Related
Could it be possible to write in FFL a version of filter that stops filtering after the first negative match, i.e. the remaining items are assumed to be positive matches? more generally, a filter.
Example:
removeMaxOf1([1,2,3,4], value>=2)
Expected Result:
[1,3,4]
This seems like something very difficult to write in a pure functional style. Maybe recursion or let could acheive it?
Note: the whole motivation for this question was hypothesizing about micro-optimizations. so performance is very relevant. I am also looking for something that is generally applicable to any data type, not just int.
I have recently added find_index to the engine which allows this to be done easily:
if(n = -1, [], list[:n] + list[n+1:])
where n = find_index(list, value<2)
where list = [1,2,3,4]
find_index will return the index of the first match, or -1 if no match is found. There is also find_index_or_die which returns the index of the first match, asserting if none is found for when you're absolutely certain there is an instance in the list.
You could also implement something like this using recursion:
def filterMaxOf1(list ls, function(list)->bool pred, list result=[]) ->list
base ls = []: result
base not pred(ls[0]): result + ls[1:]
recursive: filterMaxOf1(ls[1:], pred, result + [ls[0]])
Of course recursion can! :D
filterMaxOf1(input, target)
where filterMaxOf1 = def
([int] l, function f) -> [int]
if(size(l) = 0,
[],
if(not f(l[0]),
l[1:],
flatten([
l[0],
recurse(l[1:], f)
])
)
)
where input = [
1, 2, 3, 4, ]
where target = def
(int i) -> bool
i < 2
Some checks:
--> filterOfMax1([1, ]) where filterOfMax1 = [...]
[1]
--> filterOfMax1([2, ]) where filterOfMax1 = [...]
[]
--> filterOfMax1([1, 2, ]) where filterOfMax1 = [...]
[1]
--> filterOfMax1([1, 2, 3, 4, ]) where filterOfMax1 = [...]
[1, 3, 4]
This flavor loses some strong type safety, but is nearer to tail recursion:
filterMaxOf1(input, target)
where filterMaxOf1 = def
([int] l, function f) -> [int]
flatten(filterMaxOf1i(l, f))
where filterMaxOf1i = def
([int] l, function f) -> [any]
if(size(l) = 0,
[],
if(not f(l[0]),
l[1:],
[
l[0],
recurse(l[1:], f)
]
)
)
where input = [
1, 2, 3, 4, ]
where target = def
(int i) -> bool
i < 2
I want to infinitely repeat T elements in a Sequence<T>. This can't be done using kotlin.collections.asSequence. For example:
val intArray = intArrayOf(1, 2, 3)
val finiteIntSequence = intArray.asSequence()
val many = 10
finiteIntSequence.take(many).forEach(::print)
// 123
This is not what I want. I expected some kind of kotlin.collections.repeat function to exist, but there isn't, so I implemented one myself (e.g. for this IntArray):
var i = 0
val infiniteIntSequence = generateSequence { intArray[i++ % intArray.size] }
infiniteIntSequence.take(many).forEach(::print)
// 1231231231
This is quite imperative, so I feel there must be a more functional and less verbose way to do this. If it exists, what is/are Kotlin's standard way(s) to repeat collections / arrays a(n) (in)finite amount of times?
Update: coroutines are no longer experimental as of Kotlin 1.3! Use them as much as you like :)
If you allow the use of coroutines you can do this in a pretty clean way using sequence:
an infinite amount of times
fun <T> Sequence<T>.repeat() = sequence { while (true) yieldAll(this#repeat) }
Note the use of a qualified this expression this#repeat - simply using this would refer to the lambda's receiver, a SequenceScope.
then you can do
val intArray = intArrayOf(1, 2, 3)
val finiteIntSequence = intArray.asSequence()
val infiniteIntSequence = finiteIntSequence.repeat()
println(infiniteIntSequence.take(10).toList())
// ^ [1, 2, 3, 1, 2, 3, 1, 2, 3, 1]
a finite amount of times
fun <T> Sequence<T>.repeat(n: Int) = sequence { repeat(n) { yieldAll(this#repeat) } }
To avoid using the experimental coroutines, use:
generateSequence { setOf("foo", 'b', 'a', 'r') }
.flatten() // Put the Iterables' contents into one Sequence
.take(5) // Take 5 elements
.joinToString(", ")
// Result: "foo, b, a, r, foo"
or alternatively, if you want to repeat the entire collection a number of times, just take before flattening:
generateSequence { setOf("foo", 'b', 'a', 'r') }
.take(5) // Take the entire Iterable 5 times
.flatten() // Put the Iterables' contents into one Sequence
.joinToString(", ")
// Result: "foo, b, a, r, foo, b, a, r, foo, b, a, r, foo, b, a, r, foo, b, a, r"
For the original question's IntArray, the array first must be converted to an Iterable<Int> (otherwise flatten() isn't available):
val intArray = intArrayOf(1, 2, 3)
generateSequence { intArray.asIterable() }
.flatten()
.take(10)
.joinToString(", ")
// Result: "1, 2, 3, 1, 2, 3, 1, 2, 3, 1"
Furthermore, other types of Array, e.g. ByteArray or LongArray, as well as Map are not Iterable, but they all implement the asIterable() method like IntArray in the example above.
I think this is pretty clear:
generateSequence(0) { (it + 1) % intArray.size }
.map { intArray[it] }
.forEach { println(it) }
A generic solution would be to reuse the proposal from this answer with extension functions:
fun <T> Array<T>.asRepeatedSequence() =
generateSequence(0) {
(it + 1) % this.size
}.map(::get)
fun <T> List<T>.asRepeatedSequence() =
generateSequence(0) {
(it + 1) % this.size
}.map(::get)
Called like this:
intArray.asRepeatedSequence().forEach(::println)
I'm unsure if this is due to API changes in Kotlin, but it's possible to do the following:
fun <T> Sequence<T>.repeatForever() =
generateSequence(this) { it }.flatten()
Live example: https://pl.kotl.in/W-h1dnCFx
If you happen to have Guava on your classpath, you can do the following:
val intArray = intArrayOf(1, 2, 3)
val cyclingSequence = Iterators.cycle(intArray.asList()).asSequence()
// prints 1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1
println(cyclingSequence.take(10).joinToString(","))
I need to make a nested loop with an arbitrary depth. Recursive loops seem the right way, but I don't know how to use the loop variables in side the loop. For example, once I specify the depth to 3, it should work like
count = 1
for i=1, Nmax-2
for j=i+1, Nmax-1
for k=j+1,Nmax
function(i,j,k,0,0,0,0....) // a function having Nmax arguments
count += 1
end
end
end
I want to make a subroutine which takes the depth of the loops as an argument.
UPDATE:
I implemented the scheme proposed by Zoltan. I wrote it in python for simplicity.
count = 0;
def f(CurrentDepth, ArgSoFar, MaxDepth, Nmax):
global count;
if CurrentDepth > MaxDepth:
count += 1;
print count, ArgSoFar;
else:
if CurrentDepth == 1:
for i in range(1, Nmax + 2 - MaxDepth):
NewArgs = ArgSoFar;
NewArgs[1-1] = i;
f(2, NewArgs, MaxDepth, Nmax);
else:
for i in range(ArgSoFar[CurrentDepth-1-1] + 1, Nmax + CurrentDepth - MaxDepth +1):
NewArgs = ArgSoFar;
NewArgs[CurrentDepth-1] = i;
f(CurrentDepth + 1, NewArgs, MaxDepth, Nmax);
f(1,[0,0,0,0,0],3,5)
and the results are
1 [1, 2, 3, 0, 0]
2 [1, 2, 4, 0, 0]
3 [1, 2, 5, 0, 0]
4 [1, 3, 4, 0, 0]
5 [1, 3, 5, 0, 0]
6 [1, 4, 5, 0, 0]
7 [2, 3, 4, 0, 0]
8 [2, 3, 5, 0, 0]
9 [2, 4, 5, 0, 0]
10 [3, 4, 5, 0, 0]
There may be a better way to do this, but so far this one works fine. It seems easy to do this in fortran. Thank you so much for your help!!!
Here's one way you could do what you want. This is pseudo-code, I haven't written enough to compile and test it but you should get the picture.
Define a function, let's call it fun1 which takes inter alia an integer array argument, perhaps like this
<type> function fun1(indices, other_arguments)
integer, dimension(:), intent(in) :: indices
...
which you might call like this
fun1([4,5,6],...)
and the interpretation of this is that the function is to use a loop-nest 3 levels deep like this:
do ix = 1,4
do jx = 1,5
do kx = 1,6
...
Of course, you can't write a loop nest whose depth is determined at run-time (not in Fortran anyway) so you would flatten this into a single loop along the lines of
do ix = 1, product(indices)
If you need the values of the individual indices inside the loop you'll need to unflatten the linearised index. Note that all you are doing is writing the code to transform array indices from N-D into 1-D and vice versa; this is what the compiler does for you when you can specify the rank of an array at compile time. If the inner loops aren't to run over the whole range of the indices you'll have to do something more complicated, careful coding required but not difficult.
Depending on what you are actually trying to do this may or may not be either a good or even satisfactory approach. If you are trying to write a function to compute a value at each element in an array whose rank is not known when you write the function then the preceding suggestion is dead flat wrong, in this case you would want to write an elemental function. Update your question if you want further information.
you can define your function to have a List argument, which is initially empty
void f(int num,List argumentsSoFar){
// call f() for num+1..Nmax
for(i = num+1 ; i < Nmax ; i++){
List newArgs=argumentsSoFar.clone();
newArgs.add(i);
f(i,newArgs);
}
if (num+1==Nmax){
// do the work with your argument list...i think you wanted to arrive here ;)
}
}
caveat: the stack should be able to handle Nmax depth function calls
Yet another way to achieve what you desire is based on the answer by High Performance Mark, but can be made more general:
subroutine nestedLoop(indicesIn)
! Input indices, of arbitrary rank
integer,dimension(:),intent(in) :: indicesIn
! Internal indices, here set to length 5 for brevity, but set as many as you'd like
integer,dimension(5) :: indices = 0
integer :: i1,i2,i3,i4,i5
indices(1:size(indicesIn)) = indicesIn
do i1 = 0,indices(1)
do i2 = 0,indices(2)
do i3 = 0,indices(3)
do i4 = 0,indices(4)
do i5 = 0,indices(5)
! Do calculations here:
! myFunc(i1,i2,i3,i4,i5)
enddo
enddo
enddo
enddo
enddo
endsubroutine nestedLoop
You now have nested loops explicitly coded, but these are 1-trip loops unless otherwise desired. Note that if you intend to construct arrays of rank that depends on the nested loop depth, you can go up to rank of 7, or 15 if you have a compiler that supports it (Fortran 2008). You can now try:
call nestedLoop([1])
call nestedLoop([2,3])
call nestedLoop([1,2,3,2,1])
You can modify this routine to your liking and desired applicability, add exception handling etc.
From an OOP approach, each loop could be represented by a "Loop" object - this object would have the ability to be constructed while containing another instance of itself. You could then theoretically nest these as deep as you need to.
Loop1 would execute Loop2 would execute Loop3.. and onwards.
Suppose I have a tuple of (1, 2, 3) and want to index a multidimensional array with it such as:
index = (1, 2, 3)
table[index] = 42 # behaves like table[1][2][3]
index has an unknown number of dimensions, so I can't do:
table[index[0]][index[1]][index[2]]
I know I could do something like this:
functools.reduce(lambda x, y: x[y], index, table)
but it's utterly ugly (and maybe also inefficient), so I wonder if there's a better, more Pythonic choice.
EDIT: Maybe a simple loop is best choice:
elem = table
for i in index:
elem = elem[i]
EDIT2: Actually, there's a problem with both solutions: I can't assign a value to the indexed array :-(, back to ugly:
elem = table
for i in index[:-1]:
elem = elem[i]
elem[index[-1]] = 42
The question is very interesting and also your suggested solution looks good (havn't checked it, but this kind of problem requires a recursive treatment and you just did it in one line).
However, the pythonic way I use in my programs is to use dictionaries of tuples. The syntax is array-like, the performance - of a dictionary, and there was no problem in it for me.
For example:
a = {(1, 2, 3): 'A', (3, 4, 5): 'B', (5, 6, 7, 8): 'C'}
print a[1, 2, 3]
print a[5, 6, 7, 8]
Will output:
A
B
And assigning to an index is super easy:
a[1, 4, 5] = 42. (But you might want to first check that (1, 4, 5) is within the dict, or else it will be created by the assignment)
Is there a standard library function or built-in construct to concatenate two sequences in JavaFX?
Here a Sequences.concatenate() function is mentioned, but it is nowhere to be seen in the official API.
Of course one could iterate over each sequence, inserting the values into a new sequence e.g:
function concatenate(seqA: Object[], seqB: Object[]) : Object[] {
for(b in seqB) insert b into seqA;
seqA;
}
..but surely something as basic as concatenation is already defined for us somewhere..
It is very simple, since there cannot be sequence in sequence (it all gets flattened), you can do it like this:
var a = [1, 2];
var b = [3, 4];
// just insert one into another
insert b into a;
// a == [1, 2, 3, 4];
// or create a new seq
a = [b, a];
// a == [3, 4, 1, 2];
Hope that helps.