Related
I have a simple method that iterates through an array and returns a duplicate. (Or duplicates)
def find_dup(array)
duplicate = 0
array.each { |element| duplicate = element if array.count(element) > 1}
duplicate
end
It works, but I'd like to express this more elegantly.
The reason it is three lines is that the variable "duplicate", which the method must return, is not visible to the method if I introduce it inside the block, i.e,
def find_dup(array)
array.each { |element| duplicate = element if array.count(element) > 1}
duplicate
end
I've tried a few ways to define "duplicate" as the result of a block, but to no avail.
Any thoughts?
It's a little too much to do cleanly in a one-liner, but this is a more
efficient solution.
def find_dups(arr)
counts = Hash.new { |hash,key| hash[key] = 0 }
arr.each_with_object(counts) do |x, memo|
memo[x] += 1
end.select { |key,val| val > 1 }.keys
end
The Hash.new call instantiates a hash where the default value is 0.
each_with_object modifies this hash to track the count of each element in arr, then at the
end the filter is used to select only those having a count greater than one.
The benefit of this approach over a solution using Array#includes? or Array#count is that it only scans the array a single time. Thus it is a O(N) time instead of O(N^2).
Your method is only finding the last duplicate in the array. If you want all the duplicates, I would do something like this:
def find_dups(arr)
dups = Hash.new { |h, k| h[k] = 0 }
arr.each { |el| dups[el] += 1 }
dups.select { |k, v| v > 1 }.keys
end
If what you really want is a one-liner that isn't concerned with big-O complexity and only returns the last duplicate in the array, I would do this:
def find_last_dup(arr)
arr.reverse_each { |el| return el if arr.count(el) > 1 }
end
You can do this as one line and it flows a bit nicer. Though this would find the first instance of a duplicate whereas your code is returning the last instance of a duplicate, not sure if that's part of your requirement.
def find_dup(array)
array.group_by { |value| value }.find { |_, groups| groups.count > 1 }.first
end
Also, note that making things one line doesn't strictly mean is better. I'd find the code more readable split over more lines, but that's just my opinion.
def find_dup(array)
array.group_by { |value|
value
}.find { |_, groups|
groups.count > 1
}.first
end
Just want to add one more approach to the mix.
def find_last_dup(arr)
arr.reverse_each.detect { |x| arr.count(x) > 1 }
end
Alternatively, you can get linear time complexity in two lines.
def find_last_dup(arr)
freq = arr.each_with_object(Hash.new(0)) { |x, obj| obj[x] += 1 }
arr.reverse_each.detect { |x| freq[x] > 1 }
end
For the sake of argument, the latter approach can be reduced to one line as well, but this would be unidiomatic and confusing.
def find_last_dup(arr)
arr.each_with_object(Hash.new(0)) { |x, obj| obj[x] += 1 }
.tap do |freq| return arr.reverse_each.detect { |x| freq[x] > 1 } end
end
Given:
> a
=> [8, 5, 6, 6, 5, 8, 6, 1, 9, 7, 2, 10, 7, 7, 3, 4]
You can group the dups together:
> a.uniq.each_with_object(Hash.new(0)) {|e, h| c=a.count(e); h[e]=c if c>1}
=> {8=>2, 5=>2, 6=>3, 7=>3}
Or,
> a.group_by{ |e| e}.select{|k,v| v if v.length>1}
=> {8=>[8, 8], 5=>[5, 5], 6=>[6, 6, 6], 7=>[7, 7, 7]}
In each case, the order of the result is based on the order of the elements in a that have dups. If you just want the first:
> a.group_by{ |e| e}.select{|k,v| v if v.length>1}.first
=> [8, [8, 8]]
Or last:
> a.group_by{ |e| e}.select{|k,v| v if v.length>1}.to_a.last
=> [7, [7, 7, 7]]
If you want to 'fast forward' to the first value that has a dup, you can use drop_while:
> b=[1,2,3,4,5,4,5,6]
> b.drop_while {|e| b.count(e)==1 }[0]
=> 4
Or the last:
> b.reverse.drop_while {|e| b.count(e)==1 }[0]
=> 5
def find_duplicates(array)
array.dup.uniq.each { |element| array.delete_at(array.index(element)) }.uniq
end
The above method find_duplicates duplicated the input array and deletes the first occurrence of all the elements, leaving the array with only remaining occurrences of the duplicate elements.
Example:
array = [1, 2, 3, 4, 3, 4, 3]
=> [1, 2, 3, 4, 3, 4, 3]
find_duplicates(array)
=> [3, 4]
Closed. This question needs details or clarity. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Add details and clarify the problem by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
I have an array:
a = [[1,[2,3]], [2,[3,4]], [3,[4,5]]]
I want to convert it to:
h = {1 => {2 => 3}, 2 => {3 => 4}, 3 => {4 => 5}}
I m new to Ruby, can anybody help me to solve this?
If you mean:
a = [[1,[2,3]], [2,[3,4]], [3,[4,5]]]
Hash[a.map { |k0, (k, v)| [k0, {k => v}] }]
# => {1=>{2=>3}, 2=>{3=>4}, 3=>{4=>5}}
a.map { |k0, (k, v)| [k0, {k => v}] }.to_h # Ruby 2.1+
# => {1=>{2=>3}, 2=>{3=>4}, 3=>{4=>5}}
Another way:
a = [[1, [2, 3]], [2, [3, 4]], [3,[4, 5]]]
a.each_with_object({}) { |(i, (k, v)), h| h[i] = { k => v } }
#=> {1=>{2=>3}, 2=>{3=>4}, 3=>{4=>5}}
The nested values are extracted using Ruby's array decomposition:
[1, [2, 3]]
(i, (k, v))
This can be implemented nicely as a map/reduce:
a = [[1, [2, 3]], [2, [3, 4]], [3,[4, 5]]]
a.map{|k,v| {k=>v}}.reduce(:merge)
# => {1=>{2=>3}, 2=>{3=>4}, 3=>{4=>5}}
The map turns each sub-array into a tiny hash, and the reduce iteratively applies Hash#merge to combine them into one big hash.
This is more concise than other implementations I've seen, and also more readable/idiomatic (at least to my eye).
Here's another way, which I'm suggesting because a) the standard approaches have already been mentioned in answers posted earlier; and b) you might find it instructive, if not a bit bizarre.
What we will do is create an empty hash h and then execute:
a.each { |k| h[k] }
and presto!
h => {1=>{2=>3}, 2=>{3=>4}, 3=>{4=>5}}
"How can that possibly be?", you probably are thinking. The trick is the way we define the hash h; namely, we use the form of the class method Hash::new that takes a block:
h = Hash.new { |h,(x,(y,z))| h[x] = { y=>z } }
It's normally used like this:
h = Hash.new { |h,k| h[k] = ... } }
This says that when h is passed a key k that is not already in the hash, the block is to be executed to compute the value associated with the new key. We do not, however, need to use k as the key. Here I am passing an element of a, which I have written in its decomposed (or "disambiguted") form, (x,(y,z)), and then adding the key-value pair x => { y=>z } to the hash.
This could instead be written:
h = Hash.new { |h,k| h[k.first] = { k.last.first=>k.last.last } }
but I hope you will agree that the decomposed form is a lot easier to read.
Rather than:
h = Hash.new { |h,(x,(y,z))| h[x] = { y=>z } }
a.each { |k| h[k] }
h
the more Ruby-like way is:
a.each_with_object(Hash.new { |h,(x,(y,z))| h[x] = { y=>z } }) { |k,h| h[k] }
I want to get the coordinates of every occurrence of an object stored in an array of arrays. If I have an array:
array = [["foo", "bar", "lobster"], ["camel", "trombone", "foo"]]
and an object "foo", I want to get:
[[0,0], [1,2]]
The following will do this, but it's elaborate and ugly:
array.map
.with_index{
|row,row_index| row.map.with_index {
|v,col_index| v=="foo" ? [row_index,col_index] : v
}
}
.flatten(1).find_all {|x| x.class==Array}
Is there a more straightforward way to do this? This was asked before, and produced a similarly inelegant solution.
Here's a slightly more elegant solution. I have:
Used flat_map instead of flattening at the end
Used .each_index.select instead of .map.with_index and then having to strip non-arrays at the end, which is really ugly
Added indentation
array.flat_map.with_index {|row, row_idx|
row.each_index.select{|i| row[i] == 'foo' }.map{|col_idx| [row_idx, col_idx] }
}
Another way:
array = [["foo", "bar", "lobster"], ["camel", "trombone", "foo"],
["goat", "car", "hog"], ["foo", "harp", "foo"]]
array.each_with_index.with_object([]) { |(a,i),b|
a.each_with_index { |s,j| b << [i,j] if s == "foo" } }
#=> [[0,0], [1,2], [3,0], [3,2]
It's better to work with flat arrays.
cycle = array.first.length
#=> 3
array.flatten.to_enum.with_index
.select{|e, i| e == "foo"}
.map{|e, i| i.divmod(cycle)}
#=> [[0, 0], [1, 2]]
or
cycle = array.first.length
#=> 3
array = array.flatten
array.each_index.select{|i| array[i] == "foo"}.map{|e, i| i.divmod(cycle)}
#=> [[0, 0], [1, 2]]
I have a map which either changes a value or sets it to nil. I then want to remove the nil entries from the list. The list doesn't need to be kept.
This is what I currently have:
# A simple example function, which returns a value or nil
def transform(n)
rand > 0.5 ? n * 10 : nil }
end
items.map! { |x| transform(x) } # [1, 2, 3, 4, 5] => [10, nil, 30, 40, nil]
items.reject! { |x| x.nil? } # [10, nil, 30, 40, nil] => [10, 30, 40]
I'm aware I could just do a loop and conditionally collect in another array like this:
new_items = []
items.each do |x|
x = transform(x)
new_items.append(x) unless x.nil?
end
items = new_items
But it doesn't seem that idiomatic. Is there a nice way to map a function over a list, removing/excluding the nils as you go?
You could use compact:
[1, nil, 3, nil, nil].compact
=> [1, 3]
I'd like to remind people that if you're getting an array containing nils as the output of a map block, and that block tries to conditionally return values, then you've got code smell and need to rethink your logic.
For instance, if you're doing something that does this:
[1,2,3].map{ |i|
if i % 2 == 0
i
end
}
# => [nil, 2, nil]
Then don't. Instead, prior to the map, reject the stuff you don't want or select what you do want:
[1,2,3].select{ |i| i % 2 == 0 }.map{ |i|
i
}
# => [2]
I consider using compact to clean up a mess as a last-ditch effort to get rid of things we didn't handle correctly, usually because we didn't know what was coming at us. We should always know what sort of data is being thrown around in our program; Unexpected/unknown data is bad. Anytime I see nils in an array I'm working on, I dig into why they exist, and see if I can improve the code generating the array, rather than allow Ruby to waste time and memory generating nils then sifting through the array to remove them later.
'Just my $%0.2f.' % [2.to_f/100]
Try using reduce or inject.
[1, 2, 3].reduce([]) { |memo, i|
if i % 2 == 0
memo << i
end
memo
}
I agree with the accepted answer that we shouldn't map and compact, but not for the same reasons.
I feel deep inside that map then compact is equivalent to select then map. Consider: map is a one-to-one function. If you are mapping from some set of values, and you map, then you want one value in the output set for each value in the input set. If you are having to select before-hand, then you probably don't want a map on the set. If you are having to select afterwards (or compact) then you probably don't want a map on the set. In either case you are iterating twice over the entire set, when a reduce only needs to go once.
Also, in English, you are trying to "reduce a set of integers into a set of even integers".
Ruby 2.7+
There is now!
Ruby 2.7 is introducing filter_map for this exact purpose. It's idiomatic and performant, and I'd expect it to become the norm very soon.
For example:
numbers = [1, 2, 5, 8, 10, 13]
enum.filter_map { |i| i * 2 if i.even? }
# => [4, 16, 20]
In your case, as the block evaluates to falsey, simply:
items.filter_map { |x| process_x url }
"Ruby 2.7 adds Enumerable#filter_map" is a good read on the subject, with some performance benchmarks against some of the earlier approaches to this problem:
N = 100_000
enum = 1.upto(1_000)
Benchmark.bmbm do |x|
x.report("select + map") { N.times { enum.select { |i| i.even? }.map{ |i| i + 1 } } }
x.report("map + compact") { N.times { enum.map { |i| i + 1 if i.even? }.compact } }
x.report("filter_map") { N.times { enum.filter_map { |i| i + 1 if i.even? } } }
end
# Rehearsal -------------------------------------------------
# select + map 8.569651 0.051319 8.620970 ( 8.632449)
# map + compact 7.392666 0.133964 7.526630 ( 7.538013)
# filter_map 6.923772 0.022314 6.946086 ( 6.956135)
# --------------------------------------- total: 23.093686sec
#
# user system total real
# select + map 8.550637 0.033190 8.583827 ( 8.597627)
# map + compact 7.263667 0.131180 7.394847 ( 7.405570)
# filter_map 6.761388 0.018223 6.779611 ( 6.790559)
Definitely compact is the best approach for solving this task. However, we can achieve the same result just with a simple subtraction:
[1, nil, 3, nil, nil] - [nil]
=> [1, 3]
In your example:
items.map! { |x| process_x url } # [1, 2, 3, 4, 5] => [1, nil, 3, nil, nil]
it does not look like the values have changed other than being replaced with nil. If that is the case, then:
items.select{|x| process_x url}
will suffice.
If you wanted a looser criterion for rejection, for example, to reject empty strings as well as nil, you could use:
[1, nil, 3, 0, ''].reject(&:blank?)
=> [1, 3, 0]
If you wanted to go further and reject zero values (or apply more complex logic to the process), you could pass a block to reject:
[1, nil, 3, 0, ''].reject do |value| value.blank? || value==0 end
=> [1, 3]
[1, nil, 3, 0, '', 1000].reject do |value| value.blank? || value==0 || value>10 end
=> [1, 3]
You can use #compact method on the resulting array.
[10, nil, 30, 40, nil].compact => [10, 30, 40]
each_with_object is probably the cleanest way to go here:
new_items = items.each_with_object([]) do |x, memo|
ret = process_x(x)
memo << ret unless ret.nil?
end
In my opinion, each_with_object is better than inject/reduce in conditional cases because you don't have to worry about the return value of the block.
One more way to accomplish it will be as shown below. Here, we use Enumerable#each_with_object to collect values, and make use of Object#tap to get rid of temporary variable that is otherwise needed for nil check on result of process_x method.
items.each_with_object([]) {|x, obj| (process x).tap {|r| obj << r unless r.nil?}}
Complete example for illustration:
items = [1,2,3,4,5]
def process x
rand(10) > 5 ? nil : x
end
items.each_with_object([]) {|x, obj| (process x).tap {|r| obj << r unless r.nil?}}
Alternate approach:
By looking at the method you are calling process_x url, it is not clear what is the purpose of input x in that method. If I assume that you are going to process the value of x by passing it some url and determine which of the xs really get processed into valid non-nil results - then, may be Enumerabble.group_by is a better option than Enumerable#map.
h = items.group_by {|x| (process x).nil? ? "Bad" : "Good"}
#=> {"Bad"=>[1, 2], "Good"=>[3, 4, 5]}
h["Good"]
#=> [3,4,5]
I have an array, and a function that returns a value given a value. Ultimately I want to create a hashmap that has the values of the array as key value, and the result of f(key_value) as the value. Is there a clean, simple way, like similar to each/map of Array, of doing this using block?
So something that is equivalent to
hsh = {}
[1,2,3,4].each do |x|
hsh[x] = f(x)
end
but looks more similar to this, in that it's simple and one line?
results = array.map { | x | f(x) }
Note that since Ruby 2.1.0 you can also use Array#to_h, like this:
[1,2,3,4].map{ |x| [x, f(x)] }.to_h
Ruby 2.6.0 enables passing a block to the to_h-method. This enables an even shorter syntax for creating a hash from an array:
[1, 2, 3, 4].to_h { |x| [x, f(x)] }
You could also define the function as the hash's default value:
hash = Hash.new {|hash, key| hash[key] = f(key) }
Then when you lookup a value, the hash will calculate and store it on the fly.
hash[10]
hash.inspect #=> { 10 => whatever_the_result_is }
You need each_with_object.
def f x
x * 2
end
t = [1, 2, 3, 4].each_with_object({}) do |x, memo|
memo[x] = f(x)
end
t # => {1=>2, 2=>4, 3=>6, 4=>8}
Another one:
t2 = [1, 2, 3, 4].map{|x| [x, f(x)]}
Hash[t2] # => {1=>2, 2=>4, 3=>6, 4=>8}
Check out the Hash::[] method.
Hash[ [1,2,3,4].collect { |x| [x, f(x)] } ]
Using Facets' mash (method to convert enumerable to hashes):
[1, 2, 3, 4].mash { |x| [x, f(x)] }
From Ruby 2.1:
[1, 2, 3, 4].map { |x| [x, f(x)] }.to_h
Also, Rails method index_with would be helpful:
a = ['a', 'bsdf', 'wqqwc']
a.index_with(&:size)
=> {"a"=>1, "bsdf"=>4, "wqqwc"=>5}
You're looking for reduce()|inject() method:
elem = [1,2,3,4]
h = elem.reduce({}) do |res, x|
res[x] = x**2
res
end
puts h
The argument passed to reduce({}) is the initial value of an intermediate object that is passed to the block as res variable. In each iteration we're adding new pair key: value to the res Hash and returing the Hash to be used in next iteration.
The method above precomputes a very practical hash of squared values:
{1=>1, 2=>4, 3=>9, 4=>16}