In this scenario I have 3x boolean vars (already set to either true or false)
The goal here is to identify if more than one of the set of bool vars are set to true
Right now I have the following written, which does work:
boolval := 0
if *firstbool {
boolval++
}
if *secondbool {
boolval++
}
if *thirdbool {
boolval++
}
if boolval > 1 {
// More than 1 of the bool vars are true
}
I always flag my logic if I am writing successive if{} statements, so I figured I would ask you geniuses how you would accomplish this.
identify if more than one of the set of bool vars are set to true
For example, write a set function:
package main
import "fmt"
func nTrue(b ...bool) int {
n := 0
for _, v := range b {
if v {
n++
}
}
return n
}
func main() {
v1, v2, v3 := true, false, true
fmt.Println(nTrue(v1, v2, v3))
if nTrue(v1, v2, v3) > 1 {
// . . .
}
// Or
if n := nTrue(v1, v2, v3); n > 1 {
// . . .
}
// Or
n := nTrue(v1, v2, v3)
if n > 1 {
// . . .
}
}
Playground: https://play.golang.org/p/g3WCN6BgGly
Output:
2
For example, range over the set,
package main
import "fmt"
func main() {
v1, v2, v3 := true, false, true
boolval := 0
for _, v := range []bool{v1, v2, v3} {
if v {
boolval++
}
}
if boolval > 1 {
// . . .
}
fmt.Println(boolval > 1, boolval)
}
Playground: https://play.golang.org/p/R6UGb8YYEFw
Output:
true 2
Depending on how you're getting the values of firstbool et. al, there might be a more idiomatic approach you should take here. Consider that channels and goroutines can handle doing the accounting in the background. If your booleans are the result of some heavier operations, it might make sense to do something like:
package main
import "fmt"
func firstFunc(ch chan bool) {
// assume this works, true!
ch <- true
}
func secondFunc(ch chan bool) {
// assume this fails, false!
ch <- false
}
func thirdFunc(ch chan bool) {
// assume this works, true!
ch <- true
}
func listener(ch chan bool, numCallers int) <-chan bool {
outch := make(chan bool)
THRESHOLD := 2
go func(outch chan<- bool) {
count := 0
trues := 0
for count < numCallers && trues < THRESHOLD {
val := <-ch
if val {
trues++
}
count++
}
outch <- trues >= THRESHOLD
}(outch)
return outch
}
func main() {
ch := make(chan bool)
resultch := listener(ch, 3)
go firstFunc(ch)
go secondFunc(ch)
go thirdFunc(ch)
if <-resultch {
fmt.Println("Two or more processes succeeded")
}
}
However this is way over-engineered for a simple need, so consider this only if this pattern fits the larger design of your application.
Related
I want to call a number of function names stored in a slice. The code snippet below works so far but I need to return a value from those functions. Unfortunately I don't get it to work because I don't know to to call those functions and store the return value. Any ideas?
This is the code I'm currently working on:
package main
func A(x int) int {
return x + 1
}
func B(x int) int {
return x + 2
}
func C(x int) int {
return x + 3
}
func main() {
x := 10
type fs func(x int) int
f := []fs{A, B, C}
fns := make([]func(), 3)
for a, _ := range f {
a := a
fns[a] = func() {
f[a](x)
}
}
for _, f := range fns {
f()
}
}
Go Playground
You have call it...
for a, _ := range f {
a := a
fns[a] = func() {
f[a](x) // in this
}
}
here is the playground
let's say that I have generator of fibonachi numbers, and I would like to use enumerate(get_next_fibs(10)) and I would like to have generator of pairs index, number_from_generator, I am struggling to find solution with "named return values"
and it's not how it should be done but it's for purpose of learning specific things about generators
package main
import "fmt"
func get_next_fibs(ii int) func() int {
i := 0
a, b := 0, 1
fc := func() int {
i++
a, b = b, a+b
if ii <= i {
return -1
}
return a
}
return fc
}
func enumerate(iter func() int) func() (index, v int) {
index := 0
fc := func() (index, v int) {
v := iter()
return
index++
}
return fc
}
func main() {
iter := enumerate(get_next_fibs(10))
// iter := get_next_fibs(10)
fmt.Printf("iter = %T\n", iter)
for tuple := iter(); tuple != -1; tuple = iter() {
fmt.Println("tuple:", tuple)
}
}
You have few issues in this code sample:
You can't have index++ after return statement. Use defer if you need to do something after return-ing.
You're missing how variable shadowing works in go. Thus, you're trying to modify a wrong index variable.
Go doesn't have tuples.
...
func enumerate(iter func() int) func() (index, v int) {
counter := 0
return func() (index, v int) {
i := counter
counter++
return i, iter()
}
}
...
func main() {
iter := enumerate(get_next_fibs(10))
fmt.Printf("iter = %T\n", iter)
for i, v := iter(); v != -1; i, v = iter() {
fmt.Printf("i: %d, v: %d\n", i, v)
}
}
Playground link
Go-lang newbie here. I am trying out Go's Tour of Go, and came across an exercise about channels (https://tour.golang.org/concurrency/7).
The idea is to walk two trees and then evaluate if the trees are equivalent.
I wanted to solve this exercise using a select waiting for results from both channels. When both would finish I evaluate the resulting slice. Unfortunately the method goes on an infinite loop. I added some output to see what was happening and noticed that only one of the channels was being closed, and then opened again.
I am clearly doing something wrong, but I can't see what.
My question is what am I doing wrong? What assumption am I making regarding the closing of channels that makes the code below go into an infinite loop?
package main
import (
"golang.org/x/tour/tree"
"fmt"
)
// Walk walks the tree t sending all values
// from the tree to the channel ch.
func Walk(t *tree.Tree, ch chan int) {
_walk(t, ch)
close(ch)
}
func _walk(t *tree.Tree, ch chan int) {
if (t.Left != nil) {
_walk(t.Left, ch)
}
ch <- t.Value
if (t.Right != nil) {
_walk(t.Right, ch)
}
}
// Same determines whether the trees
// t1 and t2 contain the same values.
func Same(t1, t2 *tree.Tree) bool {
ch1 := make(chan int)
ch2 := make(chan int)
go Walk(t1, ch1)
go Walk(t2, ch2)
var out1 []int
var out2 []int
var tree1open, tree2open bool
var tree1val, tree2val int
for {
select {
case tree1val, tree1open = <- ch1:
out1 = append(out1, tree1val)
case tree2val, tree2open = <- ch2:
out2 = append(out2, tree2val)
default:
if (!tree1open && !tree2open) {
break
} else {
fmt.Println("Channel open?", tree1open, tree2open)
}
}
}
if (len(out1) != len(out2)) {
return false
}
for i := 0 ; i < len(out1) ; i++ {
if (out1[i] != out2[i]) {
return false
}
}
return true
}
func main() {
ch := make(chan int)
go Walk(tree.New(1), ch)
for i := range ch {
fmt.Println(i)
}
fmt.Println(Same(tree.New(1), tree.New(1)))
fmt.Println(Same(tree.New(1), tree.New(2)))
}
A "break" statement terminates execution of the innermost "for", "switch" or "select" statement.
see: http://golang.org/ref/spec#Break_statements
the break statement in your example terminates the select statement, the "innermost" statement.
so add label: ForLoop before for loop and add break ForLoop
ForLoop:
for {
select {
case tree1val, tree1open = <-ch1:
if tree1open {
out1 = append(out1, tree1val)
} else if !tree2open {
break ForLoop
}
case tree2val, tree2open = <-ch2:
if tree2open {
out2 = append(out2, tree2val)
} else if !tree1open {
break ForLoop
}
}
}
don't read the rest if you want to solve that problem yourself, and come back when you are done:
solution 1 (similar to yours):
package main
import "fmt"
import "golang.org/x/tour/tree"
// Walk walks the tree t sending all values
// from the tree to the channel ch.
func Walk(t *tree.Tree, ch chan int) {
_walk(t, ch)
close(ch)
}
func _walk(t *tree.Tree, ch chan int) {
if t.Left != nil {
_walk(t.Left, ch)
}
ch <- t.Value
if t.Right != nil {
_walk(t.Right, ch)
}
}
// Same determines whether the trees
// t1 and t2 contain the same values.
func Same(t1, t2 *tree.Tree) bool {
ch1, ch2 := make(chan int), make(chan int)
go Walk(t1, ch1)
go Walk(t2, ch2)
tree1open, tree2open := false, false
tree1val, tree2val := 0, 0
out1, out2 := make([]int, 0, 10), make([]int, 0, 10)
ForLoop:
for {
select {
case tree1val, tree1open = <-ch1:
if tree1open {
out1 = append(out1, tree1val)
} else if !tree2open {
break ForLoop
}
case tree2val, tree2open = <-ch2:
if tree2open {
out2 = append(out2, tree2val)
} else if !tree1open {
break ForLoop
}
}
}
if len(out1) != len(out2) {
return false
}
for i, v := range out1 {
if v != out2[i] {
return false
}
}
return true
}
func main() {
ch := make(chan int)
go Walk(tree.New(1), ch)
for i := range ch {
fmt.Println(i)
}
fmt.Println(Same(tree.New(1), tree.New(1)))
fmt.Println(Same(tree.New(1), tree.New(2)))
}
output:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
true
false
another way:
package main
import "fmt"
import "golang.org/x/tour/tree"
// Walk walks the tree t sending all values
// from the tree to the channel ch.
func Walk(t *tree.Tree, ch chan int) {
_walk(t, ch)
close(ch)
}
func _walk(t *tree.Tree, ch chan int) {
if t != nil {
_walk(t.Left, ch)
ch <- t.Value
_walk(t.Right, ch)
}
}
// Same determines whether the trees
// t1 and t2 contain the same values.
func Same(t1, t2 *tree.Tree) bool {
ch1, ch2 := make(chan int), make(chan int)
go Walk(t1, ch1)
go Walk(t2, ch2)
for v := range ch1 {
if v != <-ch2 {
return false
}
}
return true
}
func main() {
ch := make(chan int)
go Walk(tree.New(1), ch)
for v := range ch {
fmt.Println(v)
}
fmt.Println(Same(tree.New(1), tree.New(1)))
fmt.Println(Same(tree.New(1), tree.New(2)))
}
output:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
true
false
and see:
Go Tour Exercise: Equivalent Binary Trees
The suggestion by Amd is a valid one in the previous answer. However, looking at the problem you're trying to solve, it still does not solve the it. (If you run the program, it will output true for both the cases)
Here's the problem:
for {
select {
case tree1val, tree1open = <-ch1:
out1 = append(out1, tree1val)
case tree2val, tree2open = <-ch2:
out2 = append(out2, tree2val)
default:
//runtime.Gosched()
if !tree1open && !tree2open {
break ForLoop
} else {
fmt.Println("Channel open?", tree1open, tree2open)
}
}
}
In this case, since the default values of tree1open and tree2open are false (according to golang specification), it goes to the 'default' case, because select is non-blocking, and simply breaks from the ForLoop, without even filling the out1 and out2 slices (possibly, since these are goroutines). Hence the lengths of out1 and out2 remain zero, due to which it outputs true in most cases.
Here is the correction:
ForLoop:
for {
select {
case tree1val, tree1open = <-ch1:
if tree1open {
out1 = append(out1, tree1val)
}
if !tree1open && !tree2open {
break ForLoop
}
case tree2val, tree2open = <-ch2:
if tree2open {
out2 = append(out2, tree2val)
}
if !tree1open && !tree2open {
break ForLoop
}
default:
}
}
The key thing to note is that we have to check whether the channels have been closed in both cases (equivalent to saying whether tree1open and tree2open are both false). Here, it will correctly fill up out1 and out2 slices and then further compare their respective values.
The check for tree1open (or tree2open) being true has been added before append simply to avoid appending zero values to out1 (or out2).
Thanks,
I am trying to find a solution to check for equality in 2 slices. Unfortanely, the answers I have found require values in the slice to be in the same order. For example, http://play.golang.org/p/yV0q1_u3xR evaluates equality to false.
I want a solution that lets []string{"a","b","c"} == []string{"b","a","c"} evaluate to true.
MORE EXAMPLES
[]string{"a","a","c"} == []string{"c","a","c"} >>> false
[]string{"z","z","x"} == []string{"x","z","z"} >>> true
Here is an alternate solution, though perhaps a bit verbose:
func sameStringSlice(x, y []string) bool {
if len(x) != len(y) {
return false
}
// create a map of string -> int
diff := make(map[string]int, len(x))
for _, _x := range x {
// 0 value for int is 0, so just increment a counter for the string
diff[_x]++
}
for _, _y := range y {
// If the string _y is not in diff bail out early
if _, ok := diff[_y]; !ok {
return false
}
diff[_y] -= 1
if diff[_y] == 0 {
delete(diff, _y)
}
}
return len(diff) == 0
}
Try it on the Go Playground
You can use cmp.Diff together with cmpopts.SortSlices:
less := func(a, b string) bool { return a < b }
equalIgnoreOrder := cmp.Diff(x, y, cmpopts.SortSlices(less)) == ""
Here is a full example that runs on the Go Playground:
package main
import (
"fmt"
"github.com/google/go-cmp/cmp"
"github.com/google/go-cmp/cmp/cmpopts"
)
func main() {
x := []string{"a", "b", "c"}
y := []string{"a", "c", "b"}
less := func(a, b string) bool { return a < b }
equalIgnoreOrder := cmp.Diff(x, y, cmpopts.SortSlices(less)) == ""
fmt.Println(equalIgnoreOrder) // prints "true"
}
The other answers have better time complexity O(N) vs (O(N log(N)), that are in my answer, also my solution will take up more memory if elements in the slices are repeated frequently, but I wanted to add it because I think this is the most straight forward way to do it:
package main
import (
"fmt"
"sort"
"reflect"
)
func array_sorted_equal(a, b []string) bool {
if len(a) != len(b) {return false }
a_copy := make([]string, len(a))
b_copy := make([]string, len(b))
copy(a_copy, a)
copy(b_copy, b)
sort.Strings(a_copy)
sort.Strings(b_copy)
return reflect.DeepEqual(a_copy, b_copy)
}
func main() {
a := []string {"a", "a", "c"}
b := []string {"c", "a", "c"}
c := []string {"z","z","x"}
d := []string {"x","z","z"}
fmt.Println( array_sorted_equal(a, b))
fmt.Println( array_sorted_equal(c, d))
}
Result:
false
true
I would think the easiest way would be to map the elements in each array/slice to their number of occurrences, then compare the maps:
func main() {
x := []string{"a","b","c"}
y := []string{"c","b","a"}
xMap := make(map[string]int)
yMap := make(map[string]int)
for _, xElem := range x {
xMap[xElem]++
}
for _, yElem := range y {
yMap[yElem]++
}
for xMapKey, xMapVal := range xMap {
if yMap[xMapKey] != xMapVal {
return false
}
}
return true
}
You'll need to add some additional due dilligence, like short circuiting if your arrays/slices contain elements of different types or are of different length.
Generalizing the code of testify ElementsMatch, solution to compare any kind of objects (in the example []map[string]string):
https://play.golang.org/p/xUS2ngrUWUl
Like adrianlzt wrote in his answer, an implementation of assert.ElementsMatch from testify can be used to achieve that. But how about reusing actual testify module instead of copying that code when all you need is a bool result of the comparison? The implementation in testify is intended for tests code and usually takes testing.T argument.
It turns out that ElementsMatch can be quite easily used outside of testing code. All it takes is a dummy implementation of an interface with ErrorF method:
type dummyt struct{}
func (t dummyt) Errorf(string, ...interface{}) {}
func elementsMatch(listA, listB interface{}) bool {
return assert.ElementsMatch(dummyt{}, listA, listB)
}
Or test it on The Go Playground, which I've adapted from the adrianlzt's example.
Since I haven't got enough reputation to comment, I have to post yet another answer with a bit better code readability:
func AssertSameStringSlice(x, y []string) bool {
if len(x) != len(y) {
return false
}
itemAppearsTimes := make(map[string]int, len(x))
for _, i := range x {
itemAppearsTimes[i]++
}
for _, i := range y {
if _, ok := itemAppearsTimes[i]; !ok {
return false
}
itemAppearsTimes[i]--
if itemAppearsTimes[i] == 0 {
delete(itemAppearsTimes, i)
}
}
if len(itemAppearsTimes) == 0 {
return true
}
return false
}
The logic is the same as in this answer
I know its been answered but still I would like to add my answer. By following code here stretchr/testify we can have something like
func Elementsmatch(listA, listB []string) (string, bool) {
aLen := len(listA)
bLen := len(listB)
if aLen != bLen {
return fmt.Sprintf("Len of the lists don't match , len listA %v, len listB %v", aLen, bLen), false
}
visited := make([]bool, bLen)
for i := 0; i < aLen; i++ {
found := false
element := listA[i]
for j := 0; j < bLen; j++ {
if visited[j] {
continue
}
if element == listB[j] {
visited[j] = true
found = true
break
}
}
if !found {
return fmt.Sprintf("element %s appears more times in %s than in %s", element, listA, listB), false
}
}
return "", true
}
Now lets talk about performance of this solution compared to map based ones. Well it really depends on the size of the lists which you are comparing, If size of list is large (I would say greater than 20) then map approach is better else this would be sufficent.
Well on Go PlayGround it shows 0s always, but run this on local system and you can see the difference in time taken as size of list increases
So the solution I propose is, adding map based comparision from above solution
func Elementsmatch(listA, listB []string) (string, bool) {
aLen := len(listA)
bLen := len(listB)
if aLen != bLen {
return fmt.Sprintf("Len of the lists don't match , len listA %v, len listB %v", aLen, bLen), false
}
if aLen > 20 {
return elementsMatchByMap(listA, listB)
}else{
return elementsMatchByLoop(listA, listB)
}
}
func elementsMatchByLoop(listA, listB []string) (string, bool) {
aLen := len(listA)
bLen := len(listB)
visited := make([]bool, bLen)
for i := 0; i < aLen; i++ {
found := false
element := listA[i]
for j := 0; j < bLen; j++ {
if visited[j] {
continue
}
if element == listB[j] {
visited[j] = true
found = true
break
}
}
if !found {
return fmt.Sprintf("element %s appears more times in %s than in %s", element, listA, listB), false
}
}
return "", true
}
func elementsMatchByMap(x, y []string) (string, bool) {
// create a map of string -> int
diff := make(map[string]int, len(x))
for _, _x := range x {
// 0 value for int is 0, so just increment a counter for the string
diff[_x]++
}
for _, _y := range y {
// If the string _y is not in diff bail out early
if _, ok := diff[_y]; !ok {
return fmt.Sprintf(" %v is not present in list b", _y), false
}
diff[_y] -= 1
if diff[_y] == 0 {
delete(diff, _y)
}
}
if len(diff) == 0 {
return "", true
}
return "", false
}
How to realize a nested iterator that takes a depth argument. A simple iterator would be when depth = 1. it is a simple iterator which runs like a simple for loop.
func Iter () chan int {
ch := make(chan int);
go func () {
for i := 1; i < 60; i++ {
ch <- i
}
close(ch)
} ();
return ch
}
Output is 1,2,3...59
For depth = 2 Output would be "1,1" "1,2" ... "1,59" "2,1" ... "59,59"
For depth = 3 Output would be "1,1,1" ... "59,59,59"
I want to avoid a nested for loop. What is the solution here ?
I don't know if it is possible to avoid nested loops, but one solution is to use a pipeline of channels. For example:
const ITER_N = 60
// ----------------
func _goFunc1(out chan string) {
for i := 1; i < ITER_N; i++ {
out <- fmt.Sprintf("%d", i)
}
close(out)
}
func _goFuncN(in chan string, out chan string) {
for j := range in {
for i := 1; i < ITER_N; i++ {
out <- fmt.Sprintf("%s,%d", j, i)
}
}
close(out)
}
// ----------------
// create the pipeline
func IterDepth(d int) chan string {
c1 := make(chan string)
go _goFunc1(c1)
var c2 chan string
for ; d > 1; d-- {
c2 = make(chan string)
go _goFuncN(c1, c2)
c1 = c2
}
return c1
}
You can test it with:
func main() {
c := IterDepth(2)
for i := range c {
fmt.Println(i)
}
}
I usually implement iterators using closures. Multiple dimensions don't make the problem much harder. Here's one example of how to do this:
package main
import "fmt"
func iter(min, max, depth int) func() ([]int, bool) {
s := make([]int, depth)
for i := range s {
s[i] = min
}
s[0] = min - 1
return func() ([]int, bool) {
s[0]++
for i := 0; i < depth-1; i++ {
if s[i] >= max {
s[i] = min
s[i+1]++
}
}
if s[depth-1] >= max {
return nil, false
}
return s, true
}
}
func main() {
// Three dimensions, ranging between [1,4)
i := iter(1, 4, 3)
for s, ok := i(); ok; s, ok = i() {
fmt.Println(s)
}
}
Try it out on the Playground.
It'd be a simple change for example to give arguments as a single int slice instead, so that you could have per-dimension limits, if such a thing were necessary.