In the card game bridge, four cards are given point values: Jack: 1, Queen: 2, King: 3, Ace: 4. Given an array of strings corresponding to a hand of cards (the cards are represented like so: ["2","3","4","5","6","7","8","9","10","J","Q","K","A"]), return the total number of high card points for that hand.
I can solve this simple problem with while loop, but I would like to learn how to use .each to iterate through an array as well, Here is my code that doesn't work
def high_card_points(hand)
sum = 0
hand.each do |i|
if hand[i] == "J"
sum += 1
elsif hand[i] == "Q"
sum += 2
elsif hand[i] == "K"
sum += 3
elsif hand[i] == "A"
sum += 4
end
end
sum
end
Now, when I run it, the error no implicit conversion of String into Integer comes out. How should I do it in the right way?
The problem here, is that when you use each the variable inside the block, is the object inside the array not the index, so you can work as follow:
def high_card_points(hand)
sum = 0
hand.each do |card|
if card == "J"
sum += 1
elsif card == "Q"
sum += 2
elsif card == "K"
sum += 3
elsif card == "A"
sum += 4
end
end
sum
end
and if you execute in pry
[5] pry(main)* => :high_card_points
[6] pry(main)> high_card_points(cards)
=> 10
You can also work whit the index like with each_index. But you can also take an other object-functional aproach:
You can create your class or monkeypatch the class string:
class String
def card_points
case self
when 'J'
1
when 'Q'
2
when 'K'
3
when 'A'
4
else
0
end
end
end
Then proceed like this:
[31] pry(main)> cards.map(&:card_points).inject(0, :+)
=> 10
The error message states, "TypeError (no implicit conversion of String into Integer)" and that the exception was raised in the line hand[i] == "J". The first element passed to the block by each and assigned to the block variable i is i = hand.first #=> "2". We therefore have hand["2"] == "J", or in fact, hand.[]("2"), but the method Array#[] requires its argument to be an integer, and there is "no implicit conversion of String into Integer".
Let me now address a different aspect of your question.
arr = ["2","3","4","5","6","7","8","9","10","J","Q","K","A"]
You could write the following.
arr.reduce(0) do |tot, s|
tot +
case s
when "J" then 1
when "Q" then 2
when "K" then 3
when "A" then 4
else 0
end
end
#=> 10
I can hear you. You are saying, "I said I wanted to use .each!". Well, you have! Let me explain.
arr is an instance of the class Array. Array has Module#include'd the module Enumerable, which is why we can invoke the instance method Enumerable#reduce on arr. (Array.included_modules #=> [Enumerable, Kernel]).
Like all other instance methods in Enumerable, Enumerable#reduce (aka inject) requires a receiver that is an instance of the class Enumerator, but arr is an instance of Array, not Enumerator. Ruby gets around this as follows. When reduce is invoked on arr, she sees that arr is not an instance of Enumerator so she checks to see if arr has a method each (that is, whether arr's class Array has an instance method each). It does, so she invokes each on arr to obtain
enum = arr.each
#=> #<Enumerator: ["2", "3", "4", "5", "6", "7", "8", "9", "10", "J",
# "Q", "K", "A"]:each>
We now have the enumerator on which reduce can be invoked:
enum.reduce(0) do |tot, s|
tot +
case s
when "J" then 1
when "Q" then 2
when "K" then 3
when "A" then 4
else 0
end
end
#=> 10
You don't see Array#each being invoked, but it certainly is. We can confirm that by including Enumerable in a class that does not have a method each and see what happens.
class C
include Enumerable
end
c = C.new
#=> #<C:0x0000000002a118a8>
c.reduce {}
#=> NoMethodError (undefined method `each' for #<C:0x0000000002a118a8>)
class C
def each
end
end
c.reduce {}
#=> nil
This is why every class that includes Enumerable must have an instance method each that returns an enumerator and why each is invoked on instances of that class before an instance method from Enumerable is called.
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]
def count_vowels(string)
vowels = ["a", "e", "i", "o", "u"]
i = 0
j = 0
count = 0
while i < string.length do
while j < vowels.length do
if string[i] == vowels[j]
count += 1
break
end
j += 1
end
i += 1
end
puts count
end
I'm having trouble spotting where this goes wrong. If this program encounters a consonant, it stops. Also, how would the same problem be solved using the ".each" method?
The problem is that you never reset j to zero.
The first time your outer while loop runs, which is to compare the first character of string to each vowel, j is incremented from 0 (for "a") to 4 (for "u"). The second time the outer loop runs, however, j is already 4, which means it then gets incremented to 5, 6, 7 and on and on. vowels[5], vowels[6], etc. all evaluate to nil, so characters after the first are never counted as vowels.
If you move the j = 0 line inside the outer while loop, your method works correctly.
Your second question, about .each, shows that you're already thinking along the right lines. while is rarely seen in Ruby and .each would definitely be an improvement. As it turns out, you can't call .each on a String (because the String class doesn't include Enumerable), so you have to turn it into an Array of characters first with the String#chars method. With that, your code would look like this:
def count_vowels(string)
chars = string.chars
vowels = ["a", "e", "i", "o", "u"]
count = 0
chars.each do |char|
vowels.each do |vowel|
if char == vowel
count += 1
break
end
end
end
puts count
end
In Ruby, though, we have much better ways to do this sort of thing. One that fits particularly well here is Array#count. It takes a block and evaluates it for each item in the array, then returns the number of items for which the block returned true. Using it we could write a method like this:
def count_vowels(string)
chars = string.chars
vowels = ["a", "e", "i", "o", "u"]
count = chars.count do |char|
is_vowel = false
vowels.each do |vowel|
if char == vowel
is_vowel = true
break
end
end
is_vowel
end
puts count
end
That's not much shorter, though. Another great method we can use is Enumerable#any?. It evaluates the given block for each item in the array and returns true upon finding any item for which the block returns true. Using it makes our code super short, but still readable:
def count_vowels(string)
chars = string.chars
vowels = %w[ a e i o u ]
count = chars.count do |char|
vowels.any? {|vowel| char == vowel }
end
puts count
end
(Here you'll see I threw in another common Ruby idiom, the "percent literal" notation for creating an array: %w[ a e i o u ]. It's a common way to create an array of strings without all of those quotation marks and commas. You can read more about it here.)
Another way to do the same thing would be to use Enumerable#include?, which returns true if the array contains the given item:
def count_vowels(string)
vowels = %w[ a e i o u ]
puts string.chars.count {|char| vowels.include?(char) }
end
...but as it turns out, String has an include? method, too, so we can do this instead:
def count_vowels(string)
puts string.chars.count {|char| "aeiou".include?(char) }
end
Not bad! But I've saved the best for last. Ruby has a great method called String#count:
def count_vowels(string)
puts string.count("aeiou")
end
I don't get why reversed_string=string[i] + reversed_string puts the last char first. It seems that string[i] would index the first char and not the last. So if the string was "abc" index 0 would be 'a' and not 'c'. Could someone please explain how ruby gets 'c' from index 0? And then, of course, 'b' from index 1? Etc, etc.
Write a method that will take a string as input, and return a new string with the same letters in reverse order.
Difficulty: easy.
def reverse(string)
reversed_string = ""
i = 0
while i < string.length
reversed_string = string[i] + reversed_string
i += 1
end
return reversed_string
end
puts("reverse(\"abc\") == \"cba\": #{reverse("abc") == "cba"}")
puts("reverse(\"a\") == \"a\": #{reverse("a") == "a"}")
puts("reverse(\"\") == \"\": #{reverse("") == ""}")
reversed_string = string[i] + reversed_string
For example, if string is "abc", string[0] is indeed "a", but here it's being put in the beginning of reversed_string, not the end. reversed_string is added up in each iteration as:
"a" + "" #string[0] + "" => "a"
"b" + "a" #string[1] + "a" => "ba"
"c" + "ba" #string[2] + "ba"=> "cba"
Assuming you can't use Ruby Class String's built in Reverse method, you could try the following
def reverse_string(string)
new_string = []
i = string.length-1
while i >= 0
new_string.push(string[i])
i -= 1
end
new_string.join
end
This will create a new string object, but it will reverse the string without using any built-in methods.
As you know, there is a method String#reverse to reverse a string. I understand you are not to use that method, but instead write your own, where the method's argument is the string to be reversed. Others will suggest ways you might do that.
As you are new to Ruby, I thought it might be instructive to show you how you could write a new method for the String class, say, String#my_reverse, that behaves exactly the same as String#reverse. Then for the string "three blind mice", we would have:
"three blind mice".reverse #=> "ecim dnilb eerht"
"three blind mice".my_reverse #=> "ecim dnilb eerht"
To create a method without arguments for the String class, we normally do it like this:
class String
def my_method
...
end
end
We invoke my_method by sending it a receiver that is an instance of the String class. For example, if write:
"three blind mice".my_method
we are sending the method String#my_method to the receiver "three blind mice". Within the definition of the method, the receiver is referred to as self. Here self would be "three blind mice". Similarly, just as the second character (at offset 1) of that string is "three blind mice"[1] #=> "h", self[1] #=> "h". We can check that:
class String
def my_method
puts "I is '#{self}'"
(0...self.size).each { |i| puts self[i] }
end
end
"three blind mice".my_method
would print:
I is 'three blind mice'
t
h
r
e
e
b
...
c
e
The method my_reverse is almost the same:
class String
def my_reverse
sz = self.size
str = ''
(0...sz).each { |i| str << self[sz-1-i] }
str
end
end
"three blind mice".my_reverse
#=> "ecim dnilb eerht"
You can think of self as a variable whose value is the receiver, but unlike a variable, you cannot reassign self to a different object. For example, we can write x = 1; x = 'cat', but we cannot write self = 'cat'. As we have already seen, however, we can change the references self makes to other objects, such as self[1] = 'r'.
I'm surprised that Enumerator#each doesn't start off at the current position in the sequence.
o = Object.new
def o.each
yield 1
yield 2
yield 3
end
e = o.to_enum
puts e.next
puts e.next
e.each{|x| puts x}
# I expect to see 1,2,3 but I see 1,2,1,2,3
# apparently Enumerator's each (inherited from Enumerable) restarts the sequence!
Am I doin' it wrong? Is there a way to maybe construct another Enumerator (from e) that will have the expected each behavior?
You're not doing it wrong, that's just not the semantics defined for Enumerator#each. You could make a derivative enumerator that only iterates from current position to end:
class Enumerator
def enum_the_rest
Enumerator.new { |y| loop { y << self.next } }
end
end
o = Object.new
def o.each
yield 1
yield 2
yield 3
end
e = o.to_enum
=> #<Enumerator: ...>
e.next
=> 1
e2 = e.enum_the_rest
=> #<Enumerator: ...>
e2.each { |x| puts x }
=> 2
=> 3
And, BTW, each doesn't restart the sequence, it just always runs over the entire span. Your enumerator still knows where it is in relation to the next next call.
e3 = o.to_enum
e3.next
=> 1
e3.next
=> 2
e3.map(&:to_s)
=> ["1", "2", "3"]
e3.next
=> 3
Enumerator#next and Enumerator#each work on the object differently. Per the documentation for #each (emphasis mine):
Iterates over the block according to how this Enumerable was constructed. If no block is given, returns self.
So #each always behaves based on the original setup, not on the current internal state. If you quickly peak at the source you'll see that rb_obj_dup is called to setup a new enumerator.
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]