the same question.
The proposed answers include sorting (which only works for comparable objects) or approaches with O(n^2) runtime behavior (and/or non-trivial recursion).
Another (simple yet understandable and powerful) approach would be to use Scala's diff function:
def hasSameElementsUnordered[T](arrA: Array[T], arrB: Array[T]): Boolean = {
(arrA.length == arrB.length) && (arrA diff arrB).isEmpty
}
BTW this works on any collection and element types, not only arrays and comparables.
Internally diff() builds an occurrence count hash map, so runtime behavior will be much better for larger collections.
I'm collecting rows of answers from a database which are made in to arrays. Something like:
for (var i:int = 0; i < event.result.length; i++) {
var data = event.result[i];
var answer:Array = new Array(data["question_id"], data["focus_id"], data["attempts"], data["category"], data["answer"], data["correct"], data["score"]);
trace("answer: " + answer);
restoreAnswer(answer, i);
}
Now, if I trace answer, I typically get something like:
answer: 5,0,2,IK,1.a,3.1,0
answer: 5,0,1,IK,2.a,3.1,0
answer: 4,1,1,AK,3,3,2
From this we see that focus_id 0 (second array item) in question_id 5 (first array item) has been attempted twice (third array item), and I only want to use the last attempt in my restoreAnswer function.
My problem is that first attempt answers override the second attempts since the first are parsed last it seems. How do I go about only calling my restoreAnswer only when appropriate?
The options are:
1 attempts, correct score (2 points)
2 attempts, correct score (1 points)
1 attempt, wrong score (0 points)
2 attemps, wrong score (0 points)
There can be multiple focus_id in each question_id.
Thank you very much! :)
I would consider having the DB query return only the most recent attempt, or if that doesn't work efficiently, return the data in attempt order. You may score question 5 twice, but at least it'll score correctly on the last pass.
You can also filter or sort the data you get back from the server.
Michael Brewer-Davis suggested using the database query to resolve this; normally speaking, this would be the right solution.
If you wait until you get it back from the web method call or whatever in AS3, then consider creating an additional Vector variable:
var vAttempts:Vector.<Vector.<int>> = new Vector.<Vector.<int>>(this.m_iNumQuestions);
You mentioned that it seems that everything is sorted so that earlier attempts come last. First you want to make sure that's true. If so, then before you do any call to restoreAnswer(), you'll want to check vAttempts to make sure that you have not already called restoreAnswer() for that question_id and focus_id:
if (!vAttempts[data["question_id"]])
{
vAttempts[data["question_id"]] = new Vector.<int>(); // ensuring a second dimension
}
if (vAttempts[data["question_id"]].indexOf(data["focus_id"]) == -1)
{
restoreAnswer(answer, i);
vAttempts[data["question_id"]].push(data["focus_id"]);
}
So optimizing this just a little bit, what you'll have is as follows:
private final function resultHandler(event:ResultEvent):void {
var vAttempts:Vector.<Vector.<int>> = new Vector.<Vector.<int>>(this.m_iNumQuestions);
var result:Object = event.result;
var iLength:int = result.length;
for (var i:int = 0; i < iLength; i++) {
var data = result[i];
var iQuestionID:int = data["question_id"];
var iFocusID:int = data["focus_id"];
var answer:Array = [iQuestionID, iFocusID, data["attempts"],
data["category"], data["answer"], data["correct"], data["score"]];
trace("answer: " + answer);
var vFocusIDs:Vector.<int> = vAttempts[iQuestionID];
if (!vFocusIDs) {
vAttempts[iQuestionID] = new <int>[iFocusID];
restoreAnswer(answer, i);
} else if (vFocusIDs.indexOf(iFocusID) == -1) {
restoreAnswer(answer, i);
vFocusIDs.push(iFocusID);
}
}
}
Note: In AS3, Arrays can skip over certain indexes, but Vectors can't. So if your program doesn't already have some sort of foreknowledge as to the number of questions, you'll need to change vAttempts from a Vector to an Array. Also account for whether question IDs are 0-indexed (as this question assumes) or 1-indexed.
I have the following code:
public fun findSomeLikeThis(): ArrayList<T>? {
val result = Db4o.objectContainer()!!.queryByExample<T>(this as T) as Collection<T>
if (result == null) return null
return ArrayList(result)
}
If I call this like:
var list : ArrayList<Person>? = p1.findSomeLikeThis()
for (p2 in list) {
p2.delete()
p2.commit()
}
It would give me the error:
For-loop range must have an 'iterator()' method
Am I missing something here?
Your ArrayList is of nullable type. So, you have to resolve this. There are several options:
for (p2 in list.orEmpty()) { ... }
or
list?.let {
for (p2 in it) {
}
}
or you can just return an empty list
public fun findSomeLikeThis(): List<T> //Do you need mutable ArrayList here?
= (Db4o.objectContainer()!!.queryByExample<T>(this as T) as Collection<T>)?.toList().orEmpty()
try
for(p2 in 0 until list.count()) {
...
...
}
I also face this problem when I loop on some thing it is not an array.
Example
fun maximum(prices: Array<Int>){
val sortedPrices = prices.sort()
for(price in sortedPrices){ // it will display for-loop range must have iterator here (because `prices.sort` don't return Unit not Array)
}
}
This is different case to this question but hope it help
This can also happen in Android when you read from shared preferences and are getting a (potentially) nullable iterable object back like StringSet. Even when you provide a default, the compiler is not able to determine that the returned value will never actually be null. The only way I've found around this is by asserting that the returned expression is not null using !! operator, like this:
val prefs = PreferenceManager.getDefaultSharedPreferences(appContext)
val searches = prefs.getStringSet("saved_searches", setOf())!!
for (search in searches){
...
}
I'm trying to search a substring in an array of Strings. I'm using the following code (in Unity3):
var obstacles = ["Border", "Boundary", "BoundaryFlame"];
var frontAvailable = true;
var leftAvailable = true;
var rightAvailable = true;
var hitFront: RaycastHit;
if (Physics.Raycast(transform.position, transform.position + transform.forward, hitFront, 1.5)) {
Debug.Log("I hit this in front: ");
Debug.Log(hitFront.collider.gameObject.name);
for (var i = 0; i < obstacles.length; i++)
{
if (obstacles[i].IndexOf(hitFront.collider.gameObject.name) > -1)
{
Debug.Log("Hit in front!");
frontAvailable = false;
}
}
}
The problem is, the Debug.Log shows Boundary(Clone). I've included Boundary in the array obstacles. Shouldn't below code set frontAvailable to false? Or did I make a mistake here?
In addition to Kolink's answer, your if is looking for Boundary(clone) at the beginning of Boundary, rather than the other way around. I think you're looking for:
if (hitFront.collider.gameObject.name.IndexOf(obstacles[i]) >= 0)
I think you need indexOf, not IndexOf. Assuming you're talking about the native string function.
In addition, indexOf returns -1 if there is no match, 0 if the match is at the start, 1, 2, 3... for further positions. So you need > -1 instead of > 0
Here's what I'm currently doing/trying to do to accomplish my goal. But it is not removing the "row" the way I would like it too.
So, I'm making an object, then pushing it into an array. And the adding to the array part works fine and just as I expect.
var nearProfileInfoObj:Object = new Object();
nearProfileInfoObj.type = "userInfo";
nearProfileInfoObj.dowhat = "add";
nearProfileInfoObj.userid = netConnection.nearID;
nearProfileInfoObj.username = username_input_txt.text;
nearProfileInfoObj.sex = sex_input_txt.selectedItem.toString();
nearProfileInfoObj.age = age_input_txt.selectedItem;
nearProfileInfoObj.location = location_input_txt.text;
nearProfileInfoObj.headline = headline_input_txt.text;
theArray.push(nearProfileInfoObj);
So after that later on I need to be able to remove that object from the array, and it's not working the way I'm expecting. I want to take a variable whoLeft and capture their ID and then look in the array for that particular ID in the userid part of the object and if its there DELETE that whole "row".
I know you can do a filter with an array collection but that doesnt actually delete it. I need to delete it because I may be adding the same value again later on.
whoLeft = theiruserIDVariable;
theArray.filter(userLeaving);
public function userLeaving(element:*, index:int, arr:Array):Boolean
{
if (element.userid == whoLeft)
{
return false;
}
else
{
return true;
}
}
But this doesnt seem to be deleting the whole row like it implies. Does anyone know what i'm doing wrong?
Instead of modifying the original array, the new filtered array is returned by the filter method. So you need to assign the returned array to theArray.
Try this
theArray = theArray.filter(userLeaving);
EDIT This turned out to be slower than for loop:
An alternative to the hand coded loop could be something like this:
theArray.every(searchAndDestroy);
public function searchAndDestroy(element:*, index:int, arr:Array):Boolean
{
if (element.userid == whoLeft)
{
arr.splice(index,1);
return false;
}
return true;
}
As far as I know, every() terminates the first time the test function returns false. So the question is: for a big list, which is faster, the for loop or the loop that every() does with the overhead of the test function call.
EDIT #2 But this was faster than a for loop for a test I ran on an array of a million Points:
for each(var element:Object in theArray)
{
if (element.userid==whoLeft)
{
theArray.splice(theArray.indexOf(element),1);
break;
}
}
I think this is what you're looking for:
for(var i:uint = 0, len:uint = theArray.length; i<len; i++)
{
if(thisArray[i].id == whoLeft.id)
{
thisArray.splice(i, 1);
break;
}
}
However, do you really need it in an Array because you could always use a Dictionary which would mean accessing it by id which would be a lot simpler to remove.