Given a Sketchup::ComponentDefinition object c_def, if I use c_def.count_instances or cdef.instances.length I have the total number of instances of my component in the whole model, just like documentation says it should.
ComponentDefinition::count_instances
ComponentDefinition::instances
Unfortunately I need to count instances separating by groups or sub-components.
E.g. suppose I have two different components in a model that use the same basic component.
The first one has 3 basic component instances and the second one has 5.
c_def.count_instances will always return 8, as it is the total number of instances, but I need to be able to tell that the first component has only 3 and the second one only 5.
How to do that?
Thanks!
You would then need to recursively traverse the entities of the instance you're interested in. I'm afraid there is no API method for doing this.
module Example
def self.count_definition_in_entities(entities, find_definition, count = 0)
entities.each { |entity|
definition = self.get_definition(entity)
next if definition.nil?
count += 1 if find_definition == definition
count = self.count_definition_in_entities(definition.entities, find_definition, count)
}
count
end
def self.get_definition(entity)
if entity.is_a?(Sketchup::ComponentInstance)
entity.definition
elsif entity.is_a?(Sketchup::Group)
entity.entities.parent
else
nil
end
end
end # module
d = Sketchup.active_model.definitions["Sophie"]
Example.count_definition_in_entities(Sketchup.active_model.entities, d)
Also, beware that count_instances doesn't a complete full model count. If you have an component C1 placed two times in another component C2. Then C1.count_instances return 2. If you add another copy C2 you might expect C1.count_instances to yield 4 - but it doesn't it still yields 2. The method only counts how many times the instance is placed in any Entities collection, but doesn't take into account the whole model three.
Related
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)
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 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)
I have two arrays and I want to see the total number of matches, between the arrays individual items that their are.
For example arrays with:
1 -- House, Dog, Cat, Car
2 -- Cat, Book, Box, Car
Would return 2.
Any ideas? Thanks!
EDIT/
Basically I have two forms (for two different types of users) that uses nested attributes to store the number of skills they have. I can print out the skills via
current_user.skills.each do |skill| skill.name
other_user.skills.each do |skill| skill.name
When I print out the array, I get: #<Skill:0x1037e4948>#<Skill:0x1037e2800>#<Skill:0x1037e21e8>#<Skill:0x1037e1090>#<Skill:0x1037e0848>
So, yes, I want to compare the two users skills and return the number that match. Thanks for your help.
This works:
a = %w{house dog cat car}
b = %w{cat book box car}
(a & b).size
Documentation: http://www.ruby-doc.org/core/classes/Array.html#M000274
To convert classes to an array using the name, try something like:
class X
def name
"name"
end
end
a = [X.new]
b = [X.new]
(a.map{|x| x.name} & b.map{|x| x.name}).size
In your example, a is current_user.skills and b is other_users.skills. x is simply a reference to the current index of the array as the map action loops through the array. The action is documented in the link I provided.
I can't seem to find a definitive answer on this and I want to make sure I understand this to the "n'th level" :-)
a = { "a" => "Hello", "b" => "World" }
a.count # 2
a.size # 2
a.length # 2
a = [ 10, 20 ]
a.count # 2
a.size # 2
a.length # 2
So which to use? If I want to know if a has more than one element then it doesn't seem to matter but I want to make sure I understand the real difference. This applies to arrays too. I get the same results.
Also, I realize that count/size/length have different meanings with ActiveRecord. I'm mostly interested in pure Ruby (1.92) right now but if anyone wants to chime in on the difference AR makes that would be appreciated as well.
Thanks!
For arrays and hashes size is an alias for length. They are synonyms and do exactly the same thing.
count is more versatile - it can take an element or predicate and count only those items that match.
> [1,2,3].count{|x| x > 2 }
=> 1
In the case where you don't provide a parameter to count it has basically the same effect as calling length. There can be a performance difference though.
We can see from the source code for Array that they do almost exactly the same thing. Here is the C code for the implementation of array.length:
static VALUE
rb_ary_length(VALUE ary)
{
long len = RARRAY_LEN(ary);
return LONG2NUM(len);
}
And here is the relevant part from the implementation of array.count:
static VALUE
rb_ary_count(int argc, VALUE *argv, VALUE ary)
{
long n = 0;
if (argc == 0) {
VALUE *p, *pend;
if (!rb_block_given_p())
return LONG2NUM(RARRAY_LEN(ary));
// etc..
}
}
The code for array.count does a few extra checks but in the end calls the exact same code: LONG2NUM(RARRAY_LEN(ary)).
Hashes (source code) on the other hand don't seem to implement their own optimized version of count so the implementation from Enumerable (source code) is used, which iterates over all the elements and counts them one-by-one.
In general I'd advise using length (or its alias size) rather than count if you want to know how many elements there are altogether.
Regarding ActiveRecord, on the other hand, there are important differences. check out this post:
Counting ActiveRecord associations: count, size or length?
There is a crucial difference for applications which make use of database connections.
When you are using many ORMs (ActiveRecord, DataMapper, etc.) the general understanding is that .size will generate a query that requests all of the items from the database ('select * from mytable') and then give you the number of items resulting, whereas .count will generate a single query ('select count(*) from mytable') which is considerably faster.
Because these ORMs are so prevalent I following the principle of least astonishment. In general if I have something in memory already, then I use .size, and if my code will generate a request to a database (or external service via an API) I use .count.
In most cases (e.g. Array or String) size is an alias for length.
count normally comes from Enumerable and can take an optional predicate block. Thus enumerable.count {cond} is [roughly] (enumerable.select {cond}).length -- it can of course bypass the intermediate structure as it just needs the count of matching predicates.
Note: I am not sure if count forces an evaluation of the enumeration if the block is not specified or if it short-circuits to the length if possible.
Edit (and thanks to Mark's answer!): count without a block (at least for Arrays) does not force an evaluation. I suppose without formal behavior it's "open" for other implementations, if forcing an evaluation without a predicate ever even really makes sense anyway.
I found a good answare at http://blog.hasmanythrough.com/2008/2/27/count-length-size
In ActiveRecord, there are several ways to find out how many records
are in an association, and there are some subtle differences in how
they work.
post.comments.count - Determine the number of elements with an SQL
COUNT query. You can also specify conditions to count only a subset of
the associated elements (e.g. :conditions => {:author_name =>
"josh"}). If you set up a counter cache on the association, #count
will return that cached value instead of executing a new query.
post.comments.length - This always loads the contents of the
association into memory, then returns the number of elements loaded.
Note that this won't force an update if the association had been
previously loaded and then new comments were created through another
way (e.g. Comment.create(...) instead of post.comments.create(...)).
post.comments.size - This works as a combination of the two previous
options. If the collection has already been loaded, it will return its
length just like calling #length. If it hasn't been loaded yet, it's
like calling #count.
Also I have a personal experience:
<%= h(params.size.to_s) %> # works_like_that !
<%= h(params.count.to_s) %> # does_not_work_like_that !
We have a several ways to find out how many elements in an array like .length, .count and .size. However, It's better to use array.size rather than array.count. Because .size is better in performance.
Adding more to Mark Byers answer. In Ruby the method array.size is an alias to Array#length method. There is no technical difference in using any of these two methods. Possibly you won't see any difference in performance as well. However, the array.count also does the same job but with some extra functionalities Array#count
It can be used to get total no of elements based on some condition. Count can be called in three ways:
Array#count # Returns number of elements in Array
Array#count n # Returns number of elements having value n in Array
Array#count{|i| i.even?} Returns count based on condition invoked on each element array
array = [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,4,3,2,4,5,6,7,1,2,4]
array.size # => 17
array.length # => 17
array.count # => 17
Here all three methods do the same job. However here is where the count gets interesting.
Let us say, I want to find how many array elements does the array contains with value 2
array.count 2 # => 3
The array has a total of three elements with value as 2.
Now, I want to find all the array elements greater than 4
array.count{|i| i > 4} # =>6
The array has total 6 elements which are > than 4.
I hope it gives some info about count method.