I am trying to change numbers up to 100 from integers into words, but have run into some trouble, can anyone point out what is missing with my code:
def in_words(integer)
numWords = {
0=>"zero",
1=>"one",
2=>"two",
3=>"three",
4=>"four",
5=>"five",
6=>"six",
7=>"seven",
8=>"eight",
9=>"nine",
10=>"ten",
11=>"eleven",
12=>"twelve",
13=>"thirteen",
14=>"fourteen",
15=>"fifteen",
16=>"sixteen",
17=>"seventeen",
18=>"eighteen",
19=>"nineteen",
20=>"twenty",
30=>"thirty",
40=>"fourty",
50=>"fifty",
60=>"sixty",
70=>"seventy",
80=>"eighty",
90=>"ninety",
100=>"one hundred"
}
array = integer.to_s.split('')
new_array = []
numWords.each do |k,v|
array.each do |x|
if x = k
new_array.push(v)
end
end
end
new_array.join('')
end
Right now when I do:
inwords(0)
I get the following:
=>"zeroonetwothreefourfivesixseveneightnineteneleventwelvethirteenfourteenfiftee nsixteenseventeeneighteennineteentwentythirtyfourtyfiftysixtyseventyeightyninetyone hundred"
Edit
I noticed your code iterates through the array a lot of times and uses the = instead of the == in your if statements.
Your code could be more efficient using the Hash's #[] method in combination with the #map method.., here's a one-line alternative:
integer.to_s.split('').map {|i| numWords[i.to_i]} .join ' '
Also, notice that the integer.to_s.split('') will split the array into one-digit strings, so having numbers up to a hundred isn't relevant for the code I proposed.
To use all the numbers in the Hash, you might want to use a Regexp to identify the numbers you have. One way is to do the following (I write it in one line, but it's easy to break it down using variable names for each step):
integer.to_s.gsub(/(\d0)|([1]?\d)/) {|v| v + " "} .split.map {|i| numWords[i.to_i]} .join ' '
# or:
integer.to_s.gsub(/(#{numWords.keys.reverse.join('|')})/) {|v| v + " "} .split.map {|i| numWords[i.to_i]} .join ' '
# out = integer.to_s
# out = out.gsub(/(#{numWords.keys.reverse.join('|')})/) {|v| v + " "}
# out = out.split
# out = out.map {|i| numWords[i.to_i]}
# out = out.join ' '
Edit 2
Since you now mention that you want the method to accept numbers up to a hundred and return the actual number (23 => twenty three), maybe a different approach should be taken... I would recommend that you update your question as well.
def in_words(integer)
numWords = {
0=>"zero",
1=>"one",
2=>"two",
3=>"three",
4=>"four",
5=>"five",
6=>"six",
7=>"seven",
8=>"eight",
9=>"nine",
10=>"ten",
11=>"eleven",
12=>"twelve",
13=>"thirteen",
14=>"fourteen",
15=>"fifteen",
16=>"sixteen",
17=>"seventeen",
18=>"eighteen",
19=>"nineteen",
20=>"twenty",
30=>"thirty",
40=>"fourty",
50=>"fifty",
60=>"sixty",
70=>"seventy",
80=>"eighty",
90=>"ninety",
100=>"one hundred"
}
raise "cannot accept such large numbers" if integer > 100
raise "cannot accept such small numbers" if integer < 0
return "one hundred" if integer == 100
if integer < 20 || integer %10 == 0
numWords[integer]
else
[numWords[integer / 10 * 10], numWords[integer % 10]].join ' '
end
end
the integer / 10 * 10 makes the number a round number (ten, twenty, etc') because integers don't have fractions (so, 23/10 == 2 and 2 * 10 == 20). The same could be achieved using integer.round(-1), which is probably better.
It seems like all you're trying to do is find a mapping from an implicit hash
module NumWords
INT2STR = {
0=>"zero",
1=>"one",
2=>"two",
3=>"three",
4=>"four",
5=>"five",
6=>"six",
7=>"seven",
8=>"eight",
9=>"nine",
10=>"ten",
11=>"eleven",
12=>"twelve",
13=>"thirteen",
14=>"fourteen",
15=>"fifteen",
16=>"sixteen",
17=>"seventeen",
18=>"eighteen",
19=>"nineteen",
20=>"twenty",
30=>"thirty",
40=>"fourty",
50=>"fifty",
60=>"sixty",
70=>"seventy",
80=>"eighty",
90=>"ninety",
100=>"one hundred"
}
module_function
def in_words(integer)
INT2STR[integer]
end
end
The above code separates the hash definition from the method call so that the hash doesn't get recreated every time you call in_words.
You can also use Hash#fetch instead of Hash#[] as Andrey pointed out.
Your test whether x = k is your first problem (in two ways).
Firstly, if x = k means assign the value of k to x and then execute the if block if that value is true (basically anything other than false or nil).
What you should actually be testing is x == k which will return true if x is equal to k.
The second problem is that you converted your number into an array of string representation so you are comparing, for example, if "0" == 0. This won't return true because they are different types.
If you convert it to if x.to_i == k then your if block will be executed and you'll get:
> in_words(0)
=> "zero"
Then you get to move onto the next problem which is that you're looking at your number digit by digit and some of the values you are testing against need two digits to be recognised:
> in_words(10)
=> "zeroone"
You might be in looking at a different question then - or maybe that is the question you wanted answered all along!
Here's another way you might do it:
ONES_TO_TEXT = { 0=>"zero", 1=>"one", 2=>"two", 3=>"three", 4=>"four",
5=>"five", 6=>"six", 7=>"seven", 8=>"eight", 9=>"nine" }
TEENS_TO_TEXT = { 10=>"ten", 11=>"eleven", 12=>"twelve",
13=>"thirteen", 15=>"fifteen" }
TENS_TO_TEXT = { 2=>"twenty", 3=>"thirty", 5=>"fifty", 8=>"eighty" }
def in_words(n)
raise ArgumentError, "#{n} is out-of_range" unless (0..100).cover?(n)
case n.to_s.size
when 1 then ONES_TO_TEXT[n]
when 3 then "one hundred"
else
case n
when (10..19)
TEENS_TO_TEXT.key?(n) ? TEENS_TO_TEXT[n] : ONES_TO_TEXT[n]+"teen"
else
t,o = n.divmod(10)
(TENS_TO_TEXT.key?(t) ? TENS_TO_TEXT[t] : ONES_TO_TEXT[t]+"ty") +
(o.zero? ? '' : "-#{ONES_TO_TEXT[o]}")
end
end
end
Let's try it:
in_words(5) #=> "five"
in_words(10) #=> "ten"
in_words(15) #=> "fifteen"
in_words(20) #=> "twenty"
in_words(22) #=> "twenty-two"
in_words(30) #=> "thirty"
in_words(40) #=> "fourty"
in_words(45) #=> "fourty-five"
in_words(50) #=> "fifty"
in_words(80) #=> "eighty"
in_words(99) #=> "ninety-nine"
in_words(100) #=> "one hundred"
Here the increased complexity may not be justified, but this approach may in fact simplify the calculations when the maximum permitted value of n is much greater than 100.
I have an array:
array = ['Footballs','Baseball','football','Soccer']
and I need to count the number of times Football or Baseball is seen, regardless of case and pluralization.
This is what I tried to do, but with no luck:
array.count { |x| x.downcase.include? 'football' || x.downcase.include? 'baseball' }
What is a right or better way to write this code? I am looking for 3 as an answer.
I would use count combined with a block that checks each element against a regular expression that matches the constraints you're looking for. In this case:
array.count { |element| element.match(/(football|baseball)s?\Z/i) }
This will match any of these elements: football, footballs, baseball, baseballs.
The s? makes the 's' optional, the i option (/i) makes the expression case insensitive, and the \Z option checks for the end of the string.
You can read more about Regexps in the Ruby docs: http://www.ruby-doc.org/core-2.0.0/Regexp.html
A great tool for playing with Regexps is Rubular: http://rubular.com/
If you give a block to the count method of array, it iterates over the array and counts the values for which you return true:
array.count do |x|
(x.downcase.include? 'footbal') || (x.downcase.include? 'baseball')
end
You can use inject to count each item and return the result.
array = ['Football','Baseball','football','Soccer']
count = array.inject({}) do |counter, item|
counter[item.downcase] ||= 0
counter[item.downcase] += 1
counter
end
# => {"football"=>2, "baseball"=>1, "soccer"=>1}
If you need to count a single value, it's even simpler.
array = ['Football','Baseball','football','Soccer']
count = array.inject(0) do |counter, item|
counter += (item.downcase == 'football' ? 1 : 0)
end
On one line
array = ['Football','Baseball','football','Soccer']
count = array.inject(0) { |counter, item| counter += (item.downcase == 'football' ? 1 : 0) }
To include pluralization, simply enhance the comparison.
Assuming you have Ruby on Rails installed for the singularize method (you don't actually need to run this in rails):
require 'active_support/inflector'
array = ['Footballs','Baseball','football','Soccer']
uniq = array.map { |s| s.downcase.singularize }.uniq
uniq.size # => 3
Using Rails and Ruby >= 2.7 you can do:
array = ['Footballs','Baseball','football','Soccer']
array.map(&:downcase).map(&:singularize).tally
=> {"football"=>2, "baseball"=>1, "soccer"=>1}
I am creating a method that will take an array of numbers and add them together. I don't want to use inject because I haven't learned it yet. I prefer to start with the basics. I want to use either each or while.
I've been re-writing this code and testing it against rspec, and I keep running into a problem because the first test consists of the array being empty with nil. I tried doing an if else statement to set nil to 0 if the array is empty?, but that didn't seem to work. Here is what I've got right now.
def sum(x)
total = 0
sum.each { |x| total += x}
total
end
The rspec is testing an empty array [] as well as others that have multiple integers. Thoughts?
You're not enumerating the array passed in to the method, you're enumerating the variable sum. You want x.each { |x| total += x}, although using x within the {} is a little odd in this case because you've used the name for your method parameter.
You can use compact! to remove the nils from your array.
def sum(x)
total = 0
x.compact! #lose the nils
x.each { |i| total += i}
total
end
Edit:
If the x being passed to your sum() method is nil, you can check for that with nil?.
The do something like
if x.nil?
0 #assuming you want to return 0
else
#rest of your function
You want to return nil if the array passed in is empty?
You are getting confused with your identifiers. You are trying to iterate over sum, which is the name of the method, and you are using x as both the method parameter and the iteration block parameter.
I suggest you use something more descriptive, like arr for the method parameter and v for the block parameter (holding the value of each value from the array).
Finally, you need to initialise the total to nil so that the correct value is returned if the array is empty. Unfortunately you can't do arithmetic on nil, so in the code below I have added a line to set total to zero if it isn't already set.
This will do what you ask.
def sum(arr)
total = nil
arr.each do |v|
total = 0 unless total
total += v
end
total
end
p sum [1,2,3]
p sum []
output
6
nil
You could create a new instance method for the Array class:
class Array
def sum
total = 0.0
self.each {|x| total += x if ['Fixnum', 'Float'].include?(x.class.name)}
total%1==0 ? total.to_i : total
end
end
Then you would use it like so:
puts [].sum # => 0
puts [1, 2, 3].sum # => 6
puts [2, nil, "text", 4.5].sum # => 6.5
I have this array of hashes:
results = [
{"day"=>"2012-08-15", "name"=>"John", "calls"=>"5"},
{"day"=>"2012-08-15", "name"=>"Bill", "calls"=>"8"},
{"day"=>"2012-08-16", "name"=>"Bill", "calls"=>"11"},
]
How can I search the results to find how many calls Bill made on the 15th?
After reading the answers to "Ruby easy search for key-value pair in an array of hashes", I think it might involve expanding upon the following find statement:
results.find { |h| h['day'] == '2012-08-15' }['calls']
You're on the right track!
results.find {|i| i["day"] == "2012-08-15" and i["name"] == "Bill"}["calls"]
# => "8"
results.select { |h| h['day'] == '2012-08-15' && h['name'] == 'Bill' }
.reduce(0) { |res,h| res += h['calls'].to_i } #=> 8
A Really clumsy implementation ;)
def get_calls(hash,name,date)
hash.map{|result| result['calls'].to_i if result['day'] == date && result["name"] == name}.compact.reduce(:+)
end
date = "2012-08-15"
name = "Bill"
puts get_calls(results, name, date)
=> 8
Or another possible way, but a little worse, using inject:
results.inject(0) { |number_of_calls, arr_element| arr_element['day'] == '2012-08-15' ? number_of_calls += 1 : number_of_calls += 0 }
Note that you have to set number_of_calls in each iteration, otherwise it will not work, for example this does NOT work:
p results.inject(0) { |number_of_calls, arr_element| number_of_calls += 1 if arr_element['day'] == '2012-08-15'}
Actually, "reduce" or "inject" is specifically for this exact operation (To reduce the contents of an enumerable down into a single value:
results.reduce(0) do |count, value|
count + ( value["name"]=="Bill" && value["day"] == "2012-08-15" ? value["calls"].to_i : 0)
end
Nice writeup here:
"Understanding map and reduce"
I have a value 'Dog' and an array ['Cat', 'Dog', 'Bird'].
How do I check if it exists in the array without looping through it? Is there a simple way of checking if the value exists, nothing more?
You're looking for include?:
>> ['Cat', 'Dog', 'Bird'].include? 'Dog'
=> true
There is an in? method in ActiveSupport (part of Rails) since v3.1, as pointed out by #campeterson. So within Rails, or if you require 'active_support', you can write:
'Unicorn'.in?(['Cat', 'Dog', 'Bird']) # => false
OTOH, there is no in operator or #in? method in Ruby itself, even though it has been proposed before, in particular by Yusuke Endoh a top notch member of ruby-core.
As pointed out by others, the reverse method include? exists, for all Enumerables including Array, Hash, Set, Range:
['Cat', 'Dog', 'Bird'].include?('Unicorn') # => false
Note that if you have many values in your array, they will all be checked one after the other (i.e. O(n)), while that lookup for a hash will be constant time (i.e O(1)). So if you array is constant, for example, it is a good idea to use a Set instead. E.g:
require 'set'
ALLOWED_METHODS = Set[:to_s, :to_i, :upcase, :downcase
# etc
]
def foo(what)
raise "Not allowed" unless ALLOWED_METHODS.include?(what.to_sym)
bar.send(what)
end
A quick test reveals that calling include? on a 10 element Set is about 3.5x faster than calling it on the equivalent Array (if the element is not found).
A final closing note: be wary when using include? on a Range, there are subtleties, so refer to the doc and compare with cover?...
Try
['Cat', 'Dog', 'Bird'].include?('Dog')
If you want to check by a block, you could try any? or all?.
%w{ant bear cat}.any? {|word| word.length >= 3} #=> true
%w{ant bear cat}.any? {|word| word.length >= 4} #=> true
[ nil, true, 99 ].any? #=> true
See Enumerable for more information.
My inspiration came from "evaluate if array has any items in ruby"
Use Enumerable#include:
a = %w/Cat Dog Bird/
a.include? 'Dog'
Or, if a number of tests are done,1 you can get rid of the loop (that even include? has) and go from O(n) to O(1) with:
h = Hash[[a, a].transpose]
h['Dog']
1. I hope this is obvious but to head off objections: yes, for just a few lookups, the Hash[] and transpose ops dominate the profile and are each O(n) themselves.
Ruby has eleven methods to find elements in an array.
The preferred one is include? or, for repeated access, creat a Set and then call include? or member?.
Here are all of them:
array.include?(element) # preferred method
array.member?(element)
array.to_set.include?(element)
array.to_set.member?(element)
array.index(element) > 0
array.find_index(element) > 0
array.index { |each| each == element } > 0
array.find_index { |each| each == element } > 0
array.any? { |each| each == element }
array.find { |each| each == element } != nil
array.detect { |each| each == element } != nil
They all return a trueish value if the element is present.
include? is the preferred method. It uses a C-language for loop internally that breaks when an element matches the internal rb_equal_opt/rb_equal functions. It cannot get much more efficient unless you create a Set for repeated membership checks.
VALUE
rb_ary_includes(VALUE ary, VALUE item)
{
long i;
VALUE e;
for (i=0; i<RARRAY_LEN(ary); i++) {
e = RARRAY_AREF(ary, i);
switch (rb_equal_opt(e, item)) {
case Qundef:
if (rb_equal(e, item)) return Qtrue;
break;
case Qtrue:
return Qtrue;
}
}
return Qfalse;
}
member? is not redefined in the Array class and uses an unoptimized implementation from the Enumerable module that literally enumerates through all elements:
static VALUE
member_i(RB_BLOCK_CALL_FUNC_ARGLIST(iter, args))
{
struct MEMO *memo = MEMO_CAST(args);
if (rb_equal(rb_enum_values_pack(argc, argv), memo->v1)) {
MEMO_V2_SET(memo, Qtrue);
rb_iter_break();
}
return Qnil;
}
static VALUE
enum_member(VALUE obj, VALUE val)
{
struct MEMO *memo = MEMO_NEW(val, Qfalse, 0);
rb_block_call(obj, id_each, 0, 0, member_i, (VALUE)memo);
return memo->v2;
}
Translated to Ruby code this does about the following:
def member?(value)
memo = [value, false, 0]
each_with_object(memo) do |each, memo|
if each == memo[0]
memo[1] = true
break
end
memo[1]
end
Both include? and member? have O(n) time complexity since the both search the array for the first occurrence of the expected value.
We can use a Set to get O(1) access time at the cost of having to create a Hash representation of the array first. If you repeatedly check membership on the same array this initial investment can pay off quickly. Set is not implemented in C but as plain Ruby class, still the O(1) access time of the underlying #hash makes this worthwhile.
Here is the implementation of the Set class:
module Enumerable
def to_set(klass = Set, *args, &block)
klass.new(self, *args, &block)
end
end
class Set
def initialize(enum = nil, &block) # :yields: o
#hash ||= Hash.new
enum.nil? and return
if block
do_with_enum(enum) { |o| add(block[o]) }
else
merge(enum)
end
end
def merge(enum)
if enum.instance_of?(self.class)
#hash.update(enum.instance_variable_get(:#hash))
else
do_with_enum(enum) { |o| add(o) }
end
self
end
def add(o)
#hash[o] = true
self
end
def include?(o)
#hash.include?(o)
end
alias member? include?
...
end
As you can see the Set class just creates an internal #hash instance, maps all objects to true and then checks membership using Hash#include? which is implemented with O(1) access time in the Hash class.
I won't discuss the other seven methods as they are all less efficient.
There are actually even more methods with O(n) complexity beyond the 11 listed above, but I decided to not list them since they scan the entire array rather than breaking at the first match.
Don't use these:
# bad examples
array.grep(element).any?
array.select { |each| each == element }.size > 0
...
Several answers suggest Array#include?, but there is one important caveat: Looking at the source, even Array#include? does perform looping:
rb_ary_includes(VALUE ary, VALUE item)
{
long i;
for (i=0; i<RARRAY_LEN(ary); i++) {
if (rb_equal(RARRAY_AREF(ary, i), item)) {
return Qtrue;
}
}
return Qfalse;
}
The way to test the word presence without looping is by constructing a trie for your array. There are many trie implementations out there (google "ruby trie"). I will use rambling-trie in this example:
a = %w/cat dog bird/
require 'rambling-trie' # if necessary, gem install rambling-trie
trie = Rambling::Trie.create { |trie| a.each do |e| trie << e end }
And now we are ready to test the presence of various words in your array without looping over it, in O(log n) time, with same syntactic simplicity as Array#include?, using sublinear Trie#include?:
trie.include? 'bird' #=> true
trie.include? 'duck' #=> false
If you don't want to loop, there's no way to do it with Arrays. You should use a Set instead.
require 'set'
s = Set.new
100.times{|i| s << "foo#{i}"}
s.include?("foo99")
=> true
[1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8].to_set.include?(4)
=> true
Sets work internally like Hashes, so Ruby doesn't need to loop through the collection to find items, since as the name implies, it generates hashes of the keys and creates a memory map so that each hash points to a certain point in memory. The previous example done with a Hash:
fake_array = {}
100.times{|i| fake_array["foo#{i}"] = 1}
fake_array.has_key?("foo99")
=> true
The downside is that Sets and Hash keys can only include unique items and if you add a lot of items, Ruby will have to rehash the whole thing after certain number of items to build a new map that suits a larger keyspace. For more about this, I recommend you watch "MountainWest RubyConf 2014 - Big O in a Homemade Hash by Nathan Long".
Here's a benchmark:
require 'benchmark'
require 'set'
array = []
set = Set.new
10_000.times do |i|
array << "foo#{i}"
set << "foo#{i}"
end
Benchmark.bm do |x|
x.report("array") { 10_000.times { array.include?("foo9999") } }
x.report("set ") { 10_000.times { set.include?("foo9999") } }
end
And the results:
user system total real
array 7.020000 0.000000 7.020000 ( 7.031525)
set 0.010000 0.000000 0.010000 ( 0.004816)
This is another way to do this: use the Array#index method.
It returns the index of the first occurrence of the element in the array.
For example:
a = ['cat','dog','horse']
if a.index('dog')
puts "dog exists in the array"
end
index() can also take a block:
For example:
a = ['cat','dog','horse']
puts a.index {|x| x.match /o/}
This returns the index of the first word in the array that contains the letter 'o'.
Fun fact,
You can use * to check array membership in a case expressions.
case element
when *array
...
else
...
end
Notice the little * in the when clause, this checks for membership in the array.
All the usual magic behavior of the splat operator applies, so for example if array is not actually an array but a single element it will match that element.
Check exists
Use include?
Example:
arr = [1, 2, 3]
arr.include?(1) -> true
arr.include?(4) -> false
Check does not exist
Use exclude?
Example:
arr = %w(vietnam china japan)
arr.exclude?('usa') -> true
arr.exclude?('china') -> false
There are multiple ways to accomplish this. A few of them are as follows:
a = [1,2,3,4,5]
2.in? a #=> true
8.in? a #=> false
a.member? 1 #=> true
a.member? 8 #=> false
This will tell you not only that it exists but also how many times it appears:
a = ['Cat', 'Dog', 'Bird']
a.count("Dog")
#=> 1
You can try:
Example: if Cat and Dog exist in the array:
(['Cat','Dog','Bird'] & ['Cat','Dog'] ).size == 2 #or replace 2 with ['Cat','Dog].size
Instead of:
['Cat','Dog','Bird'].member?('Cat') and ['Cat','Dog','Bird'].include?('Dog')
Note: member? and include? are the same.
This can do the work in one line!
If you need to check multiples times for any key, convert arr to hash, and now check in O(1)
arr = ['Cat', 'Dog', 'Bird']
hash = arr.map {|x| [x,true]}.to_h
=> {"Cat"=>true, "Dog"=>true, "Bird"=>true}
hash["Dog"]
=> true
hash["Insect"]
=> false
Performance of Hash#has_key? versus Array#include?
Parameter Hash#has_key? Array#include
Time Complexity O(1) operation O(n) operation
Access Type Accesses Hash[key] if it Iterates through each element
returns any value then of the array till it
true is returned to the finds the value in Array
Hash#has_key? call
call
For single time check using include? is fine
For what it's worth, The Ruby docs are an amazing resource for these kinds of questions.
I would also take note of the length of the array you're searching through. The include? method will run a linear search with O(n) complexity which can get pretty ugly depending on the size of the array.
If you're working with a large (sorted) array, I would consider writing a binary search algorithm which shouldn't be too difficult and has a worst case of O(log n).
Or if you're using Ruby 2.0, you can take advantage of bsearch.
If we want to not use include? this also works:
['cat','dog','horse'].select{ |x| x == 'dog' }.any?
How about this way?
['Cat', 'Dog', 'Bird'].index('Dog')
['Cat', 'Dog', 'Bird'].detect { |x| x == 'Dog'}
=> "Dog"
!['Cat', 'Dog', 'Bird'].detect { |x| x == 'Dog'}.nil?
=> true
If you're trying to do this in a MiniTest unit test, you can use assert_includes. Example:
pets = ['Cat', 'Dog', 'Bird']
assert_includes(pets, 'Dog') # -> passes
assert_includes(pets, 'Zebra') # -> fails
There's the other way around this.
Suppose the array is [ :edit, :update, :create, :show ], well perhaps the entire seven deadly/restful sins.
And further toy with the idea of pulling a valid action from some string:
"my brother would like me to update his profile"
Then:
[ :edit, :update, :create, :show ].select{|v| v if "my brother would like me to update his profile".downcase =~ /[,|.| |]#{v.to_s}[,|.| |]/}
I always find it interesting to run some benchmarks to see the relative speed of the various ways of doing something.
Finding an array element at the start, middle or end will affect any linear searches but barely affect a search against a Set.
Converting an Array to a Set is going to cause a hit in processing time, so create the Set from an Array once, or start with a Set from the very beginning.
Here's the benchmark code:
# frozen_string_literal: true
require 'fruity'
require 'set'
ARRAY = (1..20_000).to_a
SET = ARRAY.to_set
DIVIDER = '-' * 20
def array_include?(elem)
ARRAY.include?(elem)
end
def array_member?(elem)
ARRAY.member?(elem)
end
def array_index(elem)
ARRAY.index(elem) >= 0
end
def array_find_index(elem)
ARRAY.find_index(elem) >= 0
end
def array_index_each(elem)
ARRAY.index { |each| each == elem } >= 0
end
def array_find_index_each(elem)
ARRAY.find_index { |each| each == elem } >= 0
end
def array_any_each(elem)
ARRAY.any? { |each| each == elem }
end
def array_find_each(elem)
ARRAY.find { |each| each == elem } != nil
end
def array_detect_each(elem)
ARRAY.detect { |each| each == elem } != nil
end
def set_include?(elem)
SET.include?(elem)
end
def set_member?(elem)
SET.member?(elem)
end
puts format('Ruby v.%s', RUBY_VERSION)
{
'First' => ARRAY.first,
'Middle' => (ARRAY.size / 2).to_i,
'Last' => ARRAY.last
}.each do |k, element|
puts DIVIDER, k, DIVIDER
compare do
_array_include? { array_include?(element) }
_array_member? { array_member?(element) }
_array_index { array_index(element) }
_array_find_index { array_find_index(element) }
_array_index_each { array_index_each(element) }
_array_find_index_each { array_find_index_each(element) }
_array_any_each { array_any_each(element) }
_array_find_each { array_find_each(element) }
_array_detect_each { array_detect_each(element) }
end
end
puts '', DIVIDER, 'Sets vs. Array.include?', DIVIDER
{
'First' => ARRAY.first,
'Middle' => (ARRAY.size / 2).to_i,
'Last' => ARRAY.last
}.each do |k, element|
puts DIVIDER, k, DIVIDER
compare do
_array_include? { array_include?(element) }
_set_include? { set_include?(element) }
_set_member? { set_member?(element) }
end
end
Which, when run on my Mac OS laptop, results in:
Ruby v.2.7.0
--------------------
First
--------------------
Running each test 65536 times. Test will take about 5 seconds.
_array_include? is similar to _array_index
_array_index is similar to _array_find_index
_array_find_index is faster than _array_any_each by 2x ± 1.0
_array_any_each is similar to _array_index_each
_array_index_each is similar to _array_find_index_each
_array_find_index_each is faster than _array_member? by 4x ± 1.0
_array_member? is faster than _array_detect_each by 2x ± 1.0
_array_detect_each is similar to _array_find_each
--------------------
Middle
--------------------
Running each test 32 times. Test will take about 2 seconds.
_array_include? is similar to _array_find_index
_array_find_index is similar to _array_index
_array_index is faster than _array_member? by 2x ± 0.1
_array_member? is faster than _array_index_each by 2x ± 0.1
_array_index_each is similar to _array_find_index_each
_array_find_index_each is similar to _array_any_each
_array_any_each is faster than _array_detect_each by 30.000000000000004% ± 10.0%
_array_detect_each is similar to _array_find_each
--------------------
Last
--------------------
Running each test 16 times. Test will take about 2 seconds.
_array_include? is faster than _array_find_index by 10.000000000000009% ± 10.0%
_array_find_index is similar to _array_index
_array_index is faster than _array_member? by 3x ± 0.1
_array_member? is faster than _array_find_index_each by 2x ± 0.1
_array_find_index_each is similar to _array_index_each
_array_index_each is similar to _array_any_each
_array_any_each is faster than _array_detect_each by 30.000000000000004% ± 10.0%
_array_detect_each is similar to _array_find_each
--------------------
Sets vs. Array.include?
--------------------
--------------------
First
--------------------
Running each test 65536 times. Test will take about 1 second.
_array_include? is similar to _set_include?
_set_include? is similar to _set_member?
--------------------
Middle
--------------------
Running each test 65536 times. Test will take about 2 minutes.
_set_member? is similar to _set_include?
_set_include? is faster than _array_include? by 1400x ± 1000.0
--------------------
Last
--------------------
Running each test 65536 times. Test will take about 4 minutes.
_set_member? is similar to _set_include?
_set_include? is faster than _array_include? by 3000x ± 1000.0
Basically the results tell me to use a Set for everything if I'm going to search for inclusion unless I can guarantee that the first element is the one I want, which isn't very likely. There's some overhead when inserting elements into a hash, but the search times are so much faster I don't think that should ever be a consideration. Again, if you need to search it, don't use an Array, use a Set. (Or a Hash.)
The smaller the Array, the faster the Array methods will run, but they're still not going to keep up, though in small arrays the difference might be tiny.
"First", "Middle" and "Last" reflect the use of first, size / 2 and last for ARRAY for the element being searched for. That element will be used when searching the ARRAY and SET variables.
Minor changes were made for the methods that were comparing to > 0 because the test should be >= 0 for index type tests.
More information about Fruity and its methodology is available in its README.
it has many ways to find a element in any array but the simplest way is 'in ?' method.
example:
arr = [1,2,3,4]
number = 1
puts "yes #{number} is present in arr" if number.in? arr
If you want to return the value not just true or false, use
array.find{|x| x == 'Dog'}
This will return 'Dog' if it exists in the list, otherwise nil.
if you don't want to use include? you can first wrap the element in an array and then check whether the wrapped element is equal to the intersection of the array and the wrapped element. This will return a boolean value based on equality.
def in_array?(array, item)
item = [item] unless item.is_a?(Array)
item == array & item
end
Here is one more way to do this:
arr = ['Cat', 'Dog', 'Bird']
e = 'Dog'
present = arr.size != (arr - [e]).size
array = [ 'Cat', 'Dog', 'Bird' ]
array.include?("Dog")
Try below
(['Cat', 'Dog', 'Bird'] & ['Dog']).any?