In Swift, is it possible to enumerate a sequence starting at 1?
In my case, I'm using the SQLite C interface to bind values to prepared statements. The second argument of the sqlite3_bind_*() routines is the index of the SQL parameter to be set. The indices start at 1. (Ie, they're one-based.)
I could use Sequence.enumerated() and just add 1 to n inside each iteration, like so:
for (n, value) in values.enumerated() {
sqlite3_bind_int(stmt, Int32(n)+1, value)
}
But is there a way to start n from 1?
No, all collections indices in Swift are zero based but if you really want you can create your own custom enumeration zipping a range of Int32 values and the source collection:
extension Collection {
var enumerated: Zip2Sequence<PartialRangeFrom<Int32>, Self> { zip(1..., self) }
}
usage:
let values: [Int32] = [10, 20, 30]
for (n, value) in values.enumerated {
print("value:", value, "at:", n)
}
This will print
value: 10 at: 1
value: 20 at: 2
value: 30 at: 3
As others have said, array indexes start at 0 in Swift, so if you want to have 1-based indexes out of the box, you'll need to write some extra code.
If you're only using the index once then any workarounds might not worth the effort, and the incrementing at the call site is the most straightforward solution.
If however you will need to use the incremented index multiple times within the loop, another approach you could take would be to shadow the index:
for (n, element) in [1, 2,3].enumerated() {
let n = n + 1
sqlite3_bind_int(stmt, Int32(n), value)
}
Another approach could be using map():
for (n, element) in [1, 2,3].enumerated().map({($0+1,$1)}) {
sqlite3_bind_int(stmt, Int32(n), value)
}
, however not sure if you gain much with this solution, as the code is a little bit obscure.
Related
How to put the same, but positive, before each negative element of the array. Count the number of inserted elements
example:
var arrayInt: [Int] = [22, 16, -39, 1, -200]
result: [22, 16, 39, -39, 1, 200, -200]
what to use for-in or method .map or method .filter
Thanks for the help!
Here's a relatively simple implementation:
let result: [Int] = arrayInt.reduce(into: []) { acc, item in
if item < 0 {
acc.append(-item)
}
acc.append(item)
}
reduce allows you to transform an array into an arbitrary type. In this case, you still want an [Int], but you don't want to be constrained to the same number of elements (like map would do).
If you need the number of inserted elements:
let inserted = result.count - arrayInt.count
Note that you could also build this into the result by returning a tuple with a count instead of just an [Int]
Keep in mind this is not the only possible solution -- just a relatively straightforward one.
In response to the comments, you could also turn this into a one-liner with something like flatMap: arrayInt.flatMap { $0 < 0 ? [-$0, $0] : [$0] }
I like to know if I use Set instead of Array can my method of first(where:) became Complexity:O(1)?
Apple says that the first(where:) Method is O(n), is it in general so or it depends on how we use it?
for example look at these two ways of coding:
var numbers: [Int] = [Int]()
numbers = [3, 7, 4, -2, 9, -6, 10, 1]
if let searchResult = numbers.first(where: { value in value == -2 })
{
print("The number \(searchResult) Exist!")
}
else
{
print("The number does not Exist!")
}
and this:
var numbers: Set<Int> = Set<Int>()
numbers = [3, 7, 4, -2, 9, -6, 10, 1]
if let searchResult = numbers.first(where: { value in value == -2 })
{
print("The number \(searchResult) Exist!")
}
else
{
print("The number does not Exist!")
}
can we say that in second way Complexity is O(1)?
It's still O(n) even when you use a Set. .first(where:) is defined on a sequence, and it is necessary to check the items in the sequence one at a time to find the first one that makes the predicate true.
Your example is simply checking if the item exists in the Set, but since you are using .first(where:) and a predicate { value in value == -2} Swift will run that predicate for each element in the sequence in turn until it finds one that returns true. Swift doesn't know that you are really just checking to see if the item is in the set.
If you want O(1), then use .contains(-2) on the Set.
I recommend to learn more about Big-O notation. O(1) is a strict subset of O(n). Thus every function that is O(1) is also in O(n).
That said, Apple’s documentation is actually misleading as it does not take the complexity of the predicate function into account. The following is clearly O(n^2):
numbers.first(where: { value in numbers.contains(value + 42) })
Both Set and Dictionary conform to the Sequence protocol, which is the one that exposes the first(where:) function. And this function has the following requirement, taken from the documentation:
Complexity: O(n), where n is the length of the sequence.
Now, this is the upper limit of the function complexity, it might well be that some sequences optimize the search based on their data type and the storage details.
Bottom line: you need to reach the documentation for a particular type if you want to know more about the performance of some feature, however if you're only circulating some protocol references, then you should assume the "worst" - aka what's in the protocol documentation.
This is the implementation of the first(where:) function in the sequence:
/// - Complexity: O(*n*), where *n* is the length of the sequence.
#inlinable
public func first(
where predicate: (Element) throws -> Bool
) rethrows -> Element? {
for element in self {
if try predicate(element) {
return element
}
}
return nil
}
From the Swift Source Code on the Github
As you can see, It's a simple for loop and the complexity is O(n) (assuming the predicate complexity is 1 🤷🏻♂️).
The predicate executes n times. So the worst case is O(n)
The Set has not an overload for this function (since it is nonsense and there will be nothing more than the first one in a Set). If you know about the sequence and you are just looking for a value (not a predicate), just use contains or firstIndex(of:). These two have overloads with the complexity of O(1)
From the Swift Source Code on the Github
I have an app with a 6x7 grid that lets the user input values. After each value is obtained the app checks to find if any of the consecutive values create a sum of ten and executes further code (which I have working well for the 4 test cases I've written). So far I've been writing if statements similar to the below:
func findTens() {
if (rowOneColumnOnePlaceHolderValue + rowOneColumnTwoPlaceHolderValue) == 10 {
//code to execute
} else if (rowOneColumnOnePlaceHolderValue + rowOneColumnTwoPlaceHolderValue + rowOneColumnThreePlaceHolderValue) == 10 {
//code to execute
} else if (rowOneColumnOnePlaceHolderValue + rowOneColumnTwoPlaceHolderValue + rowOneColumnThreePlaceHolderValue + rowOneColumnFourPlaceHolderValue) == 10 {
//code to execute
} else if (rowOneColumnOnePlaceHolderValue + rowOneColumnTwoPlaceHolderValue + rowOneColumnThreePlaceHolderValue + rowOneColumnFourPlaceHolderValue + rowOneColumnFivePlaceHolderValue) == 10 {
//code to execute
}
That's not quite halfway through row one, and it will end up being a very large set of if statements (231 if I'm calculating correctly, since a single 7 column row would be 1,2-1,2,3-...-2,3-2,3,4-...-67 so 21 possibilities per row). I think there must be a more concise way of doing it but I've struggled to find something better.
I've thought about using an array of each of the rowXColumnYPlaceHolderValue variables similar to the below:
let rowOnePlaceHolderArray = [rowOneColumnOnePlaceHolderValue, rowOneColumnTwoPlaceHolderValue, rowOneColumnThreePlaceHolderValue, rowOneColumnFourPlaceHolderValue, rowOneColumnFivePlaceHolderValue, rowOneColumnSixPlaceHolderValue, rowOneColumnSevenPlaceHolderValue]
for row in rowOnePlaceHolderArray {
//compare each element of the array here, 126 comparisons
}
But I'm struggling to find a next step to that approach, in addition to the fact that those array elements then apparently because copies and not references to the original array anymore...
I've been lucky enough to find some fairly clever solutions to some of the other issues I've come across for the app, but this one has given me trouble for about a week now so I wanted to ask for help to see what ideas I might be missing. It's possible that there will not be another approach that is significantly better than the 231 if statement approach, which will be ok. Thank you in advance!
Here's an idea (off the top of my head; I have not bothered to optimize). I'll assume that your goal is:
Given an array of Int, find the first consecutive elements that sum to a given Int total.
Your use of "10" as a target total is just a special case of that.
So I'll look for consecutive elements that sum to a given total, and if I find them, I'll return their range within the original array. If I don't find any, I'll return nil.
Here we go:
extension Array where Element == Int {
func rangeOfSum(_ sum: Int) -> Range<Int>? {
newstart:
for start in 0..<count-1 {
let slice = dropFirst(start)
for n in 2...slice.count {
let total = slice.prefix(n).reduce(0,+)
if total == sum {
return start..<(start+n)
}
if total > sum {
continue newstart
}
if n == slice.count && total < sum {
return nil
}
}
}
return nil
}
}
Examples:
[1, 8, 6, 2, 8, 4].rangeOfSum(10) // 3..<5, i.e. 2,8
[1, 8, 1, 2, 8, 4].rangeOfSum(10) // 0..<3, i.e. 1,8,1
[1, 8, 3, 2, 9, 4].rangeOfSum(10) // nil
Okay, so now that we've got that, extracting each possible row or column from the grid (or whatever the purpose of the game is) is left as an exercise for the reader. 🙂
When I want to pass through and remove an item or items from an array (when certain conditions are met), I typically iterate backward in the C-style for-loop and remove the item by index, avoiding the problem of index numbers being changed of the next item to be processed, or the changing size of the list affecting how many times the loop is passed through. But the C for-loop has been removed in Swift 3.
Here is my Swift 2.3 code for the initialization of the loop:
for (var i = allowedItems.count - 1; i > -1; i -= 1)
Here is the monstrosity created by the Swift 3 converter:
for (i in ((-1 + 1)...allowedItems.count - 1).reversed())
This version does not compile however. ("Expected ',' separator" at the "in" operator).
I simplify the "-1 + 1" bit to zero:
for (i in (0...allowedItems.count - 1).reversed())
Now the error is "Expected Sequence expression for for-each loop".
What is the safe and hopefully reasonably elegant way of iterating backward in Swift 3, in which an index or counter variable is made available for use in specifying which item should be removed? This type of logic appears a number of places in my code so I want to make sure to find the best solution.
Thanks.
What is the safe and hopefully reasonably elegant way of iterating backward in Swift 3
The built-in way is:
for i in (0 ..< allowedItems.count).reversed()
The elegant way is:
for i in allowedItems.count >>> 0
(where >>> is the custom operator that I define here).
Use stride:
for i in stride(from: allowedItems.count - 1, through: 0, by: -1) {
}
What is the safe and hopefully reasonably elegant way of iterating
backward in Swift 3, in which an index or counter variable is made
available for use in specifying which item should be removed?
This doesn't answer the technical question, but possibly the underlying XY problem: have you considered simply filtering your array based on the criteria "when certain conditions are met"?
func certainConditionsForKeepingAreMet(_ element: YourElementType) -> Bool { /* ... */ }
allowedItems = allowedItems.filter(certainConditionsForKeepingAreMet)
E.g.
var allowedItems = [1, 3 ,6, 2]
func certainConditionsForKeepingAreMet(_ element: Int) -> Bool { return element < 3 }
allowedItems = allowedItems.filter(certainConditionsForKeepingAreMet)
print(allowedItems) // [1, 2]
If you'd like to remove and use the removed elements (on-the-fly), you could simply pipe the elements that are to be removed to some "use this element" function, in the course of checking the conditions for the elements.
func doSomethingWith(_ element: Int) { print("Removed", element) }
func certainConditionsForKeepingAreMet(_ element: Int) -> Bool {
if element >= 3 {
doSomethingWith(element)
return false
}
return true
}
var allowedItems = [1, 3 ,6, 2]
allowedItems = allowedItems.filter(certainConditionsForKeepingAreMet)
/* Removed 3
Removed 6 */
print(allowedItems) // [1, 2]
Looking to add together integers from a dictionary. For example:
var dictionary = ["one": 1, "two": 2, "three": 3, "four": 4, "five": 5]
I would want to get the sum of 1+2+3+4+5 = 15
I understand it will probably need a loop something like
for (n, i) in dictionary {
*some math function*
}
any help would be appreciated maybe I'm just over thinking this one?
You can use reduce:combine: to get the sum.
With Swift 2.0, reduce:Combine: is added to the protocol extension of SequenceType. So, it is available to all SequenceType like Array, Set or Dictionary.
dictionary.reduce(0) {
sum, item in
return sum + item.1
}
item inside the closure is tuple representing each (key, value) pair. So, item.0 is key where as item.1 is value.The initial value of the sum is 0, and then each time the iteration takes place, sum is added to the value extracted from dictionary.
You could also write it in short as,
dictionary.reduce(0) { return $0 + $1.1 }
While older version of Swift, it has reduce method with Array only. So, we could first get array and apply reduce:combine to get the sum as,
let a = dictionary.values.array.reduce(0) { return $0 + $1 }