I am trying to copy a Hash, and then later modifying the copy of hash. But when I compare the copy with the original one, even the original hash value is getting modified.
I have tried using this:
def deep_copy(o)
Marshal.load(Marshal.dump(o))
end
h1 = {:a => 'foo'}
h2 = deep_copy(h1)
h1[:a] << 'bar'
p h2
I have also tried doing this:
def dumpable_hash(h)
return h unless h.default_proc
copy = h.clone
copy.default = nil # clear the default_proc
copy
end
Hash object(which I want to copy and keep its original unmodified):
#original = {0=>{0=>[0, 4, 5, 6], 2=>[3, 7], 1=>[1, 2]}, 1=>{0=>[0, 4, 5, 6], 2=>[1], 1=>[2, 3, 7]}, 2=>{0=>[0, 4, 6], 1=>[1, 2, 5], 2=>[3, 7]}, 3=>{0=>[0, 4], 2=>[1, 2, 3, 6, 7], 1=>[5]}, 4=>{0=>[4], 2=>[1, 5], 1=>[2, 3, 6, 7, 0]}, 5=>{1=>[0, 1, 2, 5], 2=>[3, 6, 7], 0=>[4]}, 6=>{1=>[0, 1, 2, 5, 4], 2=>[3, 6, 7], 0=>[]}}
Tried copying the original into another object, using the given answer also.
Method used for updating its clone,
#outer loop
(1..5).each do |i|
#assigning original to another object in every loop
copy = #original.clone
(-6..0).each do |row|
if copy[row.abs][0].include? k
copy[row.abs][0] -= [k]
copy[row.abs][1] += [k]
puts "row #{row.abs}, col #{k}"
break
end
end
end
When the loop is over both the original and copy are updated.
Please help, I have been trying this from an hour now.
If want to copy one hash to another you can do it just like this. Then you can manipulate the copied hash or even do it in the loop. And then manipulate the copied hash it for your task. In here it copies the key-value pair for the hash,
#original = {0=>{0=>[0, 4, 5, 6], 2=>[3, 7], 1=>[1, 2]}, 1=>{0=>[0, 4, 5, 6], 2=>[1], 1=>[2, 3, 7]}, 2=>{0=>[0, 4, 6], 1=>[1, 2, 5], 2=>[3, 7]}, 3=>{0=>[0, 4], 2=>[1, 2, 3, 6, 7], 1=>[5]}, 4=>{0=>[4], 2=>[1, 5], 1=>[2, 3, 6, 7, 0]}, 5=>{1=>[0, 1, 2, 5], 2=>[3, 6, 7], 0=>[4]}, 6=>{1=>[0, 1, 2, 5, 4], 2=>[3, 6, 7], 0=>[]}}
copy = Hash.new
#original.each do |k, v|
copy[k] = v.dup
end
p copy #prints the copied hash
I think you need to do deep_dup here to completely separate one hash content from another.
h1 = {a: "foo"}
h2 = h1.deep_dup
h2[:a] << "bar"
puts h2 #returns {:a => "foobar"}
puts h1 # returns {:a => "foo"}
Use dup.
h1 = {a:1, b:2}
h2 = h1.dup
h2[:c] = 3
puts h1
{:a=>1, :b=>2}
puts h2
{:a=>1, :b=>2, :c=>3}
If you have a nested hash, you can use ActiveSupport deep_dup.
def deep_dup
each_with_object(dup) do |(key, value), hash|
hash[key.deep_dup] = value.deep_dup
end
end
You are modifying the original hash (Appending to h1 hash). Modify the deep copied one and you can see the original is staying as before,
def deep_copy(o)
Marshal.load(Marshal.dump(o))
end
h1 = {:a => 'foo'}
h2 = deep_copy(h1)
h2[:a] << 'bar'
p h2 #prints the cloned one
p h1 #prints the original one
See this for futher information about marshaling library here.
Related
I’m getting some weird results implementing cyclic permutation on the children of a multidimensional array.
When I manually define the array e.g.
arr = [
[1, 2, 3, 4, 5], [1, 2, 3, 4, 5], [1, 2, 3, 4, 5], [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
]
the output is different from when I obtain that same array by calling a method that builds it.
I’ve compared the manual array to the generated version and they’re exactly the same (class and values, etc).
I tried writing the same algorithm in JS and encountered the same issue.
Any idea what might be going on?
def Build_array(child_arr, n)
#Creates larger array with arr as element, n times over. For example Build_array([1,2,3], 3) returns [[1,2,3], [1,2,3], [1,2,3]]
parent_arr = Array.new(4)
0.upto(n) do |i|
parent_arr[i] = child_arr
end
return parent_arr
end
def Cylce_child(arr, steps_tocycle)
# example: Cylce_child([1, 2, 3, 4, 5], 2) returns [4, 5, 1, 2, 3]
0.upto(steps_tocycle - 1) do |i|
x = arr.pop()
arr.unshift(x)
end
return arr
end
def Permute_array(parent_array, x, y, z)
#x, y, z = number of steps to cycle each child array
parent_array[0] = Cylce_child(parent_array[0], x)
parent_array[1] = Cylce_child(parent_array[1], y)
parent_array[2] = Cylce_child(parent_array[2], z)
return parent_array
end
arr = Build_array([1, 2, 3, 4, 5], 4)
# arr = [[1, 2, 3, 4, 5], [1, 2, 3, 4, 5], [1, 2, 3, 4, 5], [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]]
puts "#{Permute_array(arr, 1, 2, 3)}"
# Line 34: When arr = Build_array([1, 2, 3, 4, 5], 4)
# Result (WRONG):
# [[5, 1, 2, 3, 4], [5, 1, 2, 3, 4], [5, 1, 2, 3, 4], [5, 1, 2, 3, 4]]
#
# Line 5: When arr = [[1, 2, 3, 4, 5], [1, 2, 3, 4, 5], [1, 2, 3, 4, 5], [1, # 2, 3, 4, 5]]
# Result (CORRECT):
# [[5, 1, 2, 3, 4], [4, 5, 1, 2, 3], [3, 4, 5, 1, 2], [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]]
#
The problem is in the way you build the array.
This line:
parent_arr[i] = child_arr
does not put in parent_arr[i] a copy of child_arr but a reference to it.
This means your initial array contains four references to the same child array. Later on, when the code changes parent_arr[0], it changes the same array that child_arr was referring to in the build method. And that array is also parent_arr[1] and parrent_arr[2] and so on.
A simple solution to the problem is to put in parent_arr[i] a copy of child_arr:
parent_arr[i] = Array.new(child_arr)
I see where the bug was. Added the clone method to line 8 so that it now reads:
parent_arr[i] = child_arr.clone
#Old: parent_arr[i] = child_arr
Thanks Robin, for pointing me in the right direction.
This is a fairly common mistake to make in Ruby since arrays do not contain objects per-se, but object references, which are effectively pointers to a dynamically allocated object, not the object itself.
That means this code:
Array.new(4, [ ])
Will yield an array containing four identical references to the same object, that object being the second argument.
To see what happens:
Array.new(4, [ ]).map(&:object_id)
# => => [70127689565700, 70127689565700, 70127689565700, 70127689565700]
Notice four identical object IDs. All the more obvious if you call uniq on that.
To fix this you must supply a block that yields a different object each time:
Array.new(4) { [ ] }.map(&:object_id)
# => => [70127689538260, 70127689538240, 70127689538220, 70127689538200]
Now adding to one element does not impact the others.
That being said, there's a lot of issues in your code that can be resolved by employing Ruby as it was intended (e.g. more "idiomatic" code):
def build_array(child_arr, n)
# Duplicate the object given each time to avoid referencing the same thing
# N times. Each `dup` object is independent.
Array.new(4) do
child_arr.dup
end
end
def cycle_child(arr, steps_tocycle)
# Ruby has a rotate method built-in
arr.rotate(steps_tocycle)
end
# Using varargs (*args) you can just loop over how many positions were given dynamically
def permute_array(parent_array, *args)
# Zip is great for working with two arrays in parallel, they get "zippered" together.
# Also map is what you use for transforming one array into another in a 1:1 mapping
args.zip(parent_array).map do |a, p|
# Rotate each element the right number of positions
cycle_child(p, -a)
end
end
arr = build_array([1, 2, 3, 4, 5], 4)
# => [[1, 2, 3, 4, 5], [1, 2, 3, 4, 5], [1, 2, 3, 4, 5], [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]]
puts "#{permute_array(arr, 1, 2, 3)}"
# => [[5, 1, 2, 3, 4], [4, 5, 1, 2, 3], [3, 4, 5, 1, 2]]
A lot of these methods boil down to some very simple Ruby so they're not especially useful now, but this adapts the code as directly as possible for educational purposes.
I am having trouble figuring the best approach to shift some values to another key. Every value most go to the next key, and the last key's values need to be completely removed. For example
hash1 = { a: [1, 2, 3], b: [4, 5, 6], c: [7, 8, 9] }
desired_hash = hash1.some_method
desired_hash === { a: [], b: [1, 2, 3], c: [4, 5, 6] }
My thought is to rename the hash keys but was not sure if this was the best approach.
hash1 = { a: [1, 2, 3], b: [4, 5, 6], c: [7, 8, 9] }
keys = hash1.keys
=> [:a, :b, :c]
values = hash1.values
=> [[1, 2, 3], [4, 5, 6], [7, 8, 9]]
keys.zip(values.unshift([])).to_h
=> {:a=>[], :b=>[1, 2, 3], :c=>[4, 5, 6]}
pv = []
hash1.each_with_object({}) do |(k,v),h|
h[k] = pv
pv = v
end
#=> {:a=>[], :b=>[1, 2, 3], :c=>[4, 5, 6]}
Assuming the hash keys are "in correct order" already.
You can try this:
def shift(input)
output = {}
keys = input.keys
0.upto(keys.size - 1) do |index|
current = keys[index]
if index > 0
previous = keys[index - 1]
output[current] = input[previous]
else
output[current] = []
end
end
output
end
input = { a: [1, 2, 3], b: [4, 5, 6], c: [7, 8, 9] }
p shift(input)
it's not very elegant, there is probably a much nicer solution but it's a starting point.
I'm trying to write my own transpose method. I'm wondering how the different forms of concatenation are affecting my code.
multi = [[1,3,5],[2,4,6],[7,9,8]]
new = Array.new(multi.length, [])
multi.each do |c|
c.each_with_index do |x,y|
new[y] += [x]
end
end
new #=> [[1, 3, 5], [2, 4, 6], [7, 9, 8]]
multi = [[1,3,5],[2,4,6],[7,9,8]]
new = Array.new(multi.length, [])
multi.each do |c|
c.each_with_index do |x,y|
new[y] << x
end
end
new #=> [[1, 3, 5, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 8], [1, 3, 5, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 8], [1, 3, 5, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 8]]
Why do they not work in an identical fashion?
With
new = Array.new(multi.length, [])
# => [[], [], []]
the elements in new refer to the same Array objects. Check their id:
new.map {|e| e.object_id}
# => [1625920, 1625920, 1625920]
The first code snippet gives you the expected result because new[y] += [x] assigns to new[y] a new Array object, so each element in new now doesn't refer to the same object:
new.map {|e| e.object_id}
# => [22798480, 22798440, 22798400]
With the second code snippet, each element in new still refers to the original Array object.
Using an Enumerator in Ruby is pretty straightforward:
a = [1, 2, 3]
enumerator = a.map
enumerator.each(&:succ) # => [2, 3, 4]
But can I do something similar with nested collections?
a = [[1, 2, 3], [4, 5, 6]]
a.map(&:map) # => [#<Enumerator: [1, 2, 3]:map>, #<Enumerator: [4, 5, 6]:map>]
But now how do I get [[2, 3, 4], [5, 6, 7]]?
This could always be done with a block:
a = [[1, 2, 3], [4, 5, 6]]
a.map { |array| array.map(&:succ) } # => [[2, 3, 4], [5, 6, 7]]
But I was wondering if there was a way that avoided the use of a block, partly because I find it annoying to have to type |array| array and also partly because I'm curious to find a way to do it.
Ideally, it would feel like this psuedocode:
a.map.map(&:succ)
# perhaps also something like this
a.map(&:map).apply(&:succ)
The only way I know of doing this is to do the following:
a = [[1, 2, 3], [4, 5, 6]]
a.map { |b| b.map(&:succ) } # => [[2, 3, 4], [5, 6, 7]]
Mainly because of the combination of Array#map/Enumerable#map and Symbol#to_proc, you cannot pass a second variable to the block that #map yields for, and thus pass another variable to the inner #map:
a.map(1) { |b, c| c } # c => 1, but this doesn't work :(
So you have to use the block syntax; Symbol#to_proc actually returns a proc that takes any number of arguments (you can test this by doing :succ.to_proc.arity, which returns -1). The first argument is used as the receiver, and the next few arguments are used as arguments to the method - this is demonstrated in [1, 2, 3].inject(&:+). However,
:map.to_proc.call([[1, 2, 3], [4, 5, 6]], &:size) #=> [3, 3]
How? :map.to_proc creates this:
:map.to_proc # => proc { |receiver, *args, &block| receiver.send(:map, *args, &block) }
This is then called with the array of arrays as an argument, with this block:
:size.to_proc # => proc { |receiver, *args, &block| receiver.send(:size, *args, &block) }
This results in .map { |receiver| receiver.size } being effectively called.
This all leads to this - since #map doesn't take extra arguments, and passes them to the block as parameters, you have to use a block.
To my knowledge there is no specific implementation as per the way you requested it.
You could just create a recursive function to handle this such as:
def map_succ(a)
a.map {|arr| arr.is_a?(Array) ? map_succ(arr) : arr.succ}
end
Then it will work no matter how deeply nested the Array's are (caveat if the elements do not respond to #succ this will fail).
If you really wanted to you could monkey_patch Array (IN NO WAY RECOMMENDED)
#note if the element does not respond to `#succ` I have nullified it here
class Array
def map_succ
map do |a|
if a.is_a?(Array)
a.map_succ
elsif a.respond_to?(:succ)
a.succ
#uncomment the lines below to return the original object in the event it does not respond to `#succ`
#else
#a
end
end
end
end
Example
a = [[1, 2, 3], [4, 5, 6], [7, 8, 9, [2, 3, 4]], {"test"=>"hash"}, "F"]
a.map_succ
#=> [[2, 3, 4], [5, 6, 7], [8, 9, 10, [3, 4, 5]], nil, "G"]
The nil is because Hash does not have a #succ method.
UPDATE
Based on this SO Post a similar syntax could be supported but note that recursion is still probably your best bet here so that you can support any depth rather than an explicit one.
#taken straight from #UriAgassi's from post above
class Symbol
def with(*args, &block)
->(caller, *rest) { caller.send(self, *rest, *args, &block) }
end
end
Then
a = [[1,2,3],[4,5,6]]
a.map(&:map.with(&:succ))
#=> [[2, 3, 4], [5, 6, 7]]
a << [7,8,[9,10]]
#=> [[2, 3, 4], [5, 6, 7],[7,8,[9,10]]]
a.map(&:map.with(&:succ))
#=> NoMethodError: undefined method `succ' for [9, 10]:Array
How does one merge N sorted arrays (or other list-like data structures) lazily in Ruby? For example, in Python you would use heapq.merge. There must be something like this built into Ruby, right?
Here's a (slightly golfed) solution that should work on arrays of any 'list-like' collections that support #first, #shift, and #empty?. Note that it is destructive - each call to lazymerge removes one item from one collection.
def minheap a,i
r=(l=2*(m=i)+1)+1 #get l,r index
m = l if l< a.size and a[l].first < a[m].first
m = r if r< a.size and a[r].first < a[m].first
(a[i],a[m]=a[m],a[i];minheap(a,m)) if (m!=i)
end
def lazymerge a
(a.size/2).downto(1){|i|minheap(a,i)}
r = a[0].shift
a[0]=a.pop if a[0].empty?
return r
end
p arrs = [ [1,2,3], [2,4,5], [4,5,6],[3,4,5]]
v=true
puts "Extracted #{v=lazymerge (arrs)}. Arr= #{arrs.inspect}" while v
Output:
[[1, 2, 3], [2, 4, 5], [4, 5, 6], [3, 4, 5]]
Extracted 1. Arr= [[2, 3], [2, 4, 5], [4, 5, 6], [3, 4, 5]]
Extracted 2. Arr= [[3], [2, 4, 5], [4, 5, 6], [3, 4, 5]]
Extracted 2. Arr= [[4, 5], [3], [4, 5, 6], [3, 4, 5]]
Extracted 3. Arr= [[4, 5], [3, 4, 5], [4, 5, 6]]
Extracted 3. Arr= [[4, 5], [4, 5], [4, 5, 6]]
Extracted 4. Arr= [[5], [4, 5], [4, 5, 6]]
Extracted 4. Arr= [[5], [5], [4, 5, 6]]
Extracted 4. Arr= [[5, 6], [5], [5]]
Extracted 5. Arr= [[6], [5], [5]]
Extracted 5. Arr= [[5], [6]]
Extracted 5. Arr= [[6]]
Extracted 6. Arr= [[]]
Extracted . Arr= [[]]
Note also that this algorithm is also lazy about maintaining the heap property - it is not maintained between calls. This probably causes it to do more work than needed, since it does a complete heapify on each subsequent call. This could be fixed by doing a complete heapify once up front, then calling minheap(a,0) before the return r line.
I ended up writing it myself using the data structures from the 'algorithm' gem. It wasn't as bad as I expected.
require 'algorithms'
class LazyHeapMerger
def initialize(sorted_arrays)
#heap = Containers::Heap.new { |x, y| (x.first <=> y.first) == -1 }
sorted_arrays.each do |a|
q = Containers::Queue.new(a)
#heap.push([q.pop, q])
end
end
def each
while #heap.length > 0
value, q = #heap.pop
#heap.push([q.pop, q]) if q.size > 0
yield value
end
end
end
m = LazyHeapMerger.new([[1, 2], [3, 5], [4]])
m.each do |o|
puts o
end
Here's an implementation which should work on any Enumerable, even infinite ones. It returns Enumerator.
def lazy_merge *list
list.map!(&:enum_for) # get an enumerator for each collection
Enumerator.new do |yielder|
hash = list.each_with_object({}){ |enum, hash|
begin
hash[enum] = enum.next
rescue StopIteration
# skip empty enumerators
end
}
loop do
raise StopIteration if hash.empty?
enum, value = hash.min_by{|k,v| v}
yielder.yield value
begin
hash[enum] = enum.next
rescue StopIteration
hash.delete(enum) # remove enumerator that we already processed
end
end
end
end
Infinity = 1.0/0 # easy way to get infinite range
p lazy_merge([1, 3, 5, 8], (2..4), (6..Infinity), []).take(12)
#=> [1, 2, 3, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 8, 9, 10]
No, there's nothing built in to do that. At least, nothing that springs instantly to mind. However, there was a GSoC project to implement the relevant data types a couple of years ago, which you could use.