I have an array of arrays, called guid_pairs:
[['a','b','c'],['c','g'],['z','f','b']]
I also have an array, called array_to_check:
['c','a','b']
How can I determine if the array guid_pairs has an element that is equal to array_to_check. Equality should not consider the position of the array elements.
In this example, the check should return true because guid_pairs contains the element ['a','b','c'], which matches ['c','a','b'].
I have tried this, but it seems to always return false even when it should return true:
guid_pairs.any?{|pair| pair.eql?(array_to_check)}
I am using Ruby 1.9.2
There is a set class in the standard library and using sets nicely matches your intent:
require 'set'
a = ['c','a','b']
aa = [['a','b','c'],['c','g'],['z','f','b']]
find_this = Set.new(a)
the_match = aa.find { |x| find_this == Set.new(x) }
That will leave the matching element element of aa in the_match. If you're only interested in existence then you can simply check the truthiness of the_match; or use any? (thanks for the reminder Michael Kohl, I often forget about some of the things in Enumerable):
aa.any? { |x| find_this == Set.new(x) }
No tricks, no magic, and using Set makes it clear that you are, in fact, comparing the arrays as sets.
BTW, your attempted solution:
guid_pairs.any? { |pair| pair.eql?(array_to_check) }
doesn't work because arrays compare element-by-element in order so two arrays are equal if and only if they have equal elements in the same order. The documentation for eql? could be clearer:
Returns true if self and other are the same object, or are both arrays with the same content.
But the == documentation is nice and clear:
Two arrays are equal if they contain the same number of elements and if each element is equal to (according to Object.==) the corresponding element in the other array.
We can look to Object#eql? for some clarification though:
The eql? method returns true if obj and anObject have the same value. Used by Hash to test members for equality. For objects of class Object, eql? is synonymous with ==. Subclasses normally continue this tradition, but there are exceptions.
So == and eql? should behave the same way unless there is a good reason for them to be different.
To see if two arrays contain the same elements, regardless of order, you can use the XOR (exclusive or) operation. It will return an array which contains only elements that are in one array and not the other. If the length of the XOR is zero then the input arrays contain the same elements.
def xor(a, b)
(a | b) - (a & b)
end
guid_pairs.any? { |pair| xor(pair, array_to_check).length != 0 }
A possible solution is to sort the arrays before comparing (or even during comparing):
guid_pairs.any?{|pair| pair.sort.eql?(array_to_check.sort)}
Note that this may not be an optimal solution - it would be more appropriate to have your arrays sorted (nevertheless they are sets in your use case).
for equality of two arrays A and B i normally use:
if(((A-B) + (B-A)).blank?)
puts "equal"
else
"unequal"
end
You can use the following:
sorted_array_to_check = array_to_check.sort
guid_pairs.any?{|pair| pair.sort.eql?(sorted_array_to_check)}
Three solutions:
class Array
def check1 other; other.any?{|e| self - e == e - self} end
def check2 other; other.any?{|e| self | e == self and e | self == e} end
def check3 other; other.any?{|e| self & e == self and e & self == e} end
end
array_to_check.check1(guid_pairs) # => true
array_to_check.check2(guid_pairs) # => true
array_to_check.check3(guid_pairs) # => true
Without defining a method (following Josha's suggestion):
array_to_check.instance_eval{guid_pairs.any?{|e| self - e == e - self}} # => true
array_to_check.instance_eval{guid_pairs.any?{|e| self | e == self and e | self == e}} # => true
array_to_check.instance_eval{guid_pairs.any?{|e| self & e == self and e & self == e}} # => true
Related
I want to be able to find a custom class in my set given just a string. Like so:
require 'set'
Rank = Struct.new(:name, keyword_init: true) {
def hash
name.hash
end
def eql?(other)
hash == other.hash
end
def ==(other)
hash == other.hash
end
}
one = Rank.new(name: "one")
two = Rank.new(name: "two")
set = Set[one, two]
but while one == "one" and one.eql?("one") are both true, set.include?("one") is still false. what am i missing?
thanks!
Set is built upon Hash, and Hash considers two objects the same if:
[...] their hash value is identical and the two objects are eql? to each other.
What you are missing is that eql? isn't necessarily commutative. Making Rank#eql? recognize strings doesn't change the way String#eql? works:
one.eql?('one') #=> true
'one'.eql?(one) #=> false
Therefore it depends on which object is the hash key and which is the argument to include?:
Set['one'].include?(one) #=> true
Set[one].include?('one') #=> false
In order to make two objects a and b interchangeable hash keys, 3 conditions have to be met:
a.hash == b.hash
a.eql?(b) == true
b.eql?(a) == true
But don't try to modify String#eql? – fiddling with Ruby's core classes isn't recommended and monkey-patching probably won't work anyway because Ruby usually calls the C methods directly for performance reasons.
In fact, making both hash and eql? mimic name doesn't seem like a good idea in the first place. It makes the object's identity ambiguous which can lead to very strange behavior and hard to find bugs:
h = { one => 1, 'one' => 1 }
#=> {#<struct Rank name="one">=>1, "one"=>1}
# vs
h = { 'one' => 1, one => 1 }
#=> {"one"=>1}
what am i missing?
What you are missing is that "one" isn't in your set. one is in your set, but "one" isn't.
Therefore, the answer Ruby is giving you is perfectly correct.
All that you have done with your implementation of Rank is that any two ranks with the same name are considered to be the same by a Hash, Set, or Array#uniq. But, a Rank is not the same as a String.
If you want to be able to have a set-like data structure where you can look up things by one of their attributes, you will have to write it yourself.
Something like (untested):
class RankSet < Set
def [](*args)
super(*args.map(&:name))
end
def each
return enum_for(__callee__) unless block_given?
super {|e| yield e.name }
end
end
might get you started.
Or, instead of writing your own set, you can just use the fact that any arbitrary rank with the right name can be used for lookup:
set.include?(Rank.new(name: "one"))
#=> true
# even though it is a *different* `Rank` object
Is there anyway to iterate through different combinations of arrays?
I'm writing a program that returns true if the largest number in an array can be the sum of any of the members of the array.
This is my code: (forgive me, i learned how to program 2 weeks ago for the first time)
def ArrayAdditionI(arr)
arr=arr.sort
largest=arr.pop
n=arr.length
for i in 1..n
if arr.combination(i).to_a.any? {|array| array.inject(:+)==largest}
return true
else
return false
end
end
end
i tested it for
a = [1,2,3,4]
and it returned false even though clearly, 3+1 = 4.
When I change the above code from arr.combination(i) to arr.combination(2) its returns true. So I'm guessing it has something to do with the combination method not being able to be looped. Any suggestions?
You have return false in the wrong place. As it is, false is returned is there is no combination of one element (i.e., one element other than the one you've removed after sorting) that sums (i.e., is equal to) largest. Rather you want to return false only if no combination of any size sums to largest. This is what you need:
def max_match?(arr)
arr=arr.sort
largest=arr.pop
n=arr.length
for i in 1..n
return true if arr.combination(i).any? {|array|
array.inject(:+)==largest}
end
false
end
arr = [1,4,7,3,5,2,13]
max_match?(arr) #=> true
arr = [1,3,4,7,59]
max_match?(arr) #=> false
A few notes:
lower case letters and optional underscores are used for names of methods. You can also put a question (?) or explanation (!) mark at the end. Here a question mark seems appropriate.
to_a is not needed. Enumerable methods (e.g., any?) can have Enumerators as receivers.
sorting is expensive and unnecessary. Instead, just get the max value and remove it from the array. (Aside: you didn't say what happens if the maximum value appears more than once. See the code below and the last sentence.)
you don't need n=arr.length. for i in 1..arr.length is enough, except...
for ... is rarely used. Rubyists tend to use each instead, or one of the many methods from the Enumerable (mix-in) module (all of which invoke each).
you don't need return false because Ruby returns the value of the last statement evaluated, which is false if the method does not return true earlier.
Here's a more Ruby-like way to do that:
def max_match?(arr)
mx = arr.max
whats_left = arr - [mx]
(1..whats_left.size).any? {|n| whats_left.combination(n).any? {|c|
c.reduce(:+) == mx }}
end
arr = [1,4,7,3,5,2,13]
max_match?(arr) #=> true
arr = [1,3,4,7,59]
max_match?(arr) #=> false
If you wish this to return true when arr contains more than one value equal to mx, insert the following after mx = arr.max:
return true if arr.count(mx) > 1
I have an inject call
[2,4,6].inject(true) { |res, val| res && val % 2 == 0 }
and want to send the && operator to inject as in inject(0, :+). How can I do that?
You can't because && and ||, unlike other operators, are not syntacic sugar for methods (i.e. there is no method called && or ||), so you can't reference them using a symbol.
However you can avoid using inject to compute the logical conjunction or disjunction of an array of boolean values, replacing it with all? or any? respectively, because for any array the following conditions hold:
ary.inject(true) { |res, b| res && b } == ary.all?
ary.inject(false) { |res, b| res || b } == ary.any?
So, for example, the code you posted could be rewritten as:
[2,4,6].map(&:even?).all?
# => true
Update: obviously my latter example is not the right way to express this computation, falsetru's answer is much faster:
require 'fruity'
compare(
-> { (0..1000).map(&:even?).all? },
-> { (0..1000).all?(&:even?) }
)
Running each test 1024 times. Test will take about 2 seconds.
Code 2 is faster than Code 1 by 111x ± 10.0
How about using Enumerable#all?
[2,4,6].all? &:even?
# => true
[2,4,6,5].all? &:even?
# => false
If you want to use inject, you need to define an instance method.
class Object
def is_even(val)
self && val % 2 == 0
end
end
[2,4,6].inject(true, :is_even) # => true
[1,2,4,6,5].inject(true, :is_even) # => false
'&&' is not a method, hence you can't inject it. However you can inject & method.
[2,4,6,5].map(&:even?).inject(true, :&)
Which will do the same
NOTE: This however should not be done, as it is extremely risky and might cause unexpected consequences (if run on collection containing at least one non-boolean (true, false, nil) value). You should always use any? or all? methods instead.
inject(0, :+) would add all the elements of the array, regardless of what the content of the elements are (odd, even, etc).
If you want to inject(true, &:&&) (I know this doesn't work), your array should be an array of boolean values for your question to make sense, which would be the same as: [true, false].all?
important:
you can't pass both block arg and actual block which means you can't check if it's even inject an && at the same time.
If you insist, try this out:
[2,4,6].inject(true, & lambda { |x,y| x && y })
=> 6
This is the equivalent of what you're asking for (which I still don't totally understand)
I have a big array and I need to know whether all its elements are divisible by 2.
I'm doing it this way, but it's sort of ugly:
_true = true
arr.each { |e| (e % 2).zero? || _true = false }
if _true == true
# ...
end
How to do this without extra loops/assignments?
This will do.
arr.all?(&:even?)
Ruby's got you covered.
if arr.all? {|e| (e % 2).zero?}
There's also any? if you need to check whether at least one element has a given property.
This article mentions 4 ways to invoke procs in ruby 1.9, and === is one of them. I don't understand why this would be done this way at all. Does it have any relationship to the normal meaning of === (asking if the two objects are the same object)?
irb(main):010:0> f =-> n {[:hello, n]}
=> #
irb(main):011:0> f.call(:hello)
=> [:hello, :hello]
irb(main):012:0> f === :hello
=> [:hello, :hello]
irb(main):013:0> Object.new === Object.new
=> false
irb(main):014:0> f === f
=> [:hello, #]
Note that === in Ruby is NOT about equality, unlike JavaScript. It is specifically used for case expressions:
case cats.length
when 42 # Uses 42 === cats.length
puts :uh
when /cool/i # Uses /cool/i === cats.length
puts :oh
when ->(n){ n.odd? || n/3==6 } # Passes cats.length to the proc
puts :my
end
This is what the docs have to say:
It is to allow a proc object to be a target of when clause in the
case statement.
This is a, perhaps contrived, example:
even = proc { |x| x % 2 == 0 }
n = 3
case n
when even
puts "even!"
else
puts "odd!"
end
It works because the case/when is basically executed like this:
if even === n
puts "even!"
else
puts "odd!"
end
The case/when checks which branch to execute by calling === on the arguments to when clauses, picking the first that returns a truthy value.
Despite its similarity to the equality operator (==) it not a stronger or weaker form of it. I try to think of the === operator as the "belongs to" operator. Class defines it so that you can check if an object belongs to the class (i.e. is an instance of the class or a subclass of the class), Range defines it as to check if the argument belongs to the range (i.e. is included in the range), and so on. This doesn't really make the Proc case make more sense, but think of it as a tool for making your own belongs to operators, like my example above; I defined an object that can determine if something belongs to the set of even numbers.
This feature is useful in case construction, when you need to calculate something at the comparing.
is_odd =-> n { n%2 != 0 }
is_even =-> n { n%2 == 0 }
case 5
when is_even
puts "the number is even"
when is_odd
puts "the number is odd"
end
=> the number is odd
Does it have any relationship to the normal meaning of === (asking if the two objects are the same object)?
Actually, that's a common misconception about === in Ruby. It's actually not strictly for Object#object_id comparison (although that is its behavior in many common invocations). In Ruby, === is case subsumption.
Here's the description of === from Object: "Case Equality -- For class Object, effectively the same
as calling #==, but typically overridden by descendants
to provide meaningful semantics in case statements."
Sadly, even though it is comprised of three =, it doesn't have anything even remotely to do with equality :-D