Related
I am asked to write some code in Ruby that iterates over every n-th element of an array and prints it until all elements of the array are printed.
The question reads:
Imagine an iterator that accesses an array in strides and runs some code at each stride. If the strides reach the end of the array then they simply begin anew from the array's beginning.
For example:
x = [0,1,2,3,4]
x.stride(1) do |elem|; puts elem; end # prints 0,1,2,3,4
x.stride(2) do |elem|; puts elem; end # prints 0,2,4,1,3
x.stride(8) do |elem|; puts elem; end # prints 0,3,1,4,2
[].stride(2) do |elem|; puts elem; end # does not print anything, but the code is correct
Assume that the stride is equal or greater than 1, and that both the stride and the array's size are not a integral/whole multiple of each other, meaning that the whole array can be printed using a given stride. Fill in the code that's missing:
class Array
def stride(step)
numelems = ... # size of the array
...
end
end
It is obvious that numelemns = self.length(). However am having trouble with the rest.
I am going to try writing some code in Python that accomplishes this task, but I am afraid that I will not be able to translate it to Ruby.
Any ideas? The answer should not be more than 4-5 lines long as the question is one that our proffessor gave us to solve in a couple of minutes.
A solution to this is provided below (thanks #user3574603):
class Array
def stride(step)
yield self[0]
(self * step).map.with_index do |element, index|
next element if index == 0
yield element if index % step == 0
end
end
end
The following assumes that arr.size and n are not both even numbers and arr.size is not a multiple of n.
def striding(arr, n)
sz = arr.size
result = '_' * sz
idx = 0
sz.times do
result[idx] = arr[idx].to_s
puts "S".rjust(idx+1)
puts result
idx = (idx + n) % sz
end
end
striding [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,1,2,3,4,5,6], 7
S
1______________
S
1______8_______
S
1______8______6
S
1_____78______6
S
1_____78_____56
S
1____678_____56
S
1____678____456
S
1___5678____456
S
1___5678___3456
S
1__45678___3456
S
1__45678__23456
S
1_345678__23456
S
1_345678_123456
S
12345678_123456
S
123456789123456
Here is an example where arr.size is a multiple of n.
striding [1,2,3,4,5,6], 3
S
1_____
S
1__4__
S
1__4__
S
1__4__
S
1__4__
S
1__4__
Here is an example where arr.size and n are both even numbers.
striding [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8], 6
S
1_______
S
1_____7_
S
1___5_7_
S
1_3_5_7_
S
1_3_5_7_
S
1_3_5_7_
S
1_3_5_7_
S
1_3_5_7_
Imagine an iterator that accesses an array in strides and runs some code at each stride. If the strides reach the end of the array then they simply begin anew from the array's beginning.
Based on this specification, stride will always iterate forever, unless the array is empty. But that is not a problem, since we can easily take only the amount of elements we need.
In fact, that is a good design: producing an infinite stream of values lets the consumer decide how many they need.
A simple solution could look like this:
module CoreExtensions
module EnumerableExtensions
module EnumerableWithStride
def stride(step = 1)
return enum_for(__callee__, step) unless block_given?
enum = cycle
loop do
yield(enum.next)
(step - 1).times { enum.next }
end
self
end
end
end
end
Enumerable.include(CoreExtensions::EnumerableExtensions::EnumerableWithStride)
A couple of things to note here:
I chose to add the stride method to Enumerable instead of Array. Enumerable is Ruby's work horse for iteration and there is nothing in the stride method that requires self to be an Array. Enumerable is simply the better place for it.
Instead of directly monkey-patching Enumerable, I put the method in a separate module. That makes it easier to debug code for others. If they see a stride method they don't recognize, and inspect the inheritance chain of the object, they will immediately see a module named EnumerableWithStride in the inheritance chain and can make the reasonable assumption that the method is probably coming from here:
[].stride
# Huh, what is this `stride` method? I have never seen it before.
# And it is not documented on https://ruby-doc.org/
# Let's investigate:
[].class.ancestors
#=> [
# Array,
# Enumerable,
# CoreExtensions::EnumerableExtensions::EnumerableWithStride,
# Object,
# Kernel,
# BasicObject
# ]
# So, we're confused about a method named `stride` and we
# found a module whose name includes `Stride`.
# We can reasonably guess that somewhere in the system,
# there must be a file named
# `core_extensions/enumerable_extensions/enumerable_with_stride.rb`.
# Or, we could ask the method directly:
meth = [].method(:stride)
meth.owner
#=> CoreExtensions::EnumerableExtensions::EnumerableWithStride
meth.source_location
#=> [
# 'core_extensions/enumerable_extensions/enumerable_with_stride.rb',
# 6
# ]
For an empty array, nothing happens:
[].stride(2, &method(:p))
#=> []
stride just returns self (just like each does) and the block is never executed.
For a non-empty array, we get an infinite stream of values:
x.stride(&method(:p))
# 0
# 1
# 2
# 3
# 4
# 0
# 1
# …
x.stride(2, &method(:p))
# 0
# 2
# 4
# 1
# 3
# 0
# 2
# …
x.stride(8, &method(:p))
# 0
# 3
# 1
# 4
# 2
# 0
# 3
# …
The nice thing about this infinite stream of values is that we, as the consumer can freely choose how many elements we want. For example, if I want 10 elements, I simply take 10 elements:
x.stride(3).take(10)
#=> [0, 3, 1, 4, 2, 0, 3, 1, 4, 2]
This works because, like all well-behaved iterators, our stride method returns an Enumerator in case no block is supplied:
enum = x.stride(2)
#=> #<Enumerator: ...>
enum.next
#=> 0
enum.next
#=> 2
enum.next
#=> 4
enum.next
#=> 1
enum.next
#=> 3
enum.next
#=> 0
enum.next
#=> 2
So, if we want to implement the requirement "until all the elements of the array are printed":
I am asked to write some code in Ruby that iterates over every n-th element of an array and prints it until all elements of the array are printed.
We could implement that something like this:
x.stride.take(x.length).each(&method(:p))
x.stride(2).take(x.length).each(&method(:p))
x.stride(8).take(x.length).each(&method(:p))
This is a pretty simplistic implementation, though. Here, we simply print as many elements as there are elements in the original array.
We could implement a more sophisticated logic using Enumerable#take_while that keeps track of which elements have been printed and which haven't, and only stops if all elements are printed. But we can easily prove that after x.length iterations either all elements have been printed or there will never be all elements printed (if the stride size is an integral multiple of the array length or vice versa). So, this should be fine.
This almost does what I think you want but breaks if the step is array.length + 1 array.length (but you mention that we should assume the stride is not a multiply of the array length).
class Array
def exhaustive_stride(step)
(self * step).map.with_index do |element, index|
next element if index == 0
element if index % step == 0
end.compact
end
end
x.exhaustive_stride 1
#=> [0, 1, 2, 3, 4]
x.exhaustive_stride 2
#=> [0, 2, 4, 1, 3]
x.exhaustive_stride 8
#=> [0, 3, 1, 4, 2]
[].exhaustive_stride 2
#=> []
Using the example array, it breaks when the stride is 5.
[0,1,2,3,4].exhaustive_stride 5
#=> [0, 0, 0, 0, 0]
Note
This works but the intermediate array makes it highly inefficient. Consider other answers.
Here's another solution that uses recursion. Not the most efficient but one way of doing it.
class Array
def exhaustive_stride(x, r = [])
return [] if self.empty?
r << self[0] if r.empty?
while x > self.length
x -= self.length
end
r << self[x]
x += x
return r if r.count == self.count
stride(x, r)
end
end
[0,1,2,3,4].exhaustive_stride 1
#=> [0, 1, 2, 4, 3]
[0,1,2,3,4].exhaustive_stride 2
#=> [0, 2, 4, 3, 1]
[0,1,2,3,4].exhaustive_stride 8
#=> [0, 3, 1, 2, 4]
[].exhaustive_stride 2
#=> []
[0,1,2,3,4].exhaustive_stride 100_000_001
#=> [0, 1, 2, 4, 3]
This would work:
def stride(ary, step)
raise ArgumentError unless step.gcd(ary.size) == 1
Array.new(ary.size) { |i| ary[(i * step) % ary.size] }
end
Example:
x = [0, 1, 2, 3, 4]
stride(x, 1) #=> [0, 1, 2, 3, 4]
stride(x, 2) #=> [0, 2, 4, 1, 3]
stride(x, 8) #=> [0, 3, 1, 4, 2]
stride(x, -1) #=> [0, 4, 3, 2, 1]
First of all, the guard clause checks whether step and ary.size are coprime to ensure that all elements can be visited via step.
Array.new(ary.size) creates a new array of the same size as the original array. The elements are then retrieved from the original array by multiplying the element's index by step and then performing a modulo operation using the array's size.
Having % arr.size is equivalent to fetching the elements from a cyclic array, e.g. for a step value of 2:
0 1 2 3 4
| | | | |
[0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, ...
To turn this into an instance method for Array you merely replace ary with self (which can be omitted most of the time):
class Array
def stride(step)
raise ArgumentError unless step.gcd(size) == 1
Array.new(size) { |i| self[(i * step) % size] }
end
end
I'm working on a lab Using a generalized map method to pass an element and block through returning multiple outcomes.
Really struggled on this one. Found some responses but they don't really make sense to me.
Here is the code:
def map(s)
new = []
i = 0
while i < s.length
new.push(yield(s[i]))
i += 1
end
new
end
Here's is the test:
it "returns an array with all values made negative" do
expect(map([1, 2, 3, -9]){|n| n * -1}).to eq([-1, -2, -3, 9])
end
it "returns an array with the original values" do
dune = ["paul", "gurney", "vladimir", "jessica", "chani"]
expect(map(dune){|n| n}).to eq(dune)
end
it "returns an array with the original values multiplied by 2" do
expect(map([1, 2, 3, -9]){|n| n * 2}).to eq([2, 4, 6, -18])
end
it "returns an array with the original values squared" do
expect(map([1, 2, 3, -9]){|n| n * n}).to eq([1, 4, 9, 81])
end
end
I don't get how the above code can give you these 4 different results.
Could someone help me understand it ?
Thank you for your help!
How your method map works
To see how your method operates let's modify your code to add some intermediate variables and some puts statements to show the values of those variables.
def map(s)
new = []
i = 0
n = s.length
puts "s has length #{n}"
while i < n
puts "i = #{i}"
e = s[i]
puts " Yield #{e} to the block"
rv = yield(e)
puts " The block's return value is #{rv}. Push #{rv} onto new"
new.push(rv)
puts " new now equals #{new}"
i += 1
end
puts "We now return the value of new"
new
end
Now let's execute the method with one of the blocks of interest.
s = [1, 2, 3, -9]
map(s) { |n| n * 2 }
#=> [2, 4, 6, -18] (return value of method)
The following is displayed.
s has length 4
i = 0
Yield 1 to the block
The block's return value is 2. Push 2 onto new
new now equals [2]
i = 1
Yield 2 to the block
The block's return value is 4. Push 4 onto new
new now equals [2, 4]
i = 2
Yield 3 to the block
The block's return value is 6. Push 6 onto new
new now equals [2, 4, 6]
i = 3
Yield -9 to the block
The block's return value is -18. Push -18 onto new
new now equals [2, 4, 6, -18]
We now return the value of new
It may by of interest to execute this modified method with different values of s and different blocks.
A replacement for Array#map?
Is this a replacement for Array#map (or Enumerable#map, but for now let's just consider Array#map)? As you defined it at the top level your map is an instance method of the class Object:
Object.instance_methods.include?(:map) #=> true
It must be invoked map([1,2,3]) { |n| ... } whereas Array#map is invoked [1,2,3].map { |n| ... }. Therefore, for your method map to be a replacement for Array#map you need to define it as follows.
class Array
def map
new = []
i = 0
while i < length
new.push(yield(self[i]))
i += 1
end
new
end
end
[1, 2, 3, -9].map { |n| n * 2 }
#=> [2, 4, 6, -18]
Simplify
We can simplify this method as follows.
class Array
def map
new = []
each { |e| new << yield(e) }
new
end
end
[1, 2, 3, -9].map { |n| n * 2 }
#=> [2, 4, 6, -18]
or, better:
class Array
def map
each_with_object([]) { |e,new| new << yield(e) }
end
end
See Enumerable#each_with_object.
Note that while i < length is equivalent to while i < self.length, because self., if omitted, is implicit, and therefore redundant. Similarly, each { |e| new << yield(e) } is equivalent to self.each { |e| new << yield(e) } and each_with_object([]) { ... } is equivalent to self.each_with_object([]) { ... }.
Are we finished?
If we examine the doc Array#map carefully we see that there are two forms of the method. The first is when map takes a block. Our method Array#map mimics that behaviour and that is the only behaviour needed to satisfy the given rspec tests.
There is a second form, however, where map is not given a block, in which case it returns an enumerator. That allows us to chain the method to another. For example (with Ruby's Array#map),
['cat', 'dog', 'pig'].map.with_index do |animal, i|
i.even? ? animal.upcase : animal
end
#=> ["CAT", "dog", "PIG"]
We could modify our Array#map to incorporate this second behaviour as follows.
class Array
def map
if block_given?
each_with_object([]) { |e,new| new << yield(e) }
else
to_enum(:map)
end
end
end
[1, 2, 3, -9].map { |n| n * 2 }
#=> [2, 4, 6, -18]
['cat', 'dog', 'pig'].map.with_index do |animal, i|
i.even? ? animal.upcase : animal
end
#=> ["CAT", "dog", "PIG"]
See Kernel#block_given? and Object#to_enum.
Notes
You might use, say, arr, rather than s as the variable holding the array, as s often denotes a string, just as h typically denotes a hash. One generally avoids names for variables and custom methods that are the names of core Ruby methods. That is also an objection to your use of new as a variable name, as there are many core methods named new.
I want to be able to find the index of all occurrences of a substring in a larger string using Ruby. E.g.: all "in" in "Einstein"
str = "Einstein"
str.index("in") #returns only 1
str.scan("in") #returns ["in","in"]
#desired output would be [1, 6]
The standard hack is:
indices = "Einstein".enum_for(:scan, /(?=in)/).map do
Regexp.last_match.offset(0).first
end
#=> [1, 6]
def indices_of_matches(str, target)
sz = target.size
(0..str.size-sz).select { |i| str[i,sz] == target }
end
indices_of_matches('Einstein', 'in')
#=> [1, 6]
indices_of_matches('nnnn', 'nn')
#=> [0, 1, 2]
The second example reflects an assumption I made about the treatment of overlapping strings. If overlapping strings are not to be considered (i.e., [0, 2] is the desired return value in the second example), this answer is obviously inappropriate.
This is a more verbose solution which brings the advantage of not relying on a global value:
def indices(string, regex)
position = 0
Enumerator.new do |yielder|
while match = regex.match(string, position)
yielder << match.begin(0)
position = match.end(0)
end
end
end
p indices("Einstein", /in/).to_a
# [1, 6]
It outputs an Enumerator, so you could also use it lazily or just take the n first indices.
Also, if you might need more information than just the indices, you could return an Enumerator of MatchData and extract the indices:
def matches(string, regex)
position = 0
Enumerator.new do |yielder|
while match = regex.match(string, position)
yielder << match
position = match.end(0)
end
end
end
p matches("Einstein", /in/).map{ |match| match.begin(0) }
# [1, 6]
To get the behaviour described by #Cary, you could replace the last line in block by position = match.begin(0) + 1.
#Recursive Function
def indexes string, sub_string, start=0
index = string[start..-1].index(sub_string)
return [] unless index
[index+start] + indexes(string,sub_string,index+start+1)
end
#For better Usage I would open String class
class String
def indexes sub_string,start=0
index = self[start..-1].index(sub_string)
return [] unless index
[index+start] + indexes(sub_string,index+start+1)
end
end
This way we can call in this way: "Einstein".indexes("in") #=> [1, 6]
I try to clean my Code. The first Version uses each_with_index. In the second version I tried to compact the code with the Enumerable.inject_with_index-construct, that I found here.
It works now, but seems to me as obscure as the first code.
Add even worse I don't understand the brackets around element,index in
.. .inject(groups) do |group_container, (element,index)|
but they are necessary
What is the use of these brackets?
How can I make the code clear and readable?
FIRST VERSION -- WITH "each_with_index"
class Array
# splits as good as possible to groups of same size
# elements are sorted. I.e. low elements go to the first group,
# and high elements to the last group
#
# the default for number_of_groups is 4
# because the intended use case is
# splitting statistic data in 4 quartiles
#
# a = [1, 8, 7, 5, 4, 2, 3, 8]
# a.sorted_in_groups(3) # => [[1, 2, 3], [4, 5, 7], [8, 8]]
#
# b = [[7, 8, 9], [4, 5, 7], [2, 8]]
# b.sorted_in_groups(2) {|sub_ary| sub_ary.sum } # => [ [[2, 8], [4, 5, 7]], [[7, 8, 9]] ]
def sorted_in_groups(number_of_groups = 4)
groups = Array.new(number_of_groups) { Array.new }
return groups if size == 0
average_group_size = size.to_f / number_of_groups.to_f
sorted = block_given? ? self.sort_by {|element| yield(element)} : self.sort
sorted.each_with_index do |element, index|
group_number = (index.to_f / average_group_size).floor
groups[group_number] << element
end
groups
end
end
SECOND VERSION -- WITH "inject" AND index
class Array
def sorted_in_groups(number_of_groups = 4)
groups = Array.new(number_of_groups) { Array.new }
return groups if size == 0
average_group_size = size.to_f / number_of_groups.to_f
sorted = block_given? ? self.sort_by {|element| yield(element)} : self.sort
sorted.each_with_index.inject(groups) do |group_container, (element,index)|
group_number = (index.to_f / average_group_size).floor
group_container[group_number] << element
group_container
end
end
end
What is the use of these brackets?
It's a very nice feature of ruby. I call it "destructuring array assignment", but it probably has an official name too.
Here's how it works. Let's say you have an array
arr = [1, 2, 3]
Then you assign this array to a list of names, like this:
a, b, c = arr
a # => 1
b # => 2
c # => 3
You see, the array was "destructured" into its individual elements. Now, to the each_with_index. As you know, it's like a regular each, but also returns an index. inject doesn't care about all this, it takes input elements and passes them to its block as is. If input element is an array (elem/index pair from each_with_index), then we can either take it apart in the block body
sorted.each_with_index.inject(groups) do |group_container, pair|
element, index = pair
# or
# element = pair[0]
# index = pair[1]
# rest of your code
end
Or destructure that array right in the block signature. Parentheses there are necessary to give ruby a hint that this is a single parameter that needs to be split in several.
Hope this helps.
lines = %w(a b c)
indexes = lines.each_with_index.inject([]) do |acc, (el, ind)|
acc << ind - 1 if el == "b"
acc
end
indexes # => [0]
What is the use of these brackets?
To understand the brackets, first you need to understand how destruction works in ruby. The simplest example I can think of this this:
1.8.7 :001 > [[1,3],[2,4]].each do |a,b|
1.8.7 :002 > puts a, b
1.8.7 :003?> end
1
3
2
4
You should know how each function works, and that the block receives one parameter. So what happens when you pass two parameters? It takes the first element [1,3] and try to split (destruct) it in two, and the result is a=1 and b=3.
Now, inject takes two arguments in the block parameter, so it is usually looks like |a,b|. So passing a parameter like |group_container, (element,index)| we are in fact taking the first one as any other, and destructing the second in two others (so, if the second parameter is [1,3], element=1 and index=3). The parenthesis are needed because if we used |group_container, element, index| we would never know if we are destructing the first or the second parameter, so the parenthesis there works as disambiguation.
9In fact, things works a bit different in the bottom end, but lets hide this for this given question.)
Seems like there already some answers given with good explanation. I want to add some information regards the clear and readable.
Instead of the solution you chose, it is also a possibility to extend Enumerable and add this functionality.
module Enumerable
# The block parameter is not needed but creates more readable code.
def inject_with_index(memo = self.first, &block)
skip = memo.equal?(self.first)
index = 0
self.each_entry do |entry|
if skip
skip = false
else
memo = yield(memo, index, entry)
end
index += 1
end
memo
end
end
This way you can call inject_with_index like so:
# m = memo, i = index, e = entry
(1..3).inject_with_index(0) do |m, i, e|
puts "m: #{m}, i: #{i}, e: #{e}"
m + i + e
end
#=> 9
If you not pass an initial value the first element will be used, thus not executing the block for the first element.
In case, someone is here from 2013+ year, you have each_with_object and with_index for your needs:
records.each_with_object({}).with_index do |(record, memo), index|
memo[record.uid] = "#{index} in collection}"
end
Given
a = nil # or [1,2]
b = [1,2] # or nil
Can you iterate through the concatenation of a and b without allocating an intermediate or creating massive amount of boiler plate code?
# meaning do this much more efficiently
((a || []) + (b || [])).each do |thing|
# more lines here
puts thing
end
This is kind of ugly:
l = lambda{|thing| do_my_thing }
a.each{|thing| l.call(thing)} if a
b.each{|thing| l.call(thing)} if b
Well, if you're willing to create a container (which should be cheap even if the elements contained are large), you could:
[a,b].compact.each do |e|
e.each do
# stuff
end
end
You do have to create a container array, but since you don't have to copy the contents of the sub-arrays (and instead are just dealing with two array pointers), it should be very quick and not terrible on the GC.
An alternate solution might just be to create a method:
def multi_each(*args,&block)
args.each do |a|
a.each(&block) if a
end
end
multi_each(nil,[1],[2,3]) do |i|
puts i
end
# 1
# 2
# 3
If you are using 1.9, I would use the ability for multiple splats:
a = nil
b = [1, 2]
[*a, *b]
#=> [1, 2]
a = [3, 4]
b = nil
[*a, *b]
#=> [3, 4]
So [*a, *b].each {} seems exactly like what you want.
What you have can be made far more concise and considerably less ugly by passing the lambda as the block itself:
l = lambda { |thing| do_my_thing }
a.each(&l) if a
b.each(&l) if b