Related
I have built a version of mastermind that checks a user's input and provides feedback based on how close the user's guess was to the winning sequence. If you're not familiar with the game, you get feedback indicating how many of your characters were guessed correctly at the same index and how many characters guessed are in the sequence, but at the wrong index. If there are duplicates in the guess, then you would not count the extra values unless they correspond to the same number of duplicates in the secret code.
Example: If the sequence is ["G","G","G","Y"] and the user guesses ["G", "Y","G","G"] then you'd want to return 2 for items at the same index and 2 for items at different indexes that are included in the secret sequence.
Another example: If the sequence is ["X","R","Y","T"] and the user guesses ["T","T","Y","Y"] then you'd return 1 for items at the same index 1 for the character guessed that is in the sequence but at the wrong index.
Anyway, to me this is not a simple problem to solve. Here's the code I used to get it to work, but it's not elegant. There must be a better way. I was hoping someone can tell me what I'm missing here?? New to Ruby...
def index_checker(input_array, sequence_array)
count = 0
leftover_input = []
leftover_sequence = []
input.each_with_index do |char, idx|
if char == sequence[idx]
count += 1
else
leftover_input << char
leftover_sequence << sequence[idx]
end
end
diff_index_checker(leftover_input, leftover_sequence, count)
end
def diff_index_checker(input, sequence, count)
count2 = 0
already_counted = []
input.each do |char|
if sequence.include?(char) && !already_counted.include?(char)
count2 += 1
already_counted << char
end
end
[count, count2]
end
Here's a clean Ruby solution, written in idiomatic Ruby object-oriented style:
class Mastermind
def initialize(input_array, sequence_array)
#input_array = input_array
#sequence_array = sequence_array
end
def matches
[index_matches, other_matches]
end
def results
[index_matches.size, other_matches.size]
end
private
attr_reader :input_array, :sequence_array
def index_matches
input_array.select.with_index { |e, i| e == sequence_array[i] }
end
def other_matches
non_exact_input & non_exact_sequence
end
def non_exact_input
array_difference(input_array, index_matches)
end
def non_exact_sequence
array_difference(sequence_array, index_matches)
end
# This method is based on https://stackoverflow.com/a/3852809/5961578
def array_difference(array_1, array_2)
counts = array_2.inject(Hash.new(0)) { |h, v| h[v] += 1; h }
array_1.reject { |e| counts[e] -= 1 unless counts[e].zero? }
end
end
You would use this class as follows:
>> input_array = ["G","G","G","Y"]
>> sequence_array = ["G", "Y","G","G"]
>> guess = Mastermind.new(input_array, sequence_array)
>> guess.results
#> [2, 2]
>> guess.matches
#> [["G", "G"], ["G", "Y"]]
Here's how it works. First everything goes into a class called Mastermind. We create a constructor for the class (which in Ruby is a method called initialize) and we have it accept two arguments: input array (the user guess), and sequence array (the answer).
We set each of these arguments to an instance variable, which is indicated by its beginning with #. Then we use attr_reader to create getter methods for #input_array and #sequence_array, which allows us to get the values by calling input_array and sequence_array from any instance method within the class.
We then define two public methods: matches (which returns an array of exact matches and an array of other matches (the ones that match but at the wrong index), and results (which returns a count of each of these two arrays).
Now, within the private portion of our class, we can define the guts of the logic. Each method has a specific job, and each is named to (hopefully) help a reader understand what it is doing.
index_matches returns a subset of the input_array whose elements match the sequence_array exactly.
other_matches returns a subset of the input_array whose elements do not match the sequence_array exactly, but do match at the wrong index.
other_matches relies on non_exact_input and non_exact_sequence, each of which is computed using the array_difference method, which I copied from another SO answer. (There is no convenient Ruby method that allows us to subtract one array from another without deleting duplicates).
Code
def matches(hidden, guess)
indices_wo_match = hidden.each_index.reject { |i| hidden[i] == guess[i] }
hidden_counts = counting_hash(hidden.values_at *indices_wo_match)
guess_counts = counting_hash(guess.values_at *indices_wo_match)
[hidden.size - indices_wo_match.size, guess_counts.reduce(0) { |tot, (k, cnt)|
tot + [hidden_counts[k], cnt].min }]
end
def counting_hash(arr)
arr.each_with_object(Hash.new(0)) { |s, h| h[s] += 1 }
end
Examples
matches ["G","G","G","Y"], ["G", "Y","G","G"]
#=> [2, 2]
matches ["X","R","Y","T"] , ["T","T","Y","Y"]
#=> [1, 1]
Explanation
The steps are as follows.
hidden = ["G","G","G","Y"]
guess = ["G", "Y","G","G"]
Save the indices i for which hidden[i] != guess[i].
indices_wo_match = hidden.each_index.reject { |i| hidden[i] == guess[i] }
#=> [1, 3]
Note that the number of indices for which the values are equal is as follows.
hidden.size - indices_wo_match.size
#=> 2
Now compute the numbers of remaining elements of guess that pair with one of the remaining values of hidden by having the same value. Begin by counting the numbers of instances of each unique element of hidden and then do the same for guess.
hidden_counts = counting_hash(hidden.values_at *indices_wo_match)
#=> {"G"=>1, "Y"=>1}
guess_counts = counting_hash(guess.values_at *indices_wo_match)
#=> {"Y"=>1, "G"=>1}
To understand how counting_hash works, see Hash::new, especially the explanation of the effect of providing a default value as an argument of new. In brief, if a hash is defined h = Hash.new(3), then if h does not have a key k, h[k] returns the default value, here 3 (the hash is not changed).
Now compute the numbers of matches of elements of guess that were not equal to the value of hidden at the same index and which pair with an element of hidden that have the same value.
val_matches = guess_counts.reduce(0) do |tot, (k, cnt)|
tot + [hidden_counts[k], cnt].min
end
#=> 2
Lastly, return the values of interest.
[hidden.size - indices_wo_match.size, val_matches]
#=> [2, 2]
In the code presented above I have substituted out the variable val_matches.
With Ruby 2.4+ one can use Enumerable#sum to replace
guess_counts.reduce(0) { |tot, (k, cnt)| tot + [hidden_counts[k], cnt].min }
with
guess_counts.sum { |k, cnt| [hidden_counts[k], cnt].min }
def judge(secret, guess)
full = secret.zip(guess).count { |s, g| s == g }
semi = secret.uniq.sum { |s| [secret.count(s), guess.count(s)].min } - full
[full, semi]
end
Demo:
> judge(["G","G","G","Y"], ["G","Y","G","G"])
=> [2, 2]
> judge(["X","R","Y","T"], ["T","T","Y","Y"])
=> [1, 1]
A shorter alternative, though I find it less clear:
full = secret.zip(guess).count(&:uniq!)
I prefer my other answer for its simplicity, but this one would be faster if someone wanted to use this for arrays larger than Mastermind's.
def judge(secret, guess)
full = secret.zip(guess).count { |s, g| s == g }
pool = secret.group_by(&:itself)
[full, guess.count { |g| pool[g]&.pop } - full]
end
Demo:
> judge(["G","G","G","Y"], ["G","Y","G","G"])
=> [2, 2]
> judge(["X","R","Y","T"], ["T","T","Y","Y"])
=> [1, 1]
I have a class Test:
class Test
attr_accessor :data
def initialize
#data = [0, 1, 2, 3]
end
def map
#data.map!{|i| i = yield i }
end
end
and I attempt to use it like:
a = Test.new
a.map{|i|
if(i==2)
i+=1
break i #<--- -This line is the focus
else
1
end
}
puts a.data
The output I expect is [1, 1, 3, 3]. Instead, I get [1, 1, 2, 3]. The last iteration of the block in map doesn't return the modified i.
I replaced break i with next i. This performed as I expected, and produced the output [1, 1, 3, 1].
How can I modify this piece of code (or, ideally the line I point out in my second code-snippet) so that I would get the output [1, 1, 3, 3]? In other words, how can I make the block finish, but pass one last value back to map? Is there a neat and readable way to do this (besides, say, toggling a boolean flag break_now)?
I'm assuming you're asking how to leave a block and make use of the last value that was calculated rather than how to calculate a specific set of numbers; for the latter, there is probably a clever one-liner.
How about something like this:
class Test
attr_accessor :data
def initialize
#data = [0, 1, 2, 3]
end
def modify
#data.map! {|i| yield i }
end
end
a = Test.new
a.modify do |i|
break i if #done
#done = i == 2
#done ? (i + 1) : 1
end
puts a.data
An additional thought—#map is an important method in Ruby with a specific interface. In your example you're violating the interface by modifying a field in Test. For this reason I've used the name #modify instead.
In general, you could get away with this by modifying the yielded values in place. For example, if your array consisted of Strings instead of Fixnums:
class Test
attr_accessor :data
def initialize
#data = %w{a b c d}
end
def map
#data.map! { |i| yield i }
end
end
a = Test.new
a.map do |i|
if i == 'c'
i.next!
break
else
'b'
end
end
p a.data #=> ["b", "b", "d", "d"]
The problem with your example is this:
Fixnum objects have immediate value. This means that when they are assigned or passed as parameters, the actual object is passed, rather than a reference to that object. Assignment does not alias Fixnum objects. There is effectively only one Fixnum object instance for any given integer value…
Fixnums can't be altered in-place, so your expression i += 1 in the lower block doesn't affect the value of i in the upper block. That's why you get 2 in your example but d in my example.
You have to do this:
a.map{ |i| (i % 2 == 0) ? i + 1 : i }
When you use map function you don't change 'a' variable, if you want change 'a' variable do this:
a.map!{ |i| (i % 2 == 0) ? i + 1 : i }
The new value of 'i' is the value return by the block, so don't do something like:
a.map{|i| i = 1 }
because if you do:
a.map{|i| i = 1; 5 }
the result will be:
[5, 5, 5, 5]
I need to check whether two arrays contain the same data in any order.
Using the imaginary compare method, I would like to do:
arr1 = [1,2,3,5,4]
arr2 = [3,4,2,1,5]
arr3 = [3,4,2,1,5,5]
arr1.compare(arr2) #true
arr1.compare(arr3) #false
I used arr1.sort == arr2.sort, which appears to work, but is there a better way of doing this?
The easiest way is to use intersections:
#array1 = [1,2,3,4,5]
#array2 = [2,3,4,5,1]
So the statement
#array2 & #array1 == #array2
Will be true. This is the best solution if you want to check whether array1 contains array2 or the opposite (that is different). You're also not fiddling with your arrays or changing the order of the items.
You can also compare the length of both arrays if you want them to be identical in size:
#array1.size == #array2.size && #array1 & #array2 == #array1
It's also the fastest way to do it (correct me if I'm wrong)
Sorting the arrays prior to comparing them is O(n log n). Moreover, as Victor points out, you'll run into trouble if the array contains non-sortable objects. It's faster to compare histograms, O(n).
You'll find Enumerable#frequency in Facets, but implement it yourself, which is pretty straightforward, if you prefer to avoid adding more dependencies:
require 'facets'
[1, 2, 1].frequency == [2, 1, 1].frequency
#=> true
If you know that there are no repetitions in any of the arrays (i.e., all the elements are unique or you don't care), using sets is straight forward and readable:
Set.new(array1) == Set.new(array2)
You can actually implement this #compare method by monkey patching the Array class like this:
class Array
def compare(other)
sort == other.sort
end
end
Keep in mind that monkey patching is rarely considered a good practice and you should be cautious when using it.
There's probably is a better way to do this, but that's what came to mind. Hope it helps!
The most elegant way I have found:
arr1 = [1,2,3,5,4]
arr2 = [3,4,2,1,5]
arr3 = [3,4,2,1,5,5]
(arr1 - arr2).empty?
=> true
(arr3 - arr2).empty?
=> false
You can open array class and define a method like this.
class Array
def compare(comparate)
to_set == comparate.to_set
end
end
arr1.compare(arr2)
irb => true
OR use simply
arr1.to_set == arr2.to_set
irb => true
Here is a version that will work on unsortable arrays
class Array
def unordered_hash
unless #_compare_o && #_compare_o == hash
p = Hash.new(0)
each{ |v| p[v] += 1 }
#_compare_p = p.hash
#_compare_o = hash
end
#_compare_p
end
def compare(b)
unordered_hash == b.unordered_hash
end
end
a = [ 1, 2, 3, 2, nil ]
b = [ nil, 2, 1, 3, 2 ]
puts a.compare(b)
Use difference method if length of arrays are the same
https://ruby-doc.org/core-2.7.0/Array.html#method-i-difference
arr1 = [1,2,3]
arr2 = [1,2,4]
arr1.difference(arr2) # => [3]
arr2.difference(arr1) # => [4]
# to check that arrays are equal:
arr2.difference(arr1).empty?
Otherwise you could use
# to check that arrays are equal:
arr1.sort == arr2.sort
I have a Ruby array containing some string values. I need to:
Find all elements that match some predicate
Run the matching elements through a transformation
Return the results as an array
Right now my solution looks like this:
def example
matchingLines = #lines.select{ |line| ... }
results = matchingLines.map{ |line| ... }
return results.uniq.sort
end
Is there an Array or Enumerable method that combines select and map into a single logical statement?
I usually use map and compact together along with my selection criteria as a postfix if. compact gets rid of the nils.
jruby-1.5.0 > [1,1,1,2,3,4].map{|n| n*3 if n==1}
=> [3, 3, 3, nil, nil, nil]
jruby-1.5.0 > [1,1,1,2,3,4].map{|n| n*3 if n==1}.compact
=> [3, 3, 3]
Ruby 2.7+
There is now!
Ruby 2.7 is introducing filter_map for this exact purpose. It's idiomatic and performant, and I'd expect it to become the norm very soon.
For example:
numbers = [1, 2, 5, 8, 10, 13]
enum.filter_map { |i| i * 2 if i.even? }
# => [4, 16, 20]
Here's a good read on the subject.
Hope that's useful to someone!
You can use reduce for this, which requires only one pass:
[1,1,1,2,3,4].reduce([]) { |a, n| a.push(n*3) if n==1; a }
=> [3, 3, 3]
In other words, initialize the state to be what you want (in our case, an empty list to fill: []), then always make sure to return this value with modifications for each element in the original list (in our case, the modified element pushed to the list).
This is the most efficient since it only loops over the list with one pass (map + select or compact requires two passes).
In your case:
def example
results = #lines.reduce([]) do |lines, line|
lines.push( ...(line) ) if ...
lines
end
return results.uniq.sort
end
Another different way of approaching this is using the new (relative to this question) Enumerator::Lazy:
def example
#lines.lazy
.select { |line| line.property == requirement }
.map { |line| transforming_method(line) }
.uniq
.sort
end
The .lazy method returns a lazy enumerator. Calling .select or .map on a lazy enumerator returns another lazy enumerator. Only once you call .uniq does it actually force the enumerator and return an array. So what effectively happens is your .select and .map calls are combined into one - you only iterate over #lines once to do both .select and .map.
My instinct is that Adam's reduce method will be a little faster, but I think this is far more readable.
The primary consequence of this is that no intermediate array objects are created for each subsequent method call. In a normal #lines.select.map situation, select returns an array which is then modified by map, again returning an array. By comparison, the lazy evaluation only creates an array once. This is useful when your initial collection object is large. It also empowers you to work with infinite enumerators - e.g. random_number_generator.lazy.select(&:odd?).take(10).
If you have a select that can use the case operator (===), grep is a good alternative:
p [1,2,'not_a_number',3].grep(Integer){|x| -x } #=> [-1, -2, -3]
p ['1','2','not_a_number','3'].grep(/\D/, &:upcase) #=> ["NOT_A_NUMBER"]
If we need more complex logic we can create lambdas:
my_favourite_numbers = [1,4,6]
is_a_favourite_number = -> x { my_favourite_numbers.include? x }
make_awesome = -> x { "***#{x}***" }
my_data = [1,2,3,4]
p my_data.grep(is_a_favourite_number, &make_awesome) #=> ["***1***", "***4***"]
I'm not sure there is one. The Enumerable module, which adds select and map, doesn't show one.
You'd be required to pass in two blocks to the select_and_transform method, which would be a bit unintuitive IMHO.
Obviously, you could just chain them together, which is more readable:
transformed_list = lines.select{|line| ...}.map{|line| ... }
Simple Answer:
If you have n records, and you want to select and map based on condition then
records.map { |record| record.attribute if condition }.compact
Here, attribute is whatever you want from the record and condition you can put any check.
compact is to flush the unnecessary nil's which came out of that if condition
No, but you can do it like this:
lines.map { |line| do_some_action if check_some_property }.reject(&:nil?)
Or even better:
lines.inject([]) { |all, line| all << line if check_some_property; all }
I think that this way is more readable, because splits the filter conditions and mapped value while remaining clear that the actions are connected:
results = #lines.select { |line|
line.should_include?
}.map do |line|
line.value_to_map
end
And, in your specific case, eliminate the result variable all together:
def example
#lines.select { |line|
line.should_include?
}.map { |line|
line.value_to_map
}.uniq.sort
end
def example
#lines.select {|line| ... }.map {|line| ... }.uniq.sort
end
In Ruby 1.9 and 1.8.7, you can also chain and wrap iterators by simply not passing a block to them:
enum.select.map {|bla| ... }
But it's not really possible in this case, since the types of the block return values of select and map don't match up. It makes more sense for something like this:
enum.inject.with_index {|(acc, el), idx| ... }
AFAICS, the best you can do is the first example.
Here's a small example:
%w[a b 1 2 c d].map.select {|e| if /[0-9]/ =~ e then false else e.upcase end }
# => ["a", "b", "c", "d"]
%w[a b 1 2 c d].select.map {|e| if /[0-9]/ =~ e then false else e.upcase end }
# => ["A", "B", false, false, "C", "D"]
But what you really want is ["A", "B", "C", "D"].
You should try using my library Rearmed Ruby in which I have added the method Enumerable#select_map. Heres an example:
items = [{version: "1.1"}, {version: nil}, {version: false}]
items.select_map{|x| x[:version]} #=> [{version: "1.1"}]
# or without enumerable monkey patch
Rearmed.select_map(items){|x| x[:version]}
If you want to not create two different arrays, you can use compact! but be careful about it.
array = [1,1,1,2,3,4]
new_array = map{|n| n*3 if n==1}
new_array.compact!
Interestingly, compact! does an in place removal of nil. The return value of compact! is the same array if there were changes but nil if there were no nils.
array = [1,1,1,2,3,4]
new_array = map{|n| n*3 if n==1}.tap { |array| array.compact! }
Would be a one liner.
Your version:
def example
matchingLines = #lines.select{ |line| ... }
results = matchingLines.map{ |line| ... }
return results.uniq.sort
end
My version:
def example
results = {}
#lines.each{ |line| results[line] = true if ... }
return results.keys.sort
end
This will do 1 iteration (except the sort), and has the added bonus of keeping uniqueness (if you don't care about uniq, then just make results an array and results.push(line) if ...
Here is a example. It is not the same as your problem, but may be what you want, or can give a clue to your solution:
def example
lines.each do |x|
new_value = do_transform(x)
if new_value == some_thing
return new_value # here jump out example method directly.
else
next # continue next iterate.
end
end
end
Why would you create a proxy reference to an object in Ruby, by using the to_enum method rather than just using the object directly? I cannot think of any practical use for this, trying to understand this concept & where someone might use it, but all the examples I have seen seem very trivial.
For example, why use:
"hello".enum_for(:each_char).map {|c| c.succ }
instead of
"hello".each_char.map {|c| c.succ }
I know this is a very simple example, does anyone have any real-world examples?
Most built-in methods that accept a block will return an enumerator in case no block is provided (like String#each_char in your example). For these, there is no reason to use to_enum; both will have the same effect.
A few methods do not return an Enumerator, though. In those case you might need to use to_enum.
# How many elements are equal to their position in the array?
[4, 1, 2, 0].to_enum(:count).each_with_index{|elem, index| elem == index} #=> 2
As another example, Array#product, #uniq and #uniq! didn't use to accept a block. In 1.9.2, this was changed, but to maintain compatibility, the forms without a block can't return an Enumerator. One can still "manually" use to_enum to get an enumerator:
require 'backports/1.9.2/array/product' # or use Ruby 1.9.2+
# to avoid generating a huge intermediary array:
e = many_moves.to_enum(:product, many_responses)
e.any? do |move, response|
# some criteria
end
The main use of to_enum is when you are implementing your own iterative method. You typically will have as a first line:
def my_each
return to_enum :my_each unless block_given?
# ...
end
I think it has something to do with internal and external Iterators. When you return an enumerator like this:
p = "hello".enum_for(:each_char)
p is an external enumerator. One advantage of external iterators is that:
External iterators are more flexible than internal iterators. It's easy to compare two collections for equality with an external iterator, for example, but it's practically impossible with internal iterators…. But on the other hand, internal iterators are easier to use, because they define the iteration logic for you. [From The Ruby Programming Language book, ch. 5.3]
So, with external iterator you can do, e.g.:
p = "hello".enum_for(:each_char)
loop do
puts p.next
end
Let's say we want to take an array of keys and an array of values and sew them up in a Hash:
With #to_enum
def hashify(k, v)
keys = k.to_enum(:each)
values = v.to_enum(:each)
hash = []
loop do
hash[keys.next] = values.next
# No need to check for bounds,
# as #next will raise a StopIteration which breaks from the loop
end
hash
end
Without #to_enum:
def hashify(k, v)
hash = []
keys.each_with_index do |key, index|
break if index == values.length
hash[key] = values[index]
end
hash
end
It's much easier to read the first method, don't you think? Not a ton easier, but imagine if we were somehow manipulating items from 3 arrays? 5? 10?
This isn't quite an answer to your question, but hopefully it is relevant.
In your second example you are calling each_char without passing a block. When called without a block each_char returns an Enumerator so your examples are actually just two ways of doing the same thing. (i.e. both result in the creation of an enumerable object.)
irb(main):016:0> e1 = "hello".enum_for(:each_char)
=> #<Enumerator:0xe15ab8>
irb(main):017:0> e2 = "hello".each_char
=> #<Enumerator:0xe0bd38>
irb(main):018:0> e1.map { |c| c.succ }
=> ["i", "f", "m", "m", "p"]
irb(main):019:0> e2.map { |c| c.succ }
=> ["i", "f", "m", "m", "p"]
It's great for large or infinite generator objects.
E.g., the following will give you an enumerator for the whole Fibonacci seequence, from 0 to infinity.
def fib_sequence
return to_enum(:fib_sequence) unless block_given?
yield 0
yield 1
x,y, = 0, 1
loop { x,y = y,x+y; yield(y) }
end
to_enum effectively allows you to write this with regular yields without having to mess with Fibers.
You can then slice it as you want, and it will be very memory efficient, since no arrays will be stored in memory:
module Slice
def slice(range)
return to_enum(:slice, range) unless block_given?
start, finish = range.first, range.max + 1
copy = self.dup
start.times { copy.next }
(finish-start).times { yield copy.next }
end
end
class Enumerator
include Slice
end
fib_sequence.slice(0..10).to_a
#=> [0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55]
fib_sequence.slice(10..20).to_a
#=> [55, 89, 144, 233, 377, 610, 987, 1597, 2584, 4181, 6765]