How can I check if two slices are equal, given that the operators == and != are not an option?
package main
import "fmt"
func main() {
s1 := []int{1, 2}
s2 := []int{1, 2}
fmt.Println(s1 == s2)
}
This does not compile with:
invalid operation: s1 == s2 (slice can only be compared to nil)
You should use reflect.DeepEqual()
DeepEqual is a recursive relaxation of Go's == operator.
DeepEqual reports whether x and y are “deeply equal,” defined as
follows. Two values of identical type are deeply equal if one of the
following cases applies. Values of distinct types are never deeply
equal.
Array values are deeply equal when their corresponding elements are
deeply equal.
Struct values are deeply equal if their corresponding fields, both
exported and unexported, are deeply equal.
Func values are deeply equal if both are nil; otherwise they are not
deeply equal.
Interface values are deeply equal if they hold deeply equal concrete
values.
Map values are deeply equal if they are the same map object or if they
have the same length and their corresponding keys (matched using Go
equality) map to deeply equal values.
Pointer values are deeply equal if they are equal using Go's ==
operator or if they point to deeply equal values.
Slice values are deeply equal when all of the following are true: they
are both nil or both non-nil, they have the same length, and either
they point to the same initial entry of the same underlying array
(that is, &x[0] == &y[0]) or their corresponding elements (up to
length) are deeply equal. Note that a non-nil empty slice and a nil
slice (for example, []byte{} and []byte(nil)) are not deeply equal.
Other values - numbers, bools, strings, and channels - are deeply
equal if they are equal using Go's == operator.
You need to loop over each of the elements in the slice and test. Equality for slices is not defined. However, there is a bytes.Equal function if you are comparing values of type []byte.
func testEq(a, b []Type) bool {
if len(a) != len(b) {
return false
}
for i := range a {
if a[i] != b[i] {
return false
}
}
return true
}
This is just example using reflect.DeepEqual() that is given in #VictorDeryagin's answer.
package main
import (
"fmt"
"reflect"
)
func main() {
a := []int {4,5,6}
b := []int {4,5,6}
c := []int {4,5,6,7}
fmt.Println(reflect.DeepEqual(a, b))
fmt.Println(reflect.DeepEqual(a, c))
}
Result:
true
false
Try it in Go Playground
If you have two []byte, compare them using bytes.Equal. The Golang documentation says:
Equal returns a boolean reporting whether a and b are the same length and contain the same bytes. A nil argument is equivalent to an empty slice.
Usage:
package main
import (
"fmt"
"bytes"
)
func main() {
a := []byte {1,2,3}
b := []byte {1,2,3}
c := []byte {1,2,2}
fmt.Println(bytes.Equal(a, b))
fmt.Println(bytes.Equal(a, c))
}
This will print
true
false
And for now, here is https://github.com/google/go-cmp which
is intended to be a more powerful and safer alternative to reflect.DeepEqual for comparing whether two values are semantically equal.
package main
import (
"fmt"
"github.com/google/go-cmp/cmp"
)
func main() {
a := []byte{1, 2, 3}
b := []byte{1, 2, 3}
fmt.Println(cmp.Equal(a, b)) // true
}
You cannot use == or != with slices but if you can use them with the elements then Go 1.18 has a new function to easily compare two slices, slices.Equal:
Equal reports whether two slices are equal: the same length and all elements equal. If the lengths are different, Equal returns false. Otherwise, the elements are compared in increasing index order, and the comparison stops at the first unequal pair. Floating point NaNs are not considered equal.
The slices package import path is golang.org/x/exp/slices. Code inside exp package is experimental, not yet stable. It will be moved into the standard library in Go 1.19 eventually.
Nevertheless you can use it as soon as Go 1.18 (playground)
sliceA := []int{1, 2}
sliceB := []int{1, 2}
equal := slices.Equal(sliceA, sliceB)
fmt.Println(equal) // true
type data struct {
num float64
label string
}
sliceC := []data{{10.99, "toy"}, {500.49, "phone"}}
sliceD := []data{{10.99, "toy"}, {200.0, "phone"}}
equal = slices.Equal(sliceC, sliceD)
fmt.Println(equal) // true
If the elements of the slice don't allow == and !=, you can use slices.EqualFunc and define whatever comparator function makes sense for the element type.
In case that you are interested in writing a test, then github.com/stretchr/testify/assert is your friend.
Import the library at the very beginning of the file:
import (
"github.com/stretchr/testify/assert"
)
Then inside the test you do:
func TestEquality_SomeSlice (t * testing.T) {
a := []int{1, 2}
b := []int{2, 1}
assert.Equal(t, a, b)
}
The error prompted will be:
Diff:
--- Expected
+++ Actual
## -1,4 +1,4 ##
([]int) (len=2) {
+ (int) 1,
(int) 2,
- (int) 2,
(int) 1,
Test: TestEquality_SomeSlice
Thought of a neat trick and figured I'd share.
If what you are interested in knowing is whether two slices are identical (i.e. they alias the same region of data) instead of merely equal (the value at each index of one slice equals the value in the same index of the other) then you can efficiently compare them in the following way:
foo := []int{1,3,5,7,9,11,13,15,17,19}
// these two slices are exactly identical
subslice1 := foo[3:][:4]
subslice2 := foo[:7][3:]
slicesEqual := &subslice1[0] == &subslice2[0] &&
len(subslice1) == len(subslice2)
There are some caveats to this sort of comparison, in particular that you cannot compare empty slices in this way, and that the capacity of the slices isn't compared, so this "identicality" property is only really useful when reading from a slice or reslicing a strictly narrower subslice, as any attempt to grow the slice will be affected by the slices' capacity. Still, it's very useful to be able to efficiently declare, "these two huge blocks of memory are in fact the same block, yes or no."
To have a complete set of answers: here is a solution with generics.
func IsEqual[A comparable](a, b []A) bool {
// Can't be equal if length differs
if len(a) != len(b) {
return false
}
// Empty arrays trivially equal
if len(a) == 0 {
return true
}
// Two pointers going towards each other at every iteration
left := 0
right := len(a) - 1
for left < right {
if a[left] != b[left] || a[right] != b[right] {
return false
}
left++
right--
}
return true
}
Code uses strategy of "two pointers" which brings runtime complexity of n / 2, which is still O(n), however, twice as less steps than a linear check one-by-one.
Related
I have written a function and I can't seem to find where the bug is:
The function change works like this:
An input of 15 (target value) with possible values of [1, 5, 10, 25, 100] should return [5, 10]. That's because to reach a target value of 15, the least amount of numbers to make up that target number is to have a 10 and 5
I use a caching mechanism, as it is a recursive function and remembers the values that have already been calculated.
func Change(coins []int, target int, resultsCache map[int][]int) ([]int, error) {
if val, ok := resultsCache[target]; ok {
return val, nil
}
if target == 0 {
return make([]int, 0), nil
}
if target < 0 {
return nil, errors.New("Target can't be less than zero")
}
var leastNumOfCoinChangeCombinations []int
for _, coin := range coins {
remainder := target - coin
remainderCombination, _ := Change(coins, remainder, resultsCache)
if remainderCombination != nil {
combination := append(remainderCombination, coin)
if leastNumOfCoinChangeCombinations == nil || len(combination) < len(leastNumOfCoinChangeCombinations) {
leastNumOfCoinChangeCombinations = combination
}
}
}
if leastNumOfCoinChangeCombinations == nil {
return nil, errors.New("Can't find changes from coin combinations")
}
sort.Ints(leastNumOfCoinChangeCombinations)
resultsCache[target] = leastNumOfCoinChangeCombinations
return leastNumOfCoinChangeCombinations, nil
}
The cache however have some abnormal behaviour, for example if I want to use the value of 12 in the cache later, instead of getting [2,5,5], I get [1 2 5] instead. Not sure where I went wrong. (but initially it was calculated and stored correctly, not sure how it got changed).
Here is a playground I used for troubleshooting:
https://play.golang.org/p/Rt8Sh_Ul-ge
You are encountering a fairly common, but sometimes difficult to spot, issue caused by the way slices work. Before reading further it's probably worth scanning the blog post Go Slices: usage and internals. The issue stems from the way append can reuse the slices underlying array as per this quote from the spec:
If the capacity of s is not large enough to fit the additional values, append allocates a new, sufficiently large underlying array that fits both the existing slice elements and the additional values. Otherwise, append re-uses the underlying array.
The below code provides a simple demonstration of what is occurring:
package main
import (
"fmt"
"sort"
)
func main() {
x := []int{2, 3}
x2 := append(x, 4)
x3 := append(x2, 1)
fmt.Println("x2 before sort", x2)
sort.Ints(x3)
fmt.Println("x2 after sort", x2)
fmt.Println("x3", x3)
fmt.Println("x2 cap", cap(x2))
}
The results are (playground):
x2 before sort [2 3 4]
x2 after sort [1 2 3]
x3 [1 2 3 4]
x2 cap 4
The result is probably not what you expected - why did x2 change when we sorted x3? The reason this happens is that the backing array for x2 has a capacity of 4 (length is 3) and when we append 1 the new slice x3 uses the same backing array (capacity 4, length 4). This only becomes an issue when we make a change to the portion of the backing array used by x2 and this happens when we call sort on x3.
So in your code you are adding a slice to the map but it's backing array is then being altered after that instance of Change returns (the append/sort ends up happening pretty much as in the example above).
There are a few ways you can fix this; removing the sort will do the trick but is probably not what you want. A better alternative is to take a copy of the slice; you can do this by replacing combination := append(remainderCombination, coin) with:
combination := make([]int, len(remainderCombination)+1)
copy(combination , remainderCombination)
combination[len(remainderCombination)] = coin
or the simpler (but perhaps not as easy to grasp - playground):
combination := append([]int{coin}, remainderCombination...)
I am using the go combinations package to find all the combinations of a list of ints. The package out of the box is for strings but I've edited to do []int instead.
func All(set []int) (subsets [][]int) {
length := uint(len(set))
// Go through all possible combinations of objects
// from 1 (only first object in subset) to 2^length (all objects in subset)
for subsetBits := 1; subsetBits < (1 << length); subsetBits++ {
var subset []int
for object := uint(0); object < length; object++ {
// checks if object is contained in subset
// by checking if bit 'object' is set in subsetBits
if (subsetBits>>object)&1 == 1 {
// add object to subset
subset = append(subset, set[object])
}
}
// add subset to subsets
subsets = append(subsets, subset)
}
return subsets
}
This works for me, however, only when given a small slice. once the slice gets large the combinations become exponential and tolling to calculate.
Luckily I know when I need to stop. Before running the combinations I have determined the max length of the combinations.
s := []int{2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,4,4,4,4,4,4,4,4,4,4}
limit := 2
The above would generate an exorbent amount of combinations, majority I will not need, as I can define the limit to the length of combinations I'd need as a maximum.
// Ideal output
[[2] [2] [2] [2] ...... [2 3] [2 4]] // Stop once we hit length of 3 as limit was set to 2
I can't really figure out how to implement a limit break or return once the combinations reach a certain length.
Example:
func All(set []int, limit int) (subsets [][]int) {
// ... previous code here
if len(combinations) > limit {
return output
}
}
maybe it's not just a Go-Problem but i have this problem:
I want to multiply two (or more) arrays, so for example:
a := [3]int{2, 3, 5}
b := [2]bool{true, false}
// desired output of "c" =>
// [[2 true] [2 false] [3 true] [3 false] [5 true] [5 false]]
I already found this library here: https://godoc.org/github.com/gonum/matrix/mat64 but i'm not seeing how to use something else than float64
The fallback-solution would be to use multiple for-range-loops but it'd be amazing if there is a "smoother" way to do this
Short answer: go is not intended for this kind of problem. What you want is an equivalent of the zip function, which is present natively in some languages (e.g. Haskell, Python, ...)
However, in Golang you'll have one big problem: you can't have dynamic types. That is: an array can contain only one type (int OR bool), not several. The workaround is to make an array of interface, but that means you'd have to make ugly type assertions to get the proper type back.
Also, you do have a general way to do that, but the type you'll get at the end will be [][]interface{} and no way of knowing what's inside.
For your example: here is the simplest way to do what you want (not general):
func main() {
a := [3]int{2, 3, 5}
b := [2]bool{true, false}
var c [6][2]interface{}
i := 0
for _, val1 := range a {
for _, val2 := range b {
c[i] = [2]interface{}{val1, val2}
i += 1
}
}
var a1 int = c[0][0].(int)
var b1 bool = c[0][1].(bool)
fmt.Printf("c[0] is %v, a1 is %d and b1 is %v\n", c[0], a1, b1)
fmt.Println(c)
}
As you can see, that's ugly and useless in practice (and very error-prone)
So, if you want to make this kind of transformations, you should use another language, Go was not (and won't) designed for this type of purposes.
This isn't a matrix multiplication, as pointed out above. The two for loops work if there are only two things, but if there are multiple ones it can clearly get tedious.
The way I would do it is to think of a multidimensional array. The total "number" of elements is the product of the sizes, and then use a function like SubFor https://godoc.org/github.com/btracey/meshgrid#SubFor
dims := []int{3,2}
sz := 1
for _,v := range dims {
sz *= v
}
sub := make([]int, len(dims))
for i := 0: i < sz; i++{
meshgrid.SubFor(sub, i, dims)
fmt.Println(a[sub[0]], b[sub[1]])
}
There are some things with types to figure out (appending to a slice, etc.), but that should give you the general gist.
How do I create an array of int arrays in Golang using slice literals?
I've tried
test := [][]int{[1,2,3],[1,2,3]}
and
type Test struct {
foo [][]int
}
bar := Test{foo: [[1,2,3], [1,2,3]]}
You almost have the right thing however your syntax for the inner arrays is slightly off, needing curly braces like; test := [][]int{[]int{1,2,3},[]int{1,2,3}} or a slightly more concise version; test := [][]int{{1,2,3},{1,2,3}}
The expression is called a 'composite literal' and you can read more about them here; https://golang.org/ref/spec#Composite_literals
But as a basic rule of thumb, if you have nested structures, you have to use the syntax recursively. It's very verbose.
In some other langauges (Perl, Python, JavaScript), [1,2,3] might be an array literal, but in Go, composite literals use braces, and here, you have to specify the type of the outer slice:
package main
import "fmt"
type T struct{ foo [][]int }
func main() {
a := [][]int{{1, 2, 3}, {4, 5, 6}}
b := T{foo: [][]int{{1, 2, 3}, {4, 5, 6}}}
fmt.Println(a, b)
}
You can run or play with that on the Playground.
The Go compiler is just tricky enough to figure out that the elements of an [][]int are []int without you saying so on each element. You do have to write out the outer type's name, though.
Just replace the square brackets with curly braces. In Go, array literals are identified with curly braces.
test := [][]int{{1,2,3},{1,2,3}}
A slice literal is written as []type{<value 1>, <value 2>, ... }. A slice of ints would be []int{1,2,3} and a slice of int slices would be [][]int{[]int{1,2,3},[]int{4,5,6}}.
groups := [][]int{[]int{1,2,3},[]int{4,5,6}}
for _, group := range groups {
sum := 0
for _, num := range group {
sum += num
}
fmt.Printf("The array %+v has a sum of %d\n", sub, sum)
}
What is the computational complexity of this loop in the Go programming language?
var a []int
for i := 0 ; i < n ; i++ {
a = append(a, i)
}
Does append operate in linear time (reallocating memory and copying everything on each append), or in amortized constant time (like the way vector classes in many languages are implemnted)?
The Go Programming Language Specification says that the append built-in function reallocates if necessary.
Appending to and copying slices
If the capacity of s is not large enough to fit the additional values,
append allocates a new, sufficiently large slice that fits both the
existing slice elements and the additional values. Thus, the returned
slice may refer to a different underlying array.
The precise algorithm to grow the target slice, when necessary, for an append is implementation dependent. For the current gc compiler algorithm, see the growslice function in the Go runtime package slice.go source file. It's amortized constant time.
In part, the amount-to-grow slice computation reads:
newcap := old.cap
doublecap := newcap + newcap
if cap > doublecap {
newcap = cap
} else {
if old.len < 1024 {
newcap = doublecap
} else {
for newcap < cap {
newcap += newcap / 4
}
}
}
ADDENDUM
The Go Programming Language Specification allows implementors of the language to implement the append built-in function in a number of ways.
For example, new allocations only have to be "sufficiently large". The amount allocated may be parsimonius, allocating the minimum necessary amount, or generous, allocating more than the minimum necessary amount to minimize the cost of resizing many times. The Go gc compiler uses a generous dynamic array amortized constant time algorithm.
The following code illustrates two legal implementations of the append built-in function. The generous constant function implements the same amortized constant time algorithm as the Go gc compiler. The parsimonius variable function, once the initial allocation is filled, reallocates and copies everything every time. The Go append function and the Go gccgo compiler are used as controls.
package main
import "fmt"
// Generous reallocation
func constant(s []int, x ...int) []int {
if len(s)+len(x) > cap(s) {
newcap := len(s) + len(x)
m := cap(s)
if m+m < newcap {
m = newcap
} else {
for {
if len(s) < 1024 {
m += m
} else {
m += m / 4
}
if !(m < newcap) {
break
}
}
}
tmp := make([]int, len(s), m)
copy(tmp, s)
s = tmp
}
if len(s)+len(x) > cap(s) {
panic("unreachable")
}
return append(s, x...)
}
// Parsimonious reallocation
func variable(s []int, x ...int) []int {
if len(s)+len(x) > cap(s) {
tmp := make([]int, len(s), len(s)+len(x))
copy(tmp, s)
s = tmp
}
if len(s)+len(x) > cap(s) {
panic("unreachable")
}
return append(s, x...)
}
func main() {
s := []int{0, 1, 2}
x := []int{3, 4}
fmt.Println("data ", len(s), cap(s), s, len(x), cap(x), x)
a, c, v := s, s, s
for i := 0; i < 4096; i++ {
a = append(a, x...)
c = constant(c, x...)
v = variable(v, x...)
}
fmt.Println("append ", len(a), cap(a), len(x))
fmt.Println("constant", len(c), cap(c), len(x))
fmt.Println("variable", len(v), cap(v), len(x))
}
Output:
gc:
data 3 3 [0 1 2] 2 2 [3 4]
append 8195 9152 2
constant 8195 9152 2
variable 8195 8195 2
gccgo:
data 3 3 [0 1 2] 2 2 [3 4]
append 8195 9152 2
constant 8195 9152 2
variable 8195 8195 2
To summarize, depending on the implementation, once the initial capacity is filled, the append built-in function may or may not reallocate on every call.
References:
Dynamic array
Amortized analysis
Appending to and copying slices
If the capacity of s is not large enough to fit the additional values,
append allocates a new, sufficiently large slice that fits both the
existing slice elements and the additional values. Thus, the returned
slice may refer to a different underlying array.
Append to a slice specification discussion
The spec (at tip and 1.0.3) states:
"If the capacity of s is not large enough to fit the additional
values, append allocates a new, sufficiently large slice that fits
both the existing slice elements and the additional values. Thus, the
returned slice may refer to a different underlying array."
Should this be an "If and only if"? For example, if I know the
capacity of my slice is sufficiently long, am I assured that I will
not change the underlying array?
Rob Pike
Yes you are so assured.
runtime slice.go source file
Arrays, slices (and strings): The mechanics of 'append'
It doesn't reallocate on every append and it is quite explicitly stated in the docs:
If the capacity of s is not large enough to fit the additional values, append allocates a new, sufficiently large slice that fits both the existing slice elements and the additional values. Thus, the returned slice may refer to a different underlying array.
Amortized constant time is thus the complexity asked about.