[1,2,3,3] - [1,2,3] produces the empty array []. Is it possible to retain duplicates so it returns [3]?
I am so glad you asked. I would like to see such a method added to the class Array in some future version of Ruby, as I have found many uses for it:
class Array
def difference(other)
h = other.each_with_object(Hash.new(0)) { |e,h| h[e] += 1 }
reject { |e| h[e] > 0 && h[e] -= 1 }
end
end
A description of the method and links to some of its applications are given here.
By way of example:
a = [1,2,3,4,3,2,4,2]
b = [2,3,4,4,4]
a - b #=> [1]
a.difference b #=> [1,2,3,2]
Ruby v2.7 gave us the method Enumerable#tally, allowing us to replace the first line of the method with
h = other.tally
As far as I know, you can't do this with a built-in operation. Can't see anything in the ruby docs either. Simplest way to do this would be to extend the array class like this:
class Array
def difference(array2)
final_array = []
self.each do |item|
if array2.include?(item)
array2.delete_at(array2.find_index(item))
else
final_array << item
end
end
end
end
For all I know there's a more efficient way to do this, also
EDIT:
As suggested by user2864740 in question comments, using Array#slice! is a much more elegant solution
def arr_sub(a,b)
a = a.dup #if you want to preserve the original array
b.each {|del| a.slice!(a.index(del)) if a.include?(del) }
return a
end
Credit:
My original answer
def arr_sub(a,b)
b = b.each_with_object(Hash.new(0)){ |v,h| h[v] += 1 }
a = a.each_with_object([]) do |v, arr|
arr << v if b[v] < 1
b[v] -= 1
end
end
arr_sub([1,2,3,3],[1,2,3]) # a => [3]
arr_sub([1,2,3,3,4,4,4],[1,2,3,4,4]) # => [3, 4]
arr_sub([4,4,4,5,5,5,5],[4,4,5,5,5,5,6,6]) # => [4]
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]
I have two two-dimensional arrays,
a = [[17360, "Z51.89"],
[17361, "S93.601A"],
[17362, "H66.91"],
[17363, "H25.12"],
[17364, "Z01.01"],
[17365, "Z00.121"],
[17366, "Z00.129"],
[17367, "K57.90"],
[17368, "I63.9"]]
and
b = [[17360, "I87.2"],
[17361, "s93.601"],
[17362, "h66.91"],
[17363, "h25.12"],
[17364, "Z51.89"],
[17365, "z00.121"],
[17366, "z00.129"],
[17367, "k55.9"],
[17368, "I63.9"]]
I would like to count similar rows in both the arrays irrespective of the character case, i.e., "h25.12" would be equal to "H25.12".
I tried,
count = a.count - (a - b).count
But (a - b) returns
[[17360, "Z51.89"],
[17361, "S93.601A"],
[17362, "H66.91"],
[17363, "H25.12"],
[17364, "Z01.01"],
[17365, "Z00.121"],
[17366, "Z00.129"],
[17367, "K57.90"]]
I need the count as 5 since there are five similar rows when we do not consider the character case.
Instead of a - b you should do this:
a.map{|k,v| [k,v.downcase]} - b.map{|k,v| [k,v.downcase]} # case-insensitive
You can convert Arrays to Hash, and use Enumerable#count with a block.
b_hash = b.to_h
a.to_h.count {|k, v| b_hash[k] && b_hash[k].downcase == v.downcase }
# => 5
It will convert second element of inner array to upcase for both array then you can perform subtraction, then It will return exact result that you want
a.map{|first,second| [first,second.upcase]} - b.map{|first,second| [first,second.upcase]}
You can zip them and then use the block form of count:
a.zip(b).count{|e| e[0][1].downcase == e[1][1].downcase}
a.count - (a.map{|e| [e[0],e[1].downcase] } - b.map{|e| [e[0],e[1].downcase] }).count
The above maps a and b to new arrays where the second sub-array element is downcase.
You want to count similar, so &(AND) operation is more suitable.
(a.map { |k, v| [k, v.upcase] } & b.map { |k, v| [k, v.upcase] }).count
Using Proc and '&':
procedure = Proc.new { |i, j| [i, j.upcase] }
(a.map(&procedure) & b.map(&procedure)).count
#=> 5
For better understanding, let's simplify it:
new_a = a.map {|i, j| [i, j.upcase]}
new_b = b.map {|i, j| [i, j.upcase]}
# Set intersection using '&'
(new_a & new_b).count
#=> 5
I have assumed that the ith element of a is to be compared with the ith element of b. (Edit: a subsequent comment by the OP confirmed this interpretation.)
I would be inclined to use indices to avoid the construction of relatively large temporary arrays. Here are two ways that might be done.
#1 Use indices
[a.size,b.size].min.size.times.count do |i|
af,al=a[i]
bf,bl=b[i];
af==bf && al.downcase==bl.downcase
end
#=> 5
#2 Use Refinements
My purpose in giving this solution is to illustrate the use of Refinements. I would not argue for its use for the problem at hand, but this problem provides a good vehicle for showing how the technique can be applied.
I could not figure out how best to do this, so I posted this question on SO. I've applied #ZackAnderson's answer below.
module M
refine String do
alias :dbl_eql :==
def ==(other)
downcase.dbl_eql(other.downcase)
end
end
refine Array do
def ==(other)
zip(other).all? {|x, y| x == y}
end
end
end
'a' == 'A' #=> false (as expected)
[1,'a'] == [1,'A'] #=> false (as expected)
using M
'a' == 'A' #=> true
[1,'a'] == [1,'A'] #=> true
I could use Enumerable#zip, but for variety I'll use Object#to_enum and Kernel#loop in conjunction with Enumerator#next:
ea, eb = a.to_enum, b.to_enum
cnt = 0
loop do
cnt += 1 if ea.next == eb.next
end
cnt #=> 5
For example, the words "stack", I want to get an array like:
['s', 'st', 'sta', ... 'stack', 't', 'ta', ... , 'c', 'ck', 'k']
I did this by such code:
def split_word(str)
result = []
chas = str.split("")
len = chas.size
(0..len-1).each do |i|
(i..len-1).each do |j|
result.push(chas[i..j].join)
end
end
result.uniq
end
Is there better and clean way to do that? Thanks.
def split_word s
(0..s.length).inject([]){|ai,i|
(1..s.length - i).inject(ai){|aj,j|
aj << s[i,j]
}
}.uniq
end
And you can also consider using Set instead of Array for the result.
PS: Here's another idea, based on array product:
def split_word s
indices = (0...s.length).to_a
indices.product(indices).reject{|i,j| i > j}.map{|i,j| s[i..j]}.uniq
end
I'd write:
def split_word(s)
0.upto(s.length - 1).flat_map do |start|
1.upto(s.length - start).map do |length|
s[start, length]
end
end.uniq
end
groups = split_word("stack")
# ["s", "st", "sta", "stac", "stack", "t", "ta", "tac", "tack", "a", "ac", "ack", "c", "ck", "k"]
It's usually more clear and more compact to use map (functional) instead of the pattern init empty + each + append + return (imperative).
def substrings(str)
output = []
(0...str.length).each do |i|
(i...str.length).each do |j|
output << str[i..j]
end
end
output
end
this is just a cleaned up version of your method and it works with less steps =)
Don't think so.
Here's my attempted version:
def split_word(str)
length = str.length - 1
[].tap do |result|
0.upto(length) do |i|
length.downto(i) do |j|
substring = str[i..j]
result << substring unless result.include?(substring)
end
end
end
end
def substrings(str)
(0...str.length).map do |i|
(i...str.length).each { |j| str[i..j]}
end
end
Just another way to do it, that reads a little clearer to me.
Here is the recursive way to get all the possible sub strings.
def substrings str
return [] if str.size < 1
((0..str.size-1).map do |pos|
str[0..pos]
end) + substrings(str[1..])
end
Way later, but this is what I got from reformatting your code a bit.
def substrings(string)
siz = string.length
answer = []
(0..siz-1).each do |n|
(n..siz-1).each do |i|
answer << string[n..i]
end
end
answer
end
In order to implement auto-vivification of Ruby hash, one can employ the following class
class AutoHash < Hash
def initialize(*args)
super()
#update, #update_index = args[0][:update], args[0][:update_key] unless
args.empty?
end
def [](k)
if self.has_key?k
super(k)
else
AutoHash.new(:update => self, :update_key => k)
end
end
def []=(k, v)
#update[#update_index] = self if #update and #update_index
super
end
def few(n=0)
Array.new(n) { AutoHash.new }
end
end
This class allows to do the following things
a = AutoHash.new
a[:a][:b] = 1
p a[:c] # => {} # key :c has not been created
p a # => {:a=>{:b=>1}} # note, that it does not have key :c
a,b,c = AutoHash.new.few 3
b[:d] = 1
p [a,b,c] # => [{}, {:d=>1}, {}] # hashes are independent
There is a bit more advanced definition of this class proposed by Joshua, which is a bit hard for me to understand.
Problem
There is one situation, where I think the new class can be improved. The following code fails with the error message NoMethodError: undefined method '+' for {}:AutoHash
a = AutoHash.new
5.times { a[:sum] += 10 }
What would you do to handle it? Can one define []+= operator?
Related questions
Is auto-initialization of multi-dimensional hash array possible in Ruby, as it is in PHP?
Multiple initialization of auto-vivifying hashes using a new operator in Ruby
ruby hash initialization r
still open: How to create an operator for deep copy/cloning of objects in Ruby?
There is no way to define a []+= method in ruby. What happens when you type
x[y] += z
is
x[y] = x[y] + z
so both the [] and []= methods are called on x (and + is called on x[y], which in this case is an AutoHash). I think that the best way to handle this problem would be to define a + method on AutoHash, which will just return it's argument. This will make AutoHash.new[:x] += y work for just about any type of y, because the "empty" version of y.class ('' for strings, 0 for numbers, ...) plus y will almost always equal y.
class AutoHash
def +(x); x; end
end
Adding that method will make both of these work:
# Numbers:
a = AutoHash.new
5.times { a[:sum] += 10 }
a[:sum] #=> 50
# Strings:
a = AutoHash.new
5.times { a[:sum] += 'a string ' }
a[:sum] #=> "a string a string a string a string a string "
And by the way, here is a cleaner version of your code:
class AutoHash < Hash
def initialize(args={})
super
#update, #update_index = args[:update], args[:update_key]
end
def [](k)
if has_key? k
super(k)
else
AutoHash.new :update => self, :update_key => k
end
end
def []=(k, v)
#update[#update_index] = self if #update and #update_index
super
end
def +(x); x; end
def self.few(n)
Array.new(n) { AutoHash.new }
end
end
:)
What I think you want is this:
hash = Hash.new { |h, k| h[k] = 0 }
hash['foo'] += 3
# => 3
That will return 3, then 6, etc. without an error, because the the new value is default assigned 0.
require 'xkeys' # on rubygems.org
a = {}.extend XKeys::Hash
a[:a, :b] = 1
p a[:c] # => nil (key :c has not been created)
p a # => { :a => { :b => 1 } }
a.clear
5.times { a[:sum, :else => 0] += 10 }
p a # => { :sum => 50 }
I want to get the index as well as the results of a scan
"abab".scan(/a/)
I would like to have not only
=> ["a", "a"]
but also the index of those matches
[1, 3]
any suggestion?
Try this:
res = []
"abab".scan(/a/) do |c|
res << [c, $~.offset(0)[0]]
end
res.inspect # => [["a", 0], ["a", 2]]
There's a gotcha to look out for here, depending on the behaviour you expect.
If you search for /dad/ in "dadad" you'd only get [["dad",0]] because scan advances to the end of each match when it finds one (which is wrong to me).
I came up with this alternative:
def scan_str(str, pattern)
res = []
(0..str.length).each do |i|
res << [Regexp.last_match.to_s, i] if str[i..-1] =~ /^#{pattern}/
end
res
end
If you wanted you could also do a similar thing with StringScanner from the standard library, it might be faster for long strings.
Very similar to what #jim has said and works a bit better for longer strings:
def matches str, pattern
arr = []
while (str && (m = str.match pattern))
offset = m.offset(0).first
arr << offset + (arr[-1] ? arr[-1] + 1 : 0)
str = str[(offset + 1)..-1]
end
arr
end
It surprised me that there isn't any method similar to String#scan which would return array of MatchData objects, similar to String#match. So, if you like monkey-patching, you can combine this with Todd's solution (Enumerator is introduced in 1.9):
class Regexp
def scan str
Enumerator.new do |y|
str.scan(self) do
y << Regexp.last_match
end
end
end
end
#=> nil
/a/.scan('abab').map{|m| m.offset(0)[0]}
#=> [0, 2]