I want a list of items (I really want a stack for FILO, but I guess it is irrelevant). Is there some implementation for manipulating the item order? Things like:
Move x to 2 positions ahead
Move y to 3 positions behind
Move z to the top of position
I want to see that if something similar already exists, what other functionality it offers. I also want to use it/know how such interface works. I am doing this in Ruby, but I guess examples in other languages will be sufficient as well.
As far as I know, Ruby hasn't built-in method to move elements inside an array, but you could add them directly into Array class, like that:
class Array
def move(index, distance)
temp = self[index+distance]
self[index+distance] = self[index]
self[index] = temp
self
end
end
a = [1,2,3]
a.move(0,1)
Related
I'm trying to use Matlab to implement the MDO algorithm, which requires me to sort an array of objects of a custom-defined mdoVertex class by their degree, and then delete the one with the smallest degree value. My first attempt was this:
for i = 1:m
if graph(i).degree < minDegree
minDegree = graph(i).degree;
elimObject = graph(i);
end
end
Matlab is complaining that elimObject, or the object to be eliminated after the loop executes, is an undefined function or variable. How, then, can I keep track of not only the current smallest degree the loop has encountered, but also which object it corresponded to? 'graph' is the name of the array holding all of my vertex objects.
I suspect that you're somehow trying to call clear on the object returned from your function. Or is it just a few lines of code in a script? I'm guessing here. In any event, calling clear won't work. As you've noticed, clear expects to be given a variable name.
But in this case, you're not trying to delete a variable, you're trying to remove an element from an array. For that, you do arrayname(indextodelete) = [];
So I think that you want...
minDegree = inf; % See what I did there? I defined the variable, and I did it in such a way that I KNOW that the first vertex will satisfy the condition.
for i = 1:length(graph) % Properly loop over the entire graph
if graph(i).degree < minDegree % The first vertex will definitely satisfy this. Maybe another one (or more) will later!
minDegree = graph(i).degree;
minDegreeIndex = i; % Don't record the value, just remember WHERE it is in the array.
end
end
graph(minDegreeIndex) = []; % Now, remove the element that you identified from the array!
(By the way, you never showed us how you tried to eliminate elimObject. I assume that you called clear (the object that you identified)? You shouldn't make us guess; show us.)
I am currently trying to compare every element of an array with the others (in Ruby). Those elements are objects of a class. I need to find similarities between them. My idea was to loop through the original array and in this loop creating a new array containing the other elements (not the one of the outer loop) and then loop through this second array and compare every item with the one in the outer each loop.
Here is some pseudocode:
originalArray.each{
|origElement|
tempArray = createNewArray from original array without origElement
tempArray.each{
|differentElement|
Compare origElement with differentElement
}
}
How can I create that tempArray?
I think you should use Array#permutation for this
original_array.permutation(2) { |elements| Compare elements[0] with elements[1] }
First, I want to say bjhaid's answer is beautiful and for your specific instance, it is the one that should be used.
However, I wanted to provide a more general answer that answers the direct question you asked: "How can I create that tempArray?"
If you wanted to delete all values that are equal to the element in the original array, you could simply do:
tempArray = originalArray - [origElement]
However, if you only want to delete that element, you could do:
originalArray.each_with_index {
|origElement, index|
tempArray = originalArray.dup
tempArray.delete_at(index)
tempArray.each{
|differentElement|
Compare origElement with differentElement
}
}
Also, a note on styling. You probably want to use underscores instead of CamelCase for all methods/variables. In the Ruby community, CamelCase is typically reserved for class / module names. You also probably want to keep the "piped-in" variables (called block arguments) on the same line as the beginning of the block. It is certainly not a requirement, but it is an almost universal convention in the Ruby community.
This code snippet would be much more familiar and readable to your typical Ruby dev:
original_array.each_with_index do |orig_element, index|
temp_array = original_array.dup
temp_array.delete_at(index)
temp_array.each do |different_element|
Compare orig_element with different_element
end
end
I had a question regarding identifying all the points next to a given cell or set of cells) in a matrix (see Need a Ruby way to determine the elements of a matrix "touching" another element). Since no suitable ideas were put forth, I decided to proceed via brute force.
The code below successfully does what I sought to do. The array tmpl (template) contains a map of how to get from a given coordinate (provided by atlantis) to the 8 cells surrounding it. I then construct an array sl (shoreline) that contains all the “underwater” land touching the shoreline of atlantis by summing each element of atlantis with all elements of tmpl.
# create method to determine elements contiguous to atlantis
require 'matrix'
atlantis = [[2,3],[3,4]]
tmpl = [[-1,-1],[-1,0],[-1,1],[0,-1],[0,1],[1,-1],[1,0],[1,1]]
ln = 0
sl = []
while ln < atlantis.length
n = 0
tsl = []
while n < 8
tsl[n] = [atlantis[ln], tmpl[n]].transpose.map { |x| x.reduce(:+) }
n = n+ 1
end
sl = sl + tsl
ln = ln + 1
end
sl = sl - atlantis
sl.uniq!
sl.to_a.each { |r| puts r.inspect }
But I have a problem (one of many remaining) in that I still need 2 levels of loops above what’s shown here (one to keep adding land to atlantis until it reaches a set size and another to make additional islands, Bermuda, Catalina, etc.) and already this is becoming difficult to read and follow. My vague understanding of object oriented programming suggests that this cold be improved by turning some of these loops into methods. However, I learned to program 35 years ago in basic and am struggling to learn Ruby as it is. So my requests are:
Is in fact better to turn these into methods?
If so, would anyone be willing to show me how that’s done by changing something into an method?
What do you do when you add additional levels and discover you need to change something in a lower method as a result? (e.g, after figuring out the simple case of how to create sl with just one value in atlantis, I had to go back and rework it for longer values.)
I hoping by asking the question in this way, it becomes something also useful to other nubies.
BTW, this bit .transpose.map { |x| x.reduce(:+) } I found on Stack Overflow (after hours of trying to do it ‘cause it should be simple and if I couldn’t do it I must be missing something obvious. Yeah, I bet you know too.) lets you add two arrays element by element and I have no idea how it works.)
already this is becoming difficult to read and follow
One way of making it less difficult to read and follow is to try to make the code "self document", by using readable variable names and Ruby idioms to reduce the clutter.
A quick refactor of your code gives this:
require 'matrix'
atlantis = [[2,3],[3,4]]
template = [[-1,-1],[-1,0],[-1,1],[0,-1],[0,1],[1,-1],[1,0],[1,1]]
shoreline = []
atlantis.each do |atlantum|
shoreline += template.inject([]) do |memo, element|
memo << [atlantum, element].transpose.map { |x| x.reduce(:+) }
memo
end
end
shoreline = shoreline - atlantis
shoreline.uniq!
shoreline.each { |r| puts r.inspect }
The main processing block is half the size, and (hopefully) more readable, and from here you can use the extract method refactor to tidy it further if you still need/want to.
I have to search an item in an array and return the value of the next item. Example:
a = ['abc.df','-f','test.h']
i = a.find_index{|x| x=~/-f/}
puts a[i+1]
Is there any better way other than working with index?
A classical functional approach uses no indexes (xs.each_cons(2) -> pairwise combinations of xs):
xs = ['abc.df', '-f', 'test.h']
(xs.each_cons(2).detect { |x, y| x =~ /-f/ } || []).last
#=> "test.h"
Using Enumerable#map_detect simplifies it a litte bit more:
xs.each_cons(2).map_detect { |x, y| y if x =~ /-f/ }
#=> "test.h"
The reason something like array.find{something}.next doesn't exist is that it's an array rather than a linked list. Each item is just it's own value; it doesn't have a concept of "the item after me".
#tokland gives a good solution by iterating over the array with each pair of consecutive items, so that when the first item matches, you have your second item handy. There are strong arguments to be made for the functional style, to be sure. Your version is shorter, though, and I'd argue that yours is also more quickly and easily understood at a glance.
If the issue is that you're using it a lot and want something cleaner and more to the point, then of course you could just add it as a singleton method to a:
def a.find_after(&test)
self[find_index(&test).next]
end
Then
a.find_after{|x| x=~/-f/}
is a clear way to find the next item after the first match.
All of that said, I think #BenjaminCox makes the best point about what appears to be your actual goal. If you're parsing command line options, there are libraries that do that well.
I don't know of a cleaner way to do that specific operation. However, it sure looks like you're trying to parse command-line arguments. If so, I'd recommend using the built-in OptionParser module - it'll save a ton of time and hair-pulling trying to parse them yourself.
This article explains how it works.
Your solution working with indexes is fine, as others have commented. You could use Enumerable#drop_while to get an array from your match on and take the second element of that:
a = ['abc.df','-f','test.h']
f_arg = a.drop_while { |e| e !~ /-f/ }[1]
I am trying to keep the last n elements from a changing list of x elements (where x >> n)
I found out about the deque method, with a fixed length, in other programming languages. I was wondering if there is something similar for VB6
Create a Class that extends an encapsulated Collection.
Add at the end (anonymous), retrieve & remove from the beginning (index 1). As part of adding check your MaxDepth property setting (or hard code it if you like) and if Collection.Count exceeds it remove the extra item.
Or just hard code it all inline if a Class is a stumper for you.
This is pretty routine.
The only thing I can think of is possibly looping through the last 5 values of the dynamic array using something like:
For UBound(Array) - 5 To UBound(Array)
'Code to store or do the desired with these values
Loop
Sorry I don't have a definite answer, but hopefully that might help.
Here's my simplest solution to this:
For i = n - 1 To 1 Step -1
arrayX(i) = arrayX(i - 1)
Next i
arrayX(0) = latestX
Where:
arrayX = array of values
n = # of array elements
latestX = latest value of interest (assumes entire code block is also
within another loop)