Implement find and remove in Scala - scala

How is it easier to implement function that find and immutable remove the first occurrence in Scala collection:
case class A(a: Int, b: Int)
val s = Seq(A(1,5), A(4,6), A(2,3), A(5,1), A(2,7))
val (s1, r) = s.findAndRemove(_.a == 2)
Result: s1 = Seq(A(1,5), A(4,6), A(5,1), A(2,7)) , r = Some(A(2,3))

It finds the first element that match, and keeps order. It can be improved with List instead of Seq.
case class A(a: Int, b: Int)
val s = Seq(A(1,5), A(4,6), A(2,3), A(5,1), A(2,7))
val (s1, r) = s.findAndRemove(_.a == 2)
println(s1)
println(r)
implicit class SeqOps[T](s:Seq[T]) {
def findAndRemove(f:T => Boolean):(Seq[T], Option[T]) = {
s.foldLeft((Seq.empty[T], Option.empty[T])) {
case ((l, None), elem) => if(f(elem)) (l, Option(elem)) else (l :+ elem, None)
case ((l, x), elem) => (l :+ elem, x)
}
}
}

Yeah, a little late to the party, but I thought I'd throw this in.
Minimum invocations of the predicate.
Works with most popular collection types: Seq, List, Array, Vector. Even Set and Map (but for those the collection has no order to preserve and there's no telling which element the predicate will find first). Doesn't work for Iterator or String.
-
import scala.collection.generic.CanBuildFrom
import scala.language.higherKinds
implicit class CollectionOps[U, C[_]](xs :C[U]) {
def findAndRemove(p :U=>Boolean
)(implicit bf :CanBuildFrom[C[U], U, C[U]]
,ev :C[U] => collection.TraversableLike[U, C[U]]
) :(C[U], Option[U]) = {
val (before, after) = xs.span(!p(_))
before ++ after.drop(1) -> after.headOption
}
}
usage:
case class A(a: Int, b: Int)
val (as, a) = Seq(A(1,5), A(4,6), A(2,3), A(5,1), A(2,7)).findAndRemove(_.a==2)
//as: Seq[A] = List(A(1,5), A(4,6), A(5,1), A(2,7))
//a: Option[A] = Some(A(2,3))
val (cs, c) = Array('g','t','e','y','b','e').findAndRemove(_<'f')
//cs: Array[Char] = Array(g, t, y, b, e)
//c: Option[Char] = Some(e)
val (ns, n) = Stream.from(9).findAndRemove(_ > 10)
//ns: Stream[Int] = Stream(9, ?)
//n: Option[Int] = Some(11)
ns.take(5).toList //List[Int] = List(9, 10, 12, 13, 14)

Try something like this
def findAndRemove(as: Seq[A])(fn: A => Boolean): (Seq[A], Option[A]) = {
val index = as.indexWhere(fn)
if(index == -1) as -> None
else as.patch(index, Nil, 1) -> as.lift(index)
}
val (s1, r) = findAndRemove(s)(_.a == 2)

My version:
def findAndRemove(s:Seq[A])(p:A => Boolean):(Seq[A], Option[A])={
val i = s.indexWhere(p)
if(i > 0){
val (l1, l2) = s.splitAt(i)
(l1++l2.tail, Some(l2.head))
}else{
(s, None)
}
}

Related

Filter from Seq less/greater elements and only one equal

I want to implement method in Scala which filters from Seq elements which are for example greater than provided value and additionally returns up to one equal element. For example:
greaterOrEqual(Seq(1,2,3,3,4), 3) shouldBe Seq(3,4)
I ended up with such method:
def greaterOrEqual(
seq: ArrayBuffer[Long],
value: Long
): ArrayBuffer[Long] = {
val greater = seq.filter(_ > value)
val equal = seq.filter(_ == value)
if (equal.isEmpty) {
greater
} else {
equal.tail ++ greater
}
}
but somehow it doesn't look nice to me :) Moreover, I'd like to have generic version of this method where I'd able to use not only Long type but custom case classes.
Do you have any suggestions?
Thanks in advance.
def foo[A : Ordering[A]](seq: Seq[A], value: A) = seq.find(_ == value).toList ++ seq.filter(implicitly[Ordering[A]].gt(_,value))
Or (different style)
def foo[A](seq: Seq[A], value: A)(implicit ord: Ordering[A]) = {
import ord._
seq.find(_ == value).toList ++ seq.filter(_ > value)
}
The code below is deprecated
scala> def foo[A <% Ordered[A]](seq: Seq[A], value: A) = seq.find(_ == value).toList ++ seq.filter(_ > value)
foo: [A](seq: Seq[A], value: A)(implicit evidence$1: A => Ordered[A])List[A]
scala> foo(Seq(1,2,3,3,4,4,5),3)
res8: List[Int] = List(3, 4, 4, 5)
Here's my take on it (preserving original order).
import scala.collection.mutable.ArrayBuffer
def greaterOrEqual[A]( seq :ArrayBuffer[A], value :A
)(implicit ord :Ordering[A]
) : ArrayBuffer[A] =
seq.foldLeft((ArrayBuffer.empty[A],true)){
case (acc, x) if ord.lt(x,value) => acc
case ((acc,bool), x) if ord.gt(x,value) => (acc :+ x, bool)
case ((acc,true), x) => (acc :+ x, false)
case (acc, _) => acc
}._1
testing:
greaterOrEqual(ArrayBuffer.from("xawbaxbt"), 'b')
//res0: ArrayBuffer[Char] = ArrayBuffer(x, w, b, x, t)
This is an excellent problem for a simple tail-recursive algorithm over lists.
def greaterOrEqual[T : Ordering](elements: List[T])(value: T): List[T] = {
import Ordering.Implicits._
#annotation.tailrec
def loop(remaining: List[T], alreadyIncludedEqual: Boolean, acc: List[T]): List[T] =
remaining match {
case x :: xs =>
if (!alreadyIncludedEqual && x == value)
loop(remaining = xs, alreadyIncludedEqual = true, x :: acc)
else if (x > value)
loop(remaining = xs, alreadyIncludedEqual, x :: acc)
else
loop(remaining = xs, alreadyIncludedEqual, acc)
case Nil =>
acc.reverse
}
loop(remaining = elements, alreadyIncludedEqual = false, acc = List.empty)
}
Which you can use like this:
greaterOrEqual(List(1, 3, 2, 3, 4, 0))(3)
// val res: List[Int] = List(3, 4)
You can use the below snippet:
val list = Seq(1,2,3,3,4)
val value = 3
list.partition(_>=3)._1.toSet.toSeq
Here partition method divide the list into two list. First list which satisfy the given condition, and second list contains the remaining elements.
For generic method you can using implicit Ordering. Any type who can compare elements can be handled by greaterOrEqual method.
import scala.math.Ordering._
def greaterOrEqual[T](seq: Seq[T], value: T)(implicit ordering: Ordering[T]): Seq[T] = {
#scala.annotation.tailrec
def go(xs: List[T], value: T, acc: List[T]): List[T] = {
xs match {
case Nil => acc
case head :: rest if ordering.compare(head, value) == 0 => rest.foldLeft(head :: acc){
case (result, x) if ordering.compare(x, value) > 0 => x :: result
case (result, _) => result
}
case head :: rest if ordering.compare(head, value) > 0 => go(rest, value, head :: acc)
case _ :: rest => go(rest, value, acc)
}
}
go(seq.toList, value, List.empty[T]).reverse
}

None if no clear winner in Scala Map maxBy

val valueCountsMap: mutable.Map[String, Int] = mutable.Map[String, Int]()
valueCountsMap("a") = 1
valueCountsMap("b") = 1
valueCountsMap("c") = 1
val maxOccurredValueNCount: (String, Int) = valueCountsMap.maxBy(_._2)
// maxOccurredValueNCount: (String, Int) = (b,1)
How can I get None if there's no clear winner when I do maxBy values? I am wondering if there's any native solution already implemented within scala mutable Maps.
No, there's no native solution for what you've described.
Here's how I might go about it.
implicit class UniqMax[K,V:Ordering](m: Map[K,V]) {
def uniqMaxByValue: Option[(K,V)] = {
m.headOption.fold(None:Option[(K,V)]){ hd =>
val ev = implicitly[Ordering[V]]
val (count, max) = m.tail.foldLeft((1,hd)) {case ((c, x), v) =>
if (ev.gt(v._2, x._2)) (1, v)
else if (v._2 == x._2) (c+1, x)
else (c, x)
}
if (count == 1) Some(max) else None
}
}
}
Usage:
Map("a"->11, "b"->12, "c"->11).uniqMaxByValue //res0: Option[(String, Int)] = Some((b,12))
Map(2->"abc", 1->"abx", 0->"ab").uniqMaxByValue //res1: Option[(Int, String)] = Some((1,abx))
Map.empty[Long,Boolean].uniqMaxByValue //res2: Option[(Long, Boolean)] = None
Map('c'->2.2, 'w'->2.2, 'x'->2.1).uniqMaxByValue //res3: Option[(Char, Double)] = None

compiler error message when using State monad for memoization

I have a problem to make a working version of the Euler project problem 31 with the use of State trait (inspired from scalaz)
First, I have a solution with a mutable HashMap for memoization. It works but i would like to use the State monad, to understand it and to improve my skills.
I have used it with the fibonacci example, but when i attempt to apply the same technique to my case, i have a compiler error that i don't understand.
I use this implementation for State :
trait State[S, A] {
val run: S => (S, A)
def apply(s: S): (S, A) = run(s)
def eval(s: S): A = run(s)._2
def map[B](f: A => B): State[S, B] =
State { s: S =>
val (s1, a) = run(s)
(s1, f(a))
}
def flatMap[B](f: A => State[S, B]): State[S, B] =
State { s: S =>
val (s1, a) = run(s)
f(a)(s1)
}
}
object State {
def apply[S, A](f: S => (S, A)): State[S, A] = new State[S, A] {
final val run = f
}
def init[S, A](a: A) = State { s: S => (s, a) }
def update[S, A](f: S => S): State[S, Unit] = State { s: S => (f(s), ()) }
def gets[S, A](f: S => A): State[S, A] = State { s: S => (s, f(s)) }
}
my attempt to use it is here :
val coins = List(1, 2, 5, 10, 20, 50, 100, 200)
type MemoKey = (List[Int], Int)
type MemoType = Map[MemoKey, Int]
def ways(listCoins: List[Int], amount: Int): Int = {
def ways_impl(coins: List[Int], sum: Int): State[MemoType, Int] = (coins, sum) match {
case (Nil, 0) => State.init(1)
case (Nil, _) => State.init(0)
case (c :: cs, _) =>
for {
memoed <- State.gets { m: MemoType => m.get((coins, sum)) }
res <- memoed match {
case Some(way) => State.init[MemoType, Int](way)
case None =>
(for {
i <- 0 to sum / c
r <- ways_impl(cs, sum - i * c)
_ <- State.update { m: MemoType => m + ((coins, sum) -> r) }
} yield r).sum
}
} yield res
}
ways_impl(listCoins, amount) eval (Map())
I have a compiler error at this line :
r <- ways_impl(cs, sum - i * c)
The compiler said :
type mismatch; found : State[MemoType,Int] (which expands to) State[scala.collection.immutable.Map[(List[Int], Int),Int],Int] required: scala.collection.GenTraversableOnce[?]
For information, here is my first version with mutable map :
import scala.collection.mutable._
val memo = HashMap[(List[Int], Int), Int]()
val coins = List(1, 2, 5, 10, 20, 50, 100, 200)
def memoWays(coins: List[Int], sum: Int): Int = {
memo.getOrElse((coins, sum), {
val y = ways(coins, sum)
memo += ((coins, sum) -> y)
y
})
}
// brute force method with memoization
def ways(coins: List[Int], sum: Int): Int = (coins, sum) match {
case (Nil, 0) => 1
case (Nil, _) => 0
case (c :: cs, n) =>
(for {
i <- 0 to n / c
r = memoWays(cs, n - i * c)
} yield r).sum
}
println(s"result=${Mesure(ways(coins, 200))}")
What does that error mean ? Why the compiler want a GenTraversableOnce instead of State ?
What kind of thing i don't understand on State monad ?
And, if i may, I have an optional question :
Is my way to memoize with State Monad, is a good choice, or my first implementation with mutable map is better anyway ?
The problem is that your for comprehension is attempting to flatMap two unrelated types: a Range and a State. You're going to have to refactor, although off the top of my head, it's not clear to me how you'll be able to leverage State in a simple way. I'd probably use an immutable Map for the memo, a List to represent the future iterations to be tried, and simple recursion to iterate.

Change list of Eithers to two value lists in scala

How can I change list of Eithers into two list of value Right and Left. When I use partition it returns two lists of Either's not values. What is the simplest way to do it?
foldLeft allows you to easily write your own method:
def separateEithers[T, U](list: List[Either[T, U]]) = {
val (ls, rs) = list.foldLeft(List[T](), List[U]()) {
case ((ls, rs), Left(x)) => (x :: ls, rs)
case ((ls, rs), Right(x)) => (ls, x :: rs)
}
(ls.reverse, rs.reverse)
}
You'll have to map the two resulting lists after partitioning.
val origin: List[Either[A, B]] = ???
val (lefts, rights) = origin.partition(_.isInstanceOf[Left[_]])
val leftValues = lefts.map(_.asInstanceOf[Left[A]].a)
val rightValues = rights.map(_.asInstanceOf[Right[B]].b)
If you are not happy with the casts and isInstanceOf's, you can also do it in two passes:
val leftValues = origin collect {
case Left(a) => a
}
val rightValues = origin collect {
case Right(b) => b
}
And if you are not happy with the two passes, you'll have to do it "by hand":
def myPartition[A, B](origin: List[Either[A, B]]): (List[A], List[B]) = {
val leftBuilder = List.newBuilder[A]
val rightBuilder = List.newBuilder[B]
origin foreach {
case Left(a) => leftBuilder += a
case Right(b) => rightBuilder += b
}
(leftBuilder.result(), rightBuilder.result())
}
Finally, if you don't like mutable state, you can do so:
def myPartition[A, B](origin: List[Either[A, B]]): (List[A], List[B]) = {
#tailrec
def loop(xs: List[Either[A, B]], accLeft: List[A],
accRight: List[B]): (List[A], List[B]) = {
xs match {
case Nil => (accLeft.reverse, accRight.reverse)
case Left(a) :: xr => loop(xr, a :: accLeft, accRight)
case Right(b) :: xr => loop(xr, accLeft, b :: accRight)
}
}
loop(origin, Nil, Nil)
}
If making two passes through the list is okay for you, you can use collect:
type E = Either[String, Int]
val xs: List[E] = List(Left("foo"), Right(1), Left("bar"), Right(2))
val rights = xs.collect { case Right(x) => x}
// rights: List[Int] = List(1, 2)
val lefts = xs.collect { case Left(x) => x}
// lefts: List[String] = List(foo, bar)
Using for comprehensions, like this,
for ( Left(v) <- xs ) yield v
and
for ( Right(v) <- xs ) yield v

Scala, extending the iterator

Im looking to extended the iterator to create a new method takeWhileInclusive, which will operate like takeWhile but include the last element.
My issue is what is best practice to extend the iterator to return a new iterator which I would like to be lazy evaluated. Coming from a C# background I normal use IEnumerable and use the yield keyword, but such an option doesn't appear to exist in Scala.
for example I could have
List(0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7).iterator.map(complex time consuming algorithm).takeWhileInclusive(_ < 6)
so in this case the takeWhileInclusive would only have resolve the predicate on the values until I get the a result greater than 6, and it will include this first result
so far I have:
object ImplicitIterator {
implicit def extendIterator(i : Iterator[Any]) = new IteratorExtension(i)
}
class IteratorExtension[T <: Any](i : Iterator[T]) {
def takeWhileInclusive(predicate:(T) => Boolean) = ?
}
You can use the span method of Iterator to do this pretty cleanly:
class IteratorExtension[A](i : Iterator[A]) {
def takeWhileInclusive(p: A => Boolean) = {
val (a, b) = i.span(p)
a ++ (if (b.hasNext) Some(b.next) else None)
}
}
object ImplicitIterator {
implicit def extendIterator[A](i : Iterator[A]) = new IteratorExtension(i)
}
import ImplicitIterator._
Now (0 until 10).toIterator.takeWhileInclusive(_ < 4).toList gives List(0, 1, 2, 3, 4), for example.
This is one case where I find the mutable solution superior:
class InclusiveIterator[A](ia: Iterator[A]) {
def takeWhileInclusive(p: A => Boolean) = {
var done = false
val p2 = (a: A) => !done && { if (!p(a)) done=true; true }
ia.takeWhile(p2)
}
}
implicit def iterator_can_include[A](ia: Iterator[A]) = new InclusiveIterator(ia)
The following requires scalaz to get fold on a tuple (A, B)
scala> implicit def Iterator_Is_TWI[A](itr: Iterator[A]) = new {
| def takeWhileIncl(p: A => Boolean)
| = itr span p fold (_ ++ _.toStream.headOption)
| }
Iterator_Is_TWI: [A](itr: Iterator[A])java.lang.Object{def takeWhileIncl(p: A => Boolean): Iterator[A]}
Here it is at work:
scala> List(1, 2, 3, 4, 5).iterator takeWhileIncl (_ < 4)
res0: Iterator[Int] = non-empty iterator
scala> res0.toList
res1: List[Int] = List(1, 2, 3, 4)
You can roll your own fold over a pair like this:
scala> implicit def Pair_Is_Foldable[A, B](pair: (A, B)) = new {
| def fold[C](f: (A, B) => C): C = f.tupled(pair)
| }
Pair_Is_Foldable: [A, B](pair: (A, B))java.lang.Object{def fold[C](f: (A, B) => C): C}
class IteratorExtension[T](i : Iterator[T]) {
def takeWhileInclusive(predicate:(T) => Boolean) = new Iterator[T] {
val it = i
var isLastRead = false
def hasNext = it.hasNext && !isLastRead
def next = {
val res = it.next
isLastRead = !predicate(res)
res
}
}
}
And there's an error in your implicit. Here it is fixed:
object ImplicitIterator {
implicit def extendIterator[T](i : Iterator[T]) = new IteratorExtension(i)
}
scala> List(0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7).toStream.filter (_ < 6).take(2)
res8: scala.collection.immutable.Stream[Int] = Stream(0, ?)
scala> res8.toList
res9: List[Int] = List(0, 1)
After your update:
scala> def timeConsumeDummy (n: Int): Int = {
| println ("Time flies like an arrow ...")
| n }
timeConsumeDummy: (n: Int)Int
scala> List(0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7).toStream.filter (x => timeConsumeDummy (x) < 6)
Time flies like an arrow ...
res14: scala.collection.immutable.Stream[Int] = Stream(0, ?)
scala> res14.take (4).toList
Time flies like an arrow ...
Time flies like an arrow ...
Time flies like an arrow ...
res15: List[Int] = List(0, 1, 2, 3)
timeConsumeDummy is called 4 times. Am I missing something?