Given this code:
var a map[string][][]int
var aa map[string][][]int = map[string][][]int{"a": [][]int{{10, 10}, {20, 20}}}
var bb map[string][][]int = map[string][][]int{"b": [][]int{{30, 30}, {40, 40}}}
fmt.Println(aa) // >> map[a:[[10 10] [20 20]] b:[[30 30] [40 40]]]
how do I know if '[30, 30]' is in 'aa'?
I want to check, whether 'aa' has '[30 30]'.
You'll have to iterate over the contents of your map to check whether an element is contained in that map or not.
For example:
target := []int{30, 30}
for _, v := range myMap {
for _, sub := range v {
if len(sub) == len(target) && sub[0] == target[0] && sub[1] == target[1] {
fmt.Println("yeah")
}
}
}
With myMap as aa you'll get no output, and with myMap as bb you'll get "Yeah" printed.
If your inner-most slices get longer, you should do the check step as a loop as well instead of hard-coded like that.
Maps are only indexed by key. This means its cheap and easy (ideally constant time complexity) to find a or b, but its harder to look for a value (linear time complexity).
Therefore, it's a few for loops:
func find(searchFor [][]int, m map[string][][]int) bool {
for _, v := range m {
if sliceEq(v, searchFor) {
return true
}
}
return false
}
func sliceEq(a, b [][]int) bool {
if len(a) != len(b) {
return false
}
for i := range a {
if a[i] != b[i] {
return false
}
}
return true
}
Related
I have a use case where the order of objects needs to be in a specific order. The current implementation is done with using map and I've found numerous posts and articles where it states that map are an unordered list. All of the solutions that I found are those where they've made the keys as integers and they've used sort.Ints(keys) to sort by keys.
In the code, I'm using a yaml template to instantiate a dictionary pair, then passing it into the ProcessFruits function where it does the logic.
How would I go about getting the desired result (see below) where the object from the top of the list in fruits.yml.tmpl will always be first?
Here's a simplified version of my code:
//Filename: fruits.yml.tmpl
fruits: {{ $fruits := processFruits
"oranges" true
"bananas" false
"apples" true
}}
{{ $fruits }}
//Filename: fruits.go
func ProcessFruits(fruits map[string]interface{}) (interface{}) {
keys := make([]string, len(fruits))
i := 0
for fruit := range fruits {
keys[i] = fruit
i++
}
sort.Strings(keys)
fmt.Println(keys)
}
// Connect fruits.yml.tmpl to the ProcessFruits function
tmpl, err := template.New(t).Funcs(template.FuncMap(map[string]interface{}{
"processFruits": ProcessFruits,
})).Funcs(sprig.TxtFuncMap())
Actual Results:
[apples:true bananas:false oranges:true]
Desired Results:
[oranges:true bananas:false apples:true]
Go Playground
https://go.dev/play/p/hK2AdRVsZXJ
You are missing the usage of sort.Reverse() and sort.StringSlice()
func main() {
keys := []string{"bananas", "apples", "oranges"}
sort.Sort(sort.Reverse(sort.StringSlice(keys)))
fmt.Println(keys)
}
https://go.dev/play/p/n08S7xtbeij
See: https://pkg.go.dev/sort#example-Reverse
The arguments are passed as a slice. Collect every other argument as a string and print:
func ProcessFruits(args ...interface{}) interface{} {
var fruits []string
for i, arg := range args {
if i%2 == 0 {
fruits = append(fruits, arg.(string))
}
}
fmt.Println(fruits)
return nil
}
Not the prettiest solution, but I think I've figured out a working code to my problem. What I've done was creating another dictionary that will keep track of the order of the "fruits", then combining the two dictionary together with a nested for loop and output the result to a slice.
Here's my code:
package main
import (
"fmt"
"sort"
)
func ProcessFruits(fruits map[string]interface{}, counts map[int]string) {
keys := make([]string, len(fruits))
var foo []string
var baz []int
for k := range fruits {
foo = append(foo, k)
}
for _, k := range foo {
fmt.Println("Key-string:", k, "Value-bool:", fruits[k])
}
fmt.Println("==========================")
// Iterate over counts (keys are ints)
for l := range counts {
baz = append(baz, l)
}
sort.Ints(baz)
for _, l := range baz {
fmt.Println("Key-int:", l, "Value-string:", counts[l])
}
fmt.Println("==========================")
// Correlate list with sorted integer keys with the other list that contains true/false
i := 0
for _, m := range baz {
for _, n := range foo {
//fmt.Println("Key-int:", m, "Value-string:", counts[m])
//fmt.Println("Key-string:", n, "Value-bool:", fruits[n])
if counts[m] == n {
keys[i] = n
i++
//fmt.Println(i)
}
}
}
// Desired results is now in the slice, keys.
fmt.Println(keys)
}
func main() {
var m = map[string]interface{}{
"oranges": true,
"bananas": false,
"apples": true,
}
var n = map[int]string{
0: "oranges",
1: "bananas",
2: "apples",
}
ProcessFruits(m, n)
}
If anyone has a better solution, then I'd be curious to know.
So I have following structs, and I want to iterate through FiniteSet to get all ranges between the actual keys from the range. By that I mean get ranges excluding the keys. The reason for float64 is because I want to handle Math.inf() too. I am not sure if this is the best approach though.
type (
FiniteSet struct {
set map[float64]nothing
}
nothing struct{}
Range struct {
lowerBoundary float64
upperBoundary float64
}
)
e.g
map[float64]nothing {
math.Inf(-1): nothing{},
1: nothing{},
2: nothing{},
5: nothing{},
math.Inf(): nothing{}
}
I want the output to be yield
[]Range {
Range{math.inf(-1), 0},
Range{3,4},
Range{6, math.Inf()}
}
}
I would include my attempt on the implementation, if it weren't such a mess. I doubt it will provide anything but confusion to the question.
package main
import (
"fmt"
"math"
"sort"
)
type (
FiniteSet struct {
set map[float64]nothing
}
nothing struct{}
Range struct {
lowerBoundary float64
upperBoundary float64
}
)
func main() {
data := map[float64]nothing{
math.Inf(-1): nothing{},
1: nothing{},
2: nothing{},
5: nothing{},
math.Inf(1): nothing{},
}
r := process(data)
fmt.Printf("%v\n", r)
}
func process(data map[float64]nothing) []Range {
keys := make([]float64, 0)
for k := range data {
keys = append(keys, k)
}
sort.Float64s(keys)
r := make([]Range, 0)
for i := 0; i < len(keys)-1; i++ {
if 1 == keys[i+1]-keys[i] {
continue
}
var current Range
if keys[i] == math.Inf(-1) {
current.lowerBoundary = keys[i]
} else {
current.lowerBoundary = keys[i] + 1
}
if keys[i+1] == math.Inf(1) {
current.upperBoundary = keys[i+1]
} else {
current.upperBoundary = keys[i+1] - 1
}
r = append(r, current)
}
return r
}
I am trying to implement the fizz buzz problem using maps in go lang. However, this code requires improvement in its working. It keeps on printing undesired and redundant results due to the for loop that iterates over the map. I tried a lot of solutions but failed. Is it feasible without using any help of a slice of keys?
package main
import "fmt"
func fizzbuzz(i int) {
myMap:= make(map[int]string)
myMap[3] = "fizz"
myMap[5] = "buzz"
myMap[15] = "fizzbuzz"
for k,v:= range myMap{
if i%k==0 {fmt.Printf("%v \n",v)
} else {fmt.Printf("%v \n",i)}
}
}
func main() {
for i:=1;i<10000;i++ {
fizzbuzz(i)
}
}
With a map
With your rule set, the entire for loop should be to decide if the i number is to be replaced with a word. But you emit a result in each iteration. At most one result should be emitted by the for. If i is not dividable by any of the keys, then i should be emitted.
Keys may be multiples of others (e.g. 15 = 3 * 5), and if the i number is dividable by such a key, we want to emit the word associated with the greatest key. So the for loop should not emit anything, because if you find a good key, there may be a greater one. So the loop should just find the greatest good key.
After the loop you can check if any good key was found, and if so, emit the word associated with it, else emit the number:
var rules = map[int]string{
3: "fizz",
5: "buzz",
15: "fizzbuzz",
}
func fizzbuzz(i int) {
max := -1
for k := range rules {
if i%k == 0 && k > max {
max = k
}
}
if max < 0 {
fmt.Println(i)
} else {
fmt.Println(rules[max])
}
}
func main() {
for i := 1; i < 100; i++ {
fizzbuzz(i)
}
}
Output (try it on the Go Playground):
1
2
fizz
4
buzz
fizz
7
8
fizz
buzz
11
fizz
13
14
fizzbuzz
16
17
fizz
19
buzz
fizz
...
With an ordered slice
You can get better performance if the rules are sorted by the keys descending, in which case you can check the keys in that order (greatest first), and then the first that qualifies will be the greatest. So you can emit the result immediately, and return.
If execution continues after the loop, we know no keys were good, we can emit the i number:
var rules = []struct {
n int
word string
}{
{15, "fizzbuzz"},
{5, "buzz"},
{3, "fizz"},
}
func fizzbuzz(i int) {
for _, rule := range rules {
if i%rule.n == 0 {
fmt.Println(rule.word)
return
}
}
fmt.Println(i)
}
Try this on the Go Playground.
General (excluding multiples from rules)
Although you started with a rule set where 15 = 3 * 5 was included in the rules, this should not be the case; you should only list 3 and 5, 15 should be implicit.
In this case, you have to check all the rules of course, because each good key should emit a word. And you have to remember if a good key was found, and only emit the i number otherwise.
This is how you can do it:
var rules = []struct {
n int
word string
}{
{3, "fizz"},
{5, "buzz"},
}
func fizzbuzz(i int) {
found := false
for _, rule := range rules {
if i%rule.n == 0 {
found = true
fmt.Print(rule.word)
}
}
if !found {
fmt.Print(i)
}
fmt.Println()
}
Try it on the Go Playground.
Note: in this solution you could also use a map instead of the slice; the reason why I used a slice is so that in case of multiple good keys the emitted words will always be in the same order (defined by increasing keys), as iteration order of keys in a map is not defined. For details, see Why can't Go iterate maps in insertion order?
As mentioned, the order of items in a map, is not deterministic in Go. Though here are some simple solutions:
func fizzbuzz(n int) {
for i := 1; i <= n; i++ {
switch {
case i%15 == 0:
println("fizzbuzz")
case i%5 == 0:
println(`buzz`)
case i%3 == 0:
println(`fizz`)
default:
println(i)
}
}
}
func fizzbuzzList(n int) []string {
var res []string
for i := 1; i <= n; i++ {
switch {
case i%15 == 0:
res = append(res, `fizzbuzz`)
case i%5 == 0:
res = append(res, `buzz`)
case i%3 == 0:
res = append(res, `fizz`)
default:
res = append(res, strconv.Itoa(i))
}
}
return res
}
func fizzbuzzLazy(n int) chan string {
var res = make(chan string)
go func() {
for i := 1; i <= n; i++ {
switch {
case i%15 == 0:
res <- `fizzbuzz`
case i%5 == 0:
res <- `buzz`
case i%3 == 0:
res <- `fizz`
default:
res <- strconv.Itoa(i)
}
}
close(res)
}()
return res
}
And usage:
fizzbuzz(20)
for _, v := range fizzbuzzList(20) {
println(v)
}
for v := range fizzbuzzLazy(20) {
println(v)
}
I can create a "static" map via
type m map[int]map[int]map[int]bool
but the length of "keys" will be dynamic:
|---unknown len--|
m[1][2][3][4][2][0] = true
or
|---unk len--|
m[1][2][3][4] = true
How I can create this map in Go? Or any way exists?
Added: Hierarchical is IMPORTANT
Thanks in advance!
The map type:
A map is an unordered group of elements of one type, called the element type, indexed by a set of unique keys of another type, called the key type.
A map type must have a specific value type and a specific key type. What you want does not qualify for this: you want a map where the value is sometimes another map (of the same type), and sometimes it's a bool.
Your options:
1. With a wrapper value type
The idea here is to not use just a simple (bool) value type, but a wrapper which holds both of your potential values: both a map and the simple value (bool):
type Value struct {
Children MapType
V bool
}
type MapType map[int]*Value
var m MapType
This is basically what user3591723 suggested, so I won't detail it further.
2. With a tree
This is a variant of #1, but this way we clearly communicate it's a tree.
The cleanest way to implement your hierarchical structure would be to use a tree, where a node could look like this:
type KeyType int
type ValueType string
type Node struct {
Children map[KeyType]*Node
Value ValueType
}
This has the advantage that you may choose the value type (which is bool in your case, but you can change it to whatever type - I used string for presentation).
For easily build / manage your tree, we can add some methods to our Node type:
func (n *Node) Add(key KeyType, v ValueType) {
if n.Children == nil {
n.Children = map[KeyType]*Node{}
}
n.Children[key] = &Node{Value: v}
}
func (n *Node) Get(keys ...KeyType) *Node {
for _, key := range keys {
n = n.Children[key]
}
return n
}
func (n *Node) Set(v ValueType, keys ...KeyType) {
n = n.Get(keys...)
n.Value = v
}
And using it: 1. build a tree, 2. query some values, 3. change a value:
root := &Node{Value: "root"}
root.Add(0, "first")
root.Get(0).Add(9, "second")
root.Get(0, 9).Add(3, "third")
root.Get(0).Add(4, "fourth")
fmt.Println(root)
fmt.Println(root.Get(0, 9, 3))
fmt.Println(root.Get(0, 4))
root.Set("fourthMod", 0, 4)
fmt.Println(root.Get(0, 4))
Output (try it on the Go Playground):
&{map[0:0x104382f0] root}
&{map[] third}
&{map[] fourth}
&{map[] fourthMod}
3. With a recursive type definition
It may be surprising but it is possible to define a map type in Go which has unlimited or dynamic "depth", using a recursive definition:
type X map[int]X
It is what it says: it's a map with int keys, and values of the same type as the map itself.
The big downside of this recursive type is that it can't store any "useful" data in the value type. It can only store the "fact" whether a value is present which is identical to a bool-like information (bool type: true or false), which may be enough in rare cases, but not in most.
Let's see an example building a "tree":
var x X
x = map[int]X{}
x[0] = map[int]X{}
x[0][9] = map[int]X{}
x[0][9][3] = map[int]X{}
x[0][4] = map[int]X{}
fmt.Println(x)
Output:
map[0:map[9:map[3:map[]] 4:map[]]]
If we want to test if there is a "value" based on a series of keys, we have 2 options: either use the special v, ok := m[i] indexing (which reports if a value for the specified key exists), or test if the value is not nil, e.g. m[i] != nil.
Let's see some examples testing the above built map:
var ok bool
_, ok = x[0][9][3]
fmt.Println("x[0][9][3] exists:", ok, "; alternative way:", x[0][9][3] != nil)
_, ok = x[0][9][4]
fmt.Println("x[0][9][4] exists:", ok, "; alternative way:", x[0][9][4] != nil)
_, ok = x[0][4]
fmt.Println("x[0][4] exists:", ok, "; alternative way:", x[0][4] != nil)
_, ok = x[0][4][9][9][9]
fmt.Println("x[0][4][9][9][9] exists:", ok, "; alternative way:", x[0][4][9][9][9] != nil)
Output:
x[0][9][3] exists: true ; alternative way: true
x[0][9][4] exists: false ; alternative way: false
x[0][4] exists: true ; alternative way: true
x[0][4][9][9][9] exists: false ; alternative way: false
Try these on the Go Playground.
Note: Even though x[0][4] is the last "leaf", indexing further like x[0][4][9][9][9] will not cause a panic as a nil map can be indexed and yields the zero value of the value type (which is nil in case the value type is a map type).
Ok I had some fun playing with this a bit. Here is a much better implementation than what I did before:
type mymap map[int]*myentry
type myentry struct {
m mymap
b bool
}
func (mm mymap) get(idx ...int) *myentry {
if len(idx) == 0 {
return nil
}
entry, ok := mm[idx[0]]
if !ok {
return nil
} else if len(idx) == 1 {
return entry
}
for i := 1; i < len(idx); i++ {
if entry == nil || entry.m == nil {
return nil
}
entry = entry.m[idx[i]]
}
return entry
}
func (mm mymap) setbool(v bool, idx ...int) {
if len(idx) == 0 {
return
}
if mm[idx[0]] == nil {
mm[idx[0]] = &myentry{m: make(mymap), b: false}
} else if mm[idx[0]].m == nil {
mm[idx[0]].m = make(mymap)
}
if len(idx) == 1 {
mm[idx[0]].b = v
return
}
entry := mm[idx[0]]
for i := 1; i < len(idx); i++ {
if entry.m == nil {
entry.m = make(mymap)
entry.m[idx[i]] = &myentry{m: make(mymap), b: false}
} else if entry.m[idx[i]] == nil {
entry.m[idx[i]] = &myentry{m: make(mymap), b: false}
}
entry = entry.m[idx[i]]
}
entry.b = v
}
func (m mymap) getbool(idx ...int) bool {
if val := m.get(idx...); val != nil {
return val.b
}
return false
}
func (m mymap) getmap(idx ...int) mymap {
if val := m.get(idx...); val != nil {
return val.m
}
return nil
}
Playground link
Something like that ought to get you started
If you don't need the hierarchical map structure and just want to use keys with variable length one approach could be to simply use strings as keys and one single map.
m := make(map[string]bool)
k := fmt.Sprintf("%v_%v_%v", 1, 2, 3)
m[k] = true
fmt.Println(m[k])
You cannot do this as this sort of type is not representable in Go's type system.
You will have to redesign.
E.g. a type arbitrarilyKeyedMapwith a method lookup(vals ...int) bool.
Probably you'll need methods for setting and deletion too.
I'm trying to use the built-in map type as a set for a type of my own (Point, in this case). The problem is, when I assign a Point to the map, and then later create a new, but equal point and use it as a key, the map behaves as though that key is not in the map. Is this not possible to do?
// maptest.go
package main
import "fmt"
func main() {
set := make(map[*Point]bool)
printSet(set)
set[NewPoint(0, 0)] = true
printSet(set)
set[NewPoint(0, 2)] = true
printSet(set)
_, ok := set[NewPoint(3, 3)] // not in map
if !ok {
fmt.Print("correct error code for non existent element\n")
} else {
fmt.Print("incorrect error code for non existent element\n")
}
c, ok := set[NewPoint(0, 2)] // another one just like it already in map
if ok {
fmt.Print("correct error code for existent element\n") // should get this
} else {
fmt.Print("incorrect error code for existent element\n") // get this
}
fmt.Printf("c: %t\n", c)
}
func printSet(stuff map[*Point]bool) {
fmt.Print("Set:\n")
for k, v := range stuff {
fmt.Printf("%s: %t\n", k, v)
}
}
type Point struct {
row int
col int
}
func NewPoint(r, c int) *Point {
return &Point{r, c}
}
func (p *Point) String() string {
return fmt.Sprintf("{%d, %d}", p.row, p.col)
}
func (p *Point) Eq(o *Point) bool {
return p.row == o.row && p.col == o.col
}
package main
import "fmt"
type Point struct {
row int
col int
}
func main() {
p1 := &Point{1, 2}
p2 := &Point{1, 2}
fmt.Printf("p1: %p %v p2: %p %v\n", p1, *p1, p2, *p2)
s := make(map[*Point]bool)
s[p1] = true
s[p2] = true
fmt.Println("s:", s)
t := make(map[int64]*Point)
t[int64(p1.row)<<32+int64(p1.col)] = p1
t[int64(p2.row)<<32+int64(p2.col)] = p2
fmt.Println("t:", t)
}
Output:
p1: 0x7fc1def5e040 {1 2} p2: 0x7fc1def5e0f8 {1 2}
s: map[0x7fc1def5e0f8:true 0x7fc1def5e040:true]
t: map[4294967298:0x7fc1def5e0f8]
If we create pointers to two Points p1 and p2 with the same coordinates they point to different addresses.
s := make(map[*Point]bool) creates a map where the key is a pointer to the memory allocated to a Point and the value is boolean value. Therefore, if we assign elements p1 and p2 to the map s then we have two distinct map keys and two distinct map elements with the same coordinates.
t := make(map[int64]*Point) creates a map where the key is a composite of the coordinates of a Point and the value is a pointer to the Point coordinates. Therefore, if we assign elements p1 and p2 to the map t then we have two equal map keys and one map element with the shared coordinates.