I am trying to return the index's to all occurrences of a specific character in a string using Ruby. A example string is "a#asg#sdfg#d##" and the expected return is [1,5,10,12,13] when searching for # characters. The following code does the job but there must be a simpler way of doing this?
def occurances (line)
index = 0
all_index = []
line.each_byte do |x|
if x == '#'[0] then
all_index << index
end
index += 1
end
all_index
end
s = "a#asg#sdfg#d##"
a = (0 ... s.length).find_all { |i| s[i,1] == '#' }
require 'enumerator' # Needed in 1.8.6 only
"1#3#a#".enum_for(:scan,/#/).map { Regexp.last_match.begin(0) }
#=> [1, 3, 5]
ETA: This works by creating an Enumerator that uses scan(/#/) as its each method.
scan yields each occurence of the specified pattern (in this case /#/) and inside the block you can call Regexp.last_match to access the MatchData object for the match.
MatchData#begin(0) returns the index where the match begins and since we used map on the enumerator, we get an array of those indices back.
Here's a less-fancy way:
i = -1
all = []
while i = x.index('#',i+1)
all << i
end
all
In a quick speed test this was about 3.3x faster than FM's find_all method, and about 2.5x faster than sepp2k's enum_for method.
Here's a long method chain:
"a#asg#sdfg#d##".
each_char.
each_with_index.
inject([]) do |indices, (char, idx)|
indices << idx if char == "#"
indices
end
# => [1, 5, 10, 12, 13]
requires 1.8.7+
Another solution derived from FMc's answer:
s = "a#asg#sdfg#d##"
q = []
s.length.times {|i| q << i if s[i,1] == '#'}
I love that Ruby never has only one way of doing something!
Here's a solution for massive strings. I'm doing text finds on 4.5MB text strings and the other solutions grind to a halt. This takes advantage of the fact that ruby .split is very efficient compared to string comparisions.
def indices_of_matches(str, target)
cuts = (str + (target.hash.to_s.gsub(target,''))).split(target)[0..-2]
indicies = []
loc = 0
cuts.each do |cut|
loc = loc + cut.size
indicies << loc
loc = loc + target.size
end
return indicies
end
It's basically using the horsepower behind the .split method, then using the separate parts and the length of the searched string to work out locations. I've gone from 30 seconds using various methods to instantaneous on extremely large strings.
I'm sure there's a better way to do it, but:
(str + (target.hash.to_s.gsub(target,'')))
adds something to the end of the string in case the target is at the end (and the way split works), but have to also make sure that the "random" addition doesn't contain the target itself.
indices_of_matches("a#asg#sdfg#d##","#")
=> [1, 5, 10, 12, 13]
Related
Currently, I'm having print like this
print ((stamp_amount[0], 'first mark') unless stamp_amount[0].zero?), (', ' if !stamp_amount[0].zero? && !stamp_amount[1].zero?),
((stamp_amount[1], 'second mark') unless stamp_amount[1].zero?)
stamp_amount is an array with 2 integer values
Let's say in the current situation stamp_amount[0] = 10 and stamp_amount[1] = 3
Output preview:
10 first mark, 3 second mark
So if stamp_amount[0] = 0 the 10 first mark, part won't be show. Same if stamp_amount[1] = 0 the , 3 second mark part won't be shown
For me, it seems a little bit incorrect in terms of theory. Could you please suggest me the more correct or less painful print of this? :)
Cheers!
Your code is trying to join a sequence of up to two elements with a separator. The joining is a solved problem, see Array#join.
The problem can be then reduced to "how can I produce the correct sequence, given my stamp_amount input". Now this can be done in a thousand ways. Here's one:
def my_print(stamp_amount)
ary = [
!stamp_amount[0].zero? && stamp_amount[0],
!stamp_amount[1].zero? && stamp_amount[1],
].select{|elem| elem }
ary.join(', ')
end
my_print([10, 3]) # => "10, 3"
my_print([0, 3]) # => "3"
my_print([10, 0]) # => "10"
my_print([0, 0]) # => ""
Here's another
ary = []
ary << stamp_amount[0] unless stamp_amount[0].zero?
ary << stamp_amount[1] unless stamp_amount[1].zero?
ary.join(', ')
Here's yet another. This version can handle stamp_amount of any length.
ary = stamp_amount.reject(&:zero?)
ary.join(', ')
I'd go with the third, but the second one may be the easiest to understand for a beginner.
Use the select, as an alternative to reject (shown in part 3 of the answer by Sergio Tulentsev). It is just asa readable, and depending on the context and on the future changes to the code, you may prefer one versus the other.
puts stamp_amount.select{ |a| !a.zero? }.join(", ")
A few examples of inputs and outputs are:
stamp_amount output
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
10, 3 10, 3
10, 0 10
0, 3 3
0, 0 (prints an empty line, because the selected array is empty)
You're calculating zero? on index points more often than is needed, but the first thing I would look at refactoring here is the readability of the code. It might be nicer to calculate the message to print outside of the print method and explain what is happening with variable names.
# rubocop is going to complain about variable assignment like this
first_amount, second_amount = *stamp_amount
We can actually use the reason rubocop prefers the .zero? over == 0 or .empty? method to guide our development. zero? is in essence just empty? but it communicates the meaning of what you are attempting to do in a better manner. I would use this reasoning when assigning strings to variables that explain what they are doing.
some_name_that_explains_what_this_is_0 = "#{first_amount} piecu centu marka"
some_name_that_explains_what_this_is_1 = "#{second_amount} tris centu marka"
Your current code is confusing as you have the possibility of printing a string like "10 tris centu marka" which does not make lexical sense and probably not what you are after considering tis evaluates to 'second mark', which would pose an issue if the first value is zero. We also could reject zero integers before we start converting them to strings.
array = [1, 0].reject(&:zero?)
Now we can take the array and do something like:
string = []
array.each_with_index { |e, i| string << "#{e} #{Ordinalize.new(i).ordinalize} mark" }
message = string.join(', ')
print(message)
# ord class
class Ordinalize
def initialize(value)
#value = value
end
def ordinalize
mapping[#value]
end
def mapping
# acounting for zero index
['first', 'second']
end
end
where we are calculating the ordinalization and letting our new class handle the sentence structure for us.
Outputs:
[1, 0] => "1 first mark"
[0, 1] => "1 first mark"
[1, 2] => "1 first mark, 2 second mark"
During my lessons of Ruby I came across of this exercise. I'm trying to remove 3 or more the same charactes in a row. Test Cases Input: abbbaaccada Output: ccada Input: bbccdddcb Output: (Empty string)
So far I have solution which doesn't return expected results:
def playground("abbbaaccada")
count = string.length
string.chars.each_with_index.map { |v, i| (v * (count - i)).capitalize }.join('')
end
output gives me
==> AaaaaaaaaaaBbbbbbbbbbBbbbbbbbbBbbbbbbbAaaaaaaAaaaaaCccccCcccAaaDdA
instead of
==> ccada
Could you please advise?
Edit:
Forgot to add that regexp isn't allowed
There are two challenges here:
Match and remove any run of thee or more characters in a row
Recurse to test again in case the previous step created a new run of three
Here's one way to do it:
THREE_OR_MORE = /(.)\1{2,}/
def three_is_too_many(str)
if str.match? THREE_OR_MORE
str = three_is_too_many(str.gsub(THREE_OR_MORE, ''))
end
str
end
The regexp finds any character ('.'), followed by itself ('\1'), two or more times ('{2,}').
Then the routine either a) removes three or more and tests again or b) returns the string.
Here's a potential solution. The following method searches for any subsequence of an array with repeats, and returns the range of the repeated values if there are three or more of them.
def find_3_or_more(ary)
ary.each_index do |i|
j = i + 1
while j < ary.length && ary[i] == ary[j]
j += 1
end
return (i...j) if j - i > 2
end
nil
end
This portion breaks the target string into an array of chars, and repeatedly slices out the characters in ranges identified as repeats until there are none, as indicated by a nil range.
def delete_3_or_more(str)
ary = str.chars
while r = find_3_or_more(ary)
ary.slice!(r)
end
return ary.join
end
It seems to do the job for your test cases.
def recursively_remove_runs_of_3_or_more(str)
arr = str.chars
loop do
a = arr.slice_when { |a,b| a.downcase != b.downcase }.to_a
b = a.reject! { |e| e.size > 2 }
arr = a.flatten
break arr.join if b.nil?
end
end
recursively_remove_runs_of_3_or_more "abbbaaccada"
#=> "ccada"
This uses Enumerable#slice_when (new in MRI v2.2). Note that Array#reject! returns nil when no changes are made.
You could alternatively use Enumerable#chunk_while (new in MRI v2.3). Simply replace:
a = arr.slice_when { |a,b| a.downcase != b.downcase }.to_a
with:
a = arr.chunk_while { |a,b| a.downcase == b.downcase }.to_a
chunk_while and slice_when are yin and yang.
If a regular expression could be used and case where not an issue, you could write:
str = "abbbaaccada"
s = str.dup
loop { break(s) if s.gsub!(/(.)\1{2,}/, '').nil? }
#=> "ccada"
(I wanted to comment, but it doesn't allow me to do that yet.)
Assuming that you are trying to learn, I chose to only give you some tips while avoiding a solution.
There might be shorter ways of doing this using regex or/and some String methods. However, you said you can not use regex.
My tip is, try to solve it only using the sections you have covered so far. It may not necessarily be the most elegant solution, but you can revise it as you progress. As others suggested, recursion might be a good option. But, if you are not familiar with that yet, you can try slicing the string and merging the parts you need. This can be combined with an endless loop to check the new string satisfies your condition: but think about when you need to break out of the loop.
Also, in your code:
v * (count - i)
String#* actually gives you count - i copies of v, concatenated together.
Total beginner here, so I apologize if a) this question isn't appropriate or b) I haven't asked it properly.
I'm working on simple practice problems in Ruby and I noticed that while I arrived at a solution that works, when my solution runs in a visualizer, it gives premature returns for the array. Is this problematic? I'm also wondering if there's any reason (stylistically, conceptually, etc.) why you would want to use a while-loop vs. a for-loop with range for a problem like this or fizzbuzz.
Thank you for any help/advice!
The practice problem is:
# Write a method which collects all numbers between small_num and big_num into
an array. Ex: range(2, 5) => [2, 3, 4, 5]
My solution:
def range(small_num, big_num)
arr = []
(small_num..big_num).each do |num|
arr.push(num)
end
return arr
end
The provided solution:
def range(small_num, big_num)
collection = []
i = small_num
while i <= big_num
collection << i
i += 1
end
collection
end
Here's a simplified version of your code:
def range(small_num, big_num)
arr = [ ]
(small_num..big_num).each do |num|
arr << num
end
arr
end
Where the << or push function does technically have a return value, and that return value is the modified array. This is just how Ruby works. Every method must return something even if that something is "nothing" in the form of nil. As with everything in Ruby even nil is an object.
You're not obligated to use the return values, though if you did want to you could. Here's a version with inject:
def range(small_num, big_num)
(small_num..big_num).inject([ ]) do |arr, num|
arr << num
end
end
Where the inject method takes the return value of each block and feeds it in as the "seed" for the next round. As << returns the array this makes it very convenient to chain.
The most minimal version is, of course:
def range(small_num, big_num)
(small_num..big_num).to_a
end
Or as Sagar points out, using the splat operator:
def range(small_num, big_num)
[*small_num..big_num]
end
Where when you splat something you're in effect flattening those values into the array instead of storing them in a sub-array.
I am working on this coding challenge, and I have found that I am stuck. I thought it was possible to call the .string method on an argument that was passed in, but now I'm not sure. Everything I've found in the Ruby documentation suggests otherwise. I'd really like to figure this out without looking at the solution. Can someone help give me a push in the right direction?
# Write a method that will take a string as input, and return a new
# string with the same letters in reverse order.
# Don't use String's reverse method; that would be too simple.
# Difficulty: easy.
def reverse(string)
string_array = []
string.split()
string_array.push(string)
string_array.sort! { |x,y| y <=> x}
end
# These are tests to check that your code is working. After writing
# your solution, they should all print true.
puts(
'reverse("abc") == "cba": ' + (reverse("abc") == "cba").to_s
)
puts(
'reverse("a") == "a": ' + (reverse("a") == "a").to_s
)
puts(
'reverse("") == "": ' + (reverse("") == "").to_s
)
This is the simplest one line solution, for reversing a string without using #reverse, that I have come across -
"string".chars.reduce { |x, y| y + x } # => "gnirts"
Additionally, I have never heard of the #string method, I think you might try #to_s.
Easiest way to reverse a string
s = "chetan barawkar"
b = s.length - 1
while b >= 0
print s[b]
b=b-1
end
You need to stop the search for alternative or clever methods, such as altering things so you can .sort them. It is over-thinking the problem, or in some ways avoiding thinking about the core problem you have been asked to solve.
What this test is trying to get you you to do, is understand the internals of a String, and maybe get an appreciation of how String#reverse might be implemented using the most basic string operations.
One of the most basic String operations is to get a specific character from the string. You can get the first character by calling string[0], and in general you can get the nth character (zero-indexed) by calling string[n].
In addition you can combine or build longer strings by adding them together, e.g. if you had a="hell" and b="o", then c = a + b would store "hello" in the variable c.
Using this knowledge, find a way to loop through the original string and use that to build the reverse string, one character at a time. You may also need to look up how to get the length of a string (another basic string method, which you will find in any language's string library), and how to loop through numbers in sequence.
You're on the right track converting it to an array.
def reverse(str)
str.chars.sort_by.with_index { |_, i| -i }.join
end
Here is a solution I used to reverse a string without using .reverse method :
#string = "abcde"
#l = #string.length
#string_reversed = ""
i = #l-1
while i >=0 do
#string_reversed << #string[i]
i = i-1
end
return #string_reversed
Lol, I am going through the same challenge. It may not be the elegant solution, but it works and easy to understand:
puts("Write is a string that you want to print in reverse")
#taking a string from the user
string = gets.to_s #getting input and converting into string
def reverse(string)
i = 0
abc = [] # creating empty array
while i < string.length
abc.unshift(string[i]) #populating empty array in reverse
i = i + 1
end
return abc.join
end
puts ("In reverse: " + reverse(string))
Thought i'd contribute my rookie version.
def string_reverse(string)
new_array = []
formatted_string = string.chars
new_array << formatted_string.pop until formatted_string.empty?
new_array.join
end
def reverse_str(string)
# split a string to create an array
string_arr = string.split('')
result_arr = []
i = string_arr.length - 1
# run the loop in reverse
while i >=0
result_arr.push(string_arr[i])
i -= 1
end
# join the reverse array and return as a string
result_arr.join
end
Input should be a string:
"abcd#gmail.com"
Output should be an Array of strings:
["abcd#gmail.com",
"a.bcd#gmail.com",
"ab.cd#gmail.com",
"abc.d#gmail.com",
"a.b.cd#gmail.com",
"a.bc.d#gmail.com",
"a.b.c.d#gmail.com"]
The idea: "Make every possible combination in the first string part ("abcd") with a dot. Consecutive dots are not allowed. There are no dots allowed in the beginning and in the end of the first string part ("abcd")"
This is what I've came up with so far:
text,s = "abcd".split""
i=0
def first_dot(text)
text.insert 1,"."
end
def set_next_dot(text)
i = text.rindex(".")
text.delete_at i
text.insert(i+1,".")
end
My approach was
write a function, that sets the first dot
write a function that sets the next dot
...(magic)
I do not know how to put the pieces together. Any Idea? Or perhaps a better way?
thanx in advance
edit:
I think I found the solution :)
I will post it in about one hour (it's brilliant -> truth tables, binary numbers, transposition)
...and here the solution
s = "abc"
states = s.length
possibilites = 2**states
def set_space_or_dot(value)
value.gsub("0","").gsub("1",".")
end
def fill_with_leading_zeros(val, states)
if val.length < states
"0"*(states-val.length)+val
else
val
end
end
a = Array.new(possibilites,s)
a = a.map{|x| x.split ""}
b = [*0...possibilites].map{|x| x.to_s(2).to_s}
b = b.map{|x| fill_with_leading_zeros x,states}
b = b.map{|x| x.split ""}
c = []
for i in 0 ... a.size
c[i] = (set_space_or_dot (a[i].zip b[i]).join).strip
end
Changing pduersteler answer a little bit:
possibilities = []
string = "abcd#example.com"
(string.split('#')[0].size-1).times do |pos|
possibility = string.dup
possibilities << possibility.insert(pos+1, '.')
end
How about this (probably needs a bit more fine-tuning to suit your needs):
s = "abcd"
(0..s.size-1).map do |i|
start, rest = [s[0..i], s[(i+1)..-1]]
(0..rest.size-1).map { |j| rest.dup.insert(j, '.') }.map { |s| "#{start}#{s}"}
end.flatten.compact
#=> ["a.bcd", "ab.cd", "abc.d", "ab.cd", "abc.d", "abc.d"]
An option would be to iterate n times through your string moving the dot, where n is the amount of chars minus 1. This is what you're doing right now, but without defining two methods.
Something like this:
possibilities = []
string = "abcd#example.com"
(string.split('#')[0].size-1).times do |pos|
possibilities << string.dup.insert(pos+1, '.')
end
edit
Now tested. THanks to the comments, you need to call .dup on the string before the insert. Otherwise, the dot gets inserted into the string and will stay there for each iteration causing a mess. Calling .dup onthe string will copy the string and works on the copy instead, leaving the original string untouched.