I am new in Swift.
I have an error with this code and I can't find any answer on this site.
I print largest number but I want to print largest number's kind.
let interestingNumbers = [
"Prime": [2,3,5,7,11,13],
"Fibonacci": [1,1,2,3,5,8,13],
"Square": [1,4,9,16,25,36]
]
var largestNumber = 0
for (kind, numbers) in interestingNumbers {
for x in numbers {
for y in kind {
if x > largestNumber {
largestNumber = x
}
}
}
}
print("the largest number is = \(largestNumber)")
Try this instead:
var largestNumber = 0
var largestNumberKind: String!
for (kind, numbers) in interestingNumbers {
for x in numbers {
if x > largestNumber {
largestNumber = x
largertNumberKind = kind
}
}
}
print("the largest number is = \(largestNumber)")
print("the largest number kind is = \(largestNumberKind)")
Regarding your original code:
you were only keeping track of the largest number, losing the kind info you wanted. The largestNumberKind variable I added does just that.
looping over the kind: String didn't make any sense (the for y in kind line). Your outside loop already iterates a key at a time, so such inner loop is pointless.
There is nothing wrong with Paulo's approach (with some minor corrections; see comments there), but this is a reasonable problem to explore more functional approaches that don't require looping and mutation.
For example, we can just flatten each kind to its maximum element (or Int.min if it's empty), then take the kind with the highest max:
interestingNumbers
.map { (kind: $0, maxValue: $1.max() ?? .min) } // Map each kind to its max value
.max { $0.maxValue < $1.maxValue }? // Find the kind with the max value
.kind // Return the kind
This does create a slight edge condition that I don't love. If you evaluate the following:
let interestingNumbers = [
"ImaginaryReals": [],
"Smallest": [Int.min],
]
It's not well defined here which will be returned. Clearly the correct answer is "Smallest," but it's kind of order-dependent. With a little more thought (and code) we can fix this. The problem is that we are taking a little shortcut by treating an empty list as having an Int.min maximum (this also prevents our system from working for things like Float, so that's sad). So let's fix that. Let's be precise. The max of an empty list is nil. We want to drop those elements.
We can use a modified version of mapValues (which is coming in Swift 4 I believe). We'll make flatMapValues:
extension Dictionary {
func flatMapValues<T>(_ transform: (Value) throws -> T?) rethrows -> [Key: T] {
var result: [Key: T] = [:]
for (key, value) in self {
if let newValue = try transform(value) {
result[key] = newValue
}
}
return result
}
}
And with that, we can be totally precise, even with empty lists in the mix:
interestingNumbers
.flatMapValues { $0.max() }
.max { $0.1 < $1.1 }?
.key
Again, nothing wrong with Paulo's approach if you find it clear, but there are other ways of thinking about the problem.
BTW, the equivalent version that iterates would look like this:
var largestNumber: Int? = nil
var largestNumberKind: String? = nil
for (kind, numbers) in interestingNumbers {
for x in numbers {
if largestNumber == nil || largestNumber! < x {
largestNumber = x
largestNumberKind = kind
}
}
}
Related
In a function, I want to first check if the array given contains any numbers.
If there is an even number in the array I want to show the smallest number, and if there aren't any even numbers I want to at least show the smallest odd number whilst informing the user there are no even numbers.
The issue I have run into is: if there is a lower odd number in the array than the lowest even number it will ignore the fact that there is an even number in the array.
My progress to solving this was to first be able to determine the smallest number in an array
func smallestNumberInArray(listOfNumbers numbers: [Int]) -> Int {
var smallestNumber = numbers[0]
for x in numbers {
if x < smallestNumber {
smallestNumber = x
}
}
return smallestNumber
}
I then test it with smallestNumberInArray(listOfNumbers: [33, 44, 10, 22222, 099, 83]) which prints out 10
To test the even or odd logic I simply did
var listOfNumbers = [200, 3, 202]
for x in listOfNumbers {
if x % 2 == 0 {
print("\(x)")
}
}
Which printed out 200 and 202
I tried to combine this into 1 function
func checkSmallestEvenNumber(yourNumbers numbers: [Int]) -> String {
var smallestNumber = numbers[0]
var returnString = "Placeholder"
for x in numbers {
if x % 2 == 0 {
if x < smallestNumber {
smallestNumber = x
returnString = "The smallest even number is: \(smallestNumber)"
}
} else {
if x < smallestNumber && x % 2 != 0 {
smallestNumber = x
returnString = "No Evens, but the smallest odd is: \(smallestNumber)"
}
}
}
return returnString
}
So my function call checkSmallestEvenNumber(yourNumbers: [29, 33, 55, 22, 130, 101, 99]) returns The smallest even number is: 22 in this scenario, but if I change say the 55 to a 5 the return value is No Evens, but the smallest odd is: 5 when I want it to be 22 still.
Take advantage of higher level functions like filter with predicate isMultiple(of: 2) and min()
The result must be an optional to cover the case that the input array can be empty
func smallestNumberInArray(listOfNumbers numbers: [Int]) -> Int? {
if let smallestEvenNumber = numbers.filter({$0.isMultiple(of: 2)}).min() { return smallestEvenNumber }
return numbers.min()
}
smallestNumberInArray(listOfNumbers: [29, 33, 5, 22, 130, 101, 99])
Alternatively – and probably more efficient – first sort the array then return the first even number or the first number which must be odd or – if the array is empty – return nil
func smallestNumberInArray(listOfNumbers numbers: [Int]) -> Int? {
let sortedArray = numbers.sorted()
return sortedArray.first{$0.isMultiple(of: 2)} ?? sortedArray.first
}
A third way is first to partition the array in even and odd numbers and get the smallest number of the slices
func smallestNumberInArray(listOfNumbers numbers: [Int]) -> Int? {
var mutableNumbers = numbers
let firstOddIndex = mutableNumbers.partition(by: {$0.isMultiple(of: 2)})
return mutableNumbers[firstOddIndex...].min() ?? mutableNumbers[0..<firstOddIndex].min()
}
There are a number of ways to fix it. I made some tweaks to your code
func checkSmallestEvenNumber(yourNumbers numbers: [Int]) -> String {
guard !numbers.isEmpty else {
return "Empty array"
}
var smallestNumber = numbers[0]
var returnString = ""
for x in numbers {
if x % 2 == 0,
(smallestNumber % 2 != 0 || x < smallestNumber) {
smallestNumber = x
print(smallestNumber)
returnString = "The smallest even number is: \(smallestNumber)"
} else if x < smallestNumber,
smallestNumber % 2 != 0,
x % 2 != 0 {
smallestNumber = x
returnString = "No Evens, but the smallest odd is: \(smallestNumber)"
}
}
if returnString.isEmpty {
if smallestNumber % 2 == 0 {
returnString = "The smallest even number is: \(smallestNumber)"
} else {
returnString = "No Evens, but the smallest odd is: \(smallestNumber)"
}
}
return returnString
}
checkSmallestEvenNumber(yourNumbers: [0, 2, 23, 55, 130, 101, 55])
You should be throwing an error for odd numbers, not returning Strings.
extension Sequence where Element: BinaryInteger {
func lowestEvenNumber() throws -> Element {
switch (minima { $0.isMultiple(of: 2) }) {
case (_, let even?):
return even
case (let odd?, nil):
throw NoEvenNumbersError.onlyOdds(odd)
case (nil, nil):
throw NoEvenNumbersError<Element>.empty
}
}
}
enum NoEvenNumbersError<Integer: BinaryInteger>: Error {
case empty
case onlyOdds(Integer)
}
vadian's partitioning solution is good enough for your use case, but it's not applicable for all sequences. It should be. This is, and uses memory only for two elements:
public extension Sequence where Element: Comparable {
/// Two minima, with the second satisfying a partitioning criterion.
func minima(
partitionedBy belongsInSecondPartition: (Element) -> Bool
) -> (Element?, Element?) {
reduce(into: (nil, nil)) { minima, element in
let partitionKeyPath = belongsInSecondPartition(element) ? \(Element?, Element?).1 : \.0
if minima[keyPath: partitionKeyPath].map({ element < $0 }) ?? true {
minima[keyPath: partitionKeyPath] = element
}
}
}
}
I already marked #achu 's answer to be correct but as I mentioned in comments I figured it out moments after #achu answered.
Here is my less elegant solution: I separated the functionality into two functions and passed a function as a parameter in the main function.
func findLowestNumber(passingArray nums: [Int]) -> Int{
var small = nums[0]
for x in nums {
if x < small {
small = x
}
}
return small
}
I will use this mini function as a passing parameter later on
func checkSmallestEvenNumber(yourNumbers numbers: [Int]) -> String {
var parameterIntArray = numbers[0]
var allEvens = [Int]()
var str = "Placeholder"
for x in numbers {
if x % 2 != 0 {
str = "No Evens, however the lowest odd is \(findLowestNumber(passingArray: numbers))"
} else {
allEvens.append(x)
}
}
if allEvens.isEmpty != true {
str = "The lowest even is \(findLowestNumber(passingArray: allEvens))"
}
return str
}
What I did first was to check if any of the numbers were even. If none were then I created a string saying such but then passed the earlier function as a parameter to at least find the lowest odd.
The main fix was if there were any evens I appended them to a new array. Within this new array I again passed the earlier function to find the lowest number.
I'm sure this could be cleaned up (without using higher functions like map etc)
This function might not be "Swifty" (using higher order functions) but it will give a result with a single pass through the array:
func lowestEvenFromArray(_ intArray: [Int]) -> Int? {
var lowestEven: Int? = nil
var lowestOdd: Int? = nil
for value in intArray {
if value.isMultiple(of: 2) {
if value < (lowestEven ?? Int.max) {
lowestEven = value
}
} else if value < (lowestOdd ?? Int.max) {
lowestOdd = value
}
}
return lowestEven ?? lowestOdd
}
It should be the fastest of the answers given, all of which will make at least 2 passes through the array.
I'm trying the tutor of swift, and found the question.
I need to use optional values to keys and then unwrap it, however the values don't to be done so.But why?
Don't know why to use "kinds" rather than kind in the closure, but the one before that used number rather than numbers ,and how can I use numbers to get same result?
let interestingnumbers = [
"prime": [2,3,5,7,9,11,21],
"fibonacci": [1,23,5,32,4,123,11],
"dadgadfgh":[1,2,4,5,43,6,576,12],
"square": [1243325,123,455,1111],
]
var thekind:String?
var max=0
for (kinds,numbers) in interestingnumbers{
for kind in kinds{
for number in numbers{
if number>max {
max=number
thekind = kinds // I don't know why here should use "kinds" rather than kind, but the one before that used number rather than numbers ,and how can I use numbers to get same result?
}
}
}
}
print(max,thekind!)
//this is a fault code
let interestingnumbers = [
"prime": [2,3,5,7,9,11,21],
"fibonacci": [1,23,5,32,4,123,11],
"dadgadfgh":[1,2,4,5,43,6,576,12],
"square": [1243325,123,455,1111],
]
var thekind:String
var max=0
for (kinds,numbers) in interestingnumbers{
for kind in kinds{
for number in numbers{
if number>max {
max=number
thekind = kinds
}
}
}
}
print(max,thekind)
//and i tried this also
let interestingnumbers = [
"prime": [2,3,5,7,9,11,21],
"fibonacci": [1,23,5,32,4,123,11],
"dadgadfgh":[1,2,4,5,43,6,576,12],
"square": [1243325,123,455,1111],
]
var thekind:String?
var max:Int? //also [:Int]?
for (kinds,numbers) in interestingnumbers{
for kind in kinds{
for number in numbers{
if number>max {
max=numbers
thekind = kinds
}
}
}
}
print(max,thekind!)
a) "I need to use optional values to keys and then unwrap it, however the values don't to be done so.But why?"
This is not true. You can initialize thekind string variable with an empty string the same way you did with your integer type max setting its initial value to zero.
b) "Don't know why to use "kinds" rather than kind in the closure, but the one before that used number rather than numbers ,and how can I use numbers to get same result?"
You are unnecessarily iterating each character of your dictionary keys. Thats why you are assigning kinds String instead of kind Character.
let interestingnumbers = [
"prime": [2,3,5,7,9,11,21],
"fibonacci": [1,23,5,32,4,123,11],
"dadgadfgh":[1,2,4,5,43,6,576,12],
"square": [1243325,123,455,1111],
]
var thekind: String = ""
var max = 0
for (key, numbers) in interestingnumbers {
for number in numbers {
if number > max {
max = number
thekind = key
}
}
}
print(max, thekind) // "1243325 square\n"
Just for fun the functional approach:
// result is a tuple (kind and max)
// reduce iterates every key value pair
// $0 is the accumulated which in this case it is used to hold the max value and the corresponding key
// $1 is the current key,value pair (kind, numbers)
let (kind, max) = interestingnumbers.reduce(into: ("",0)) {
// here we check if the current value has a maximum value and if it is greater than $0.1 (the resulting tuple maxValue)
if let maxValue = $1.value.max(), maxValue > $0.1 {
// if true assign a new tuple to the result with the new key and the new maximum value
$0 = ($1.key, maxValue)
}
}
print(kind, max) // "square 1243325\n"
Swift's standard library doesn't have this flatMap overload, which makes things easy.
// (key: "square", value: 1243325)
interestingNumbers.flatMap().max(by: \.value)
public extension Dictionary where Value: Sequence {
/// Flatten value sequences,
/// pairing each value element with its original key.
func flatMap() -> [(key: Key, value: Value.Element)] {
flatMap { key, value in value.map { (key, $0) } }
}
}
public extension Sequence {
func max<Comparable: Swift.Comparable>(
by getComparable: (Element) throws -> Comparable
) rethrows -> Element? {
try self.max {
try getComparable($0) < getComparable($1)
}
}
}
This question already has answers here:
What is the reduce() function doing, in Swift
(4 answers)
Closed 9 months ago.
Here is a piece of code I don't understand. This code uses swift's reduce(::) function along with the closure which I am having trouble to understand. What are the values set in maxVerticalPipCount and maxHorizontalPipCount? Are they 5 and 2 respectively?
let pipsPerRowForRank = [[0], [1], [1,1], [1,1,1], [2,2], [2,1,2],
[2,2,2], [2,1,2,2], [2,2,2,2], [2,2,1,2,2],
[2,2,2,2,2]]
let maxVerticalPipCount = CGFloat(pipsPerRowForRank.reduce(0) { max($1.count, $0) })
let maxHorizontalPipCount = CGFloat(pipsPerRowForRank.reduce(0) { max($1.max() ?? 0, $0) })
By the way, if you’re wondering what precisely reduce does, you can always refer to the source code, where you can see the actual code as well as a nice narrative description in the comments.
But the root of your question is that this code is not entirely obvious. I might suggest that if you’re finding it hard to reason about the code snippet, you can replace the opaque shorthand argument names, $0 and $1, with meaningful names, e.g.:
let verticalMax = pipsPerRowForRank.reduce(0) { previousMax, nextArray in
max(nextArray.count, previousMax)
}
let horizontalMax = pipsPerRowForRank.reduce(0) { previousMax, nextArray in
max(nextArray.max() ?? 0, previousMax)
}
By using argument names that make the functional intent more clear, it often is easier to grok what the code is doing. IMHO, especially when there are multiple arguments, using explicit argument names can make it more clear.
That having been said, I’d probably not use reduce and instead do something like:
let verticalMax = pipsPerRowForRank
.lazy
.map { $0.count }
.max() ?? 0
To my eye, that makes the intent extremely clear, namely that we’re counting how many items are in each sub-array and returning the maximum count.
Likewise, for the horizontal one:
let horizontalMax = pipsPerRowForRank
.lazy
.flatMap { $0 }
.max() ?? 0
Again, I think that’s clear that we’re creating a flat array of the values, and then getting the maximum value.
And, in both cases, we’re using lazy to avoid building interim structures (in case our arrays were very large), but evaluating it as we go along. This improves memory characteristics of the routine and the resulting code is more efficient. Frankly, with an array of arrays this small, lazy isn’t needed, but I include it for your reference.
Bottom line, the goal with functional patterns is not to write code with the fewest keystrokes possible (as there are more concise renditions we could have written), but rather to write efficient code whose intent is as clear as possible with the least amount of cruft. But we should always be able to glance at the code and reason about it quickly. Sometimes if further optimization is needed, we’ll make a conscious decision to sacrifice readability for performance reasons, but that’s not needed here.
This is what the reduce functions do here
var maxVerticalPipCount:CGFloat = 0
for rark in pipsPerRowForRank {
if CGFloat(rark.count) > maxVerticalPipCount {
maxVerticalPipCount = CGFloat(rark.count)
}
}
var maxHorizontalPipCount:CGFloat = 0
for rark in pipsPerRowForRank {
if CGFloat(rark.max() ?? 0) > maxHorizontalPipCount {
maxHorizontalPipCount = CGFloat(rark.max() ?? 0)
}
}
You shouldn't use reduce(::) function for finding the max value. Use max(by:)
function like this
let maxVerticalPipCount = CGFloat(pipsPerRowForRank.max { $0.count < $1.count }?.count ?? 0)
let maxHorizontalPipCount = CGFloat(pipsPerRowForRank.max { ($0.max() ?? 0) < ($1.max() ?? 0) }?.max() ?? 0)
The reduce function loops over every item in a collection, and combines them into one value. Think of it as literally reducing multiple values to one value. [Source]
From Apple Docs
let numbers = [1, 2, 3, 4]
let numberSum = numbers.reduce(0, { x, y in
x + y
})
// numberSum == 10
In your code,
maxVerticalPipCount is iterating through the whole array and finding the max between count of 2nd element and 1st element of each iteration.
maxHorizontalPipCount is finding max of 2nd element's max value and first element.
Try to print each element inside reduce function for better understandings.
let maxVerticalPipCount = pipsPerRowForRank.reduce(0) {
print($0)
return max($1.count, $0)
}
Reduce adds together all the numbers in an array opens a closure and really do whatever you tell it to return.
let pipsPerRowForRank = [[1,1], [2,2,2]]
let maxVerticalPipCount = CGFloat(pipsPerRowForRank.reduce(0) {
max($1.count, $0)})
Here it starts at 0 at reduce(0) and loops through the full array. where it takes the highest value between it's previous value it's in process of calculating and the number of items in the subarray. In the example above the process will be:
maxVerticalPipCount = max(2, 0)
maxVerticalPipCount = max(3, 2)
maxVerticalPipCount = 3
As for the second one
let pipsPerRowForRank = [[1,2], [1,2,3], [1,2,3,4], []]
let maxHorizontalPipCount = CGFloat(pipsPerRowForRank.reduce(0) {
max($1.max() ?? 0, $0)})
Here we instead of checking count of array we check the max value of the nested array, unless it's empty, the it's 0. So here goes this one:
let maxHorizontalPipCount = max(2, 0)
let maxHorizontalPipCount = max(3, 2)
let maxHorizontalPipCount = max(4, 3)
let maxHorizontalPipCount = max(0, 4)
let maxHorizontalPipCount = 4
Example With Swift 5,
enum Errors: Error {
case someError
}
let numbers = [1,2,3,4,5]
let inititalValue = 0
let sum = numbers.reduce(Result.success(inititalValue)) { (result, value) -> Result<Int, Error> in
if let initialValue = try? result.get() {
return .success(value + initialValue)
} else {
return .failure(Errors.someError)
}
}
switch sum {
case .success(let totalSum):
print(totalSum)
case .failure(let error):
print(error)
}
I have a function in Swift that computes the hamming distance of two strings and then puts them into a connected graph if the result is 1.
For example, read to hear returns a hamming distance of 2 because read[0] != hear[0] and read[3] != hear[3].
At first, I thought my function was taking a long time because of the quantity of input (8,000+ word dictionary), but I knew that several minutes was too long. So, I rewrote my same algorithm in Java, and the computation took merely 0.3s.
I have tried writing this in Swift two different ways:
Way 1 - Substrings
extension String {
subscript (i: Int) -> String {
return self[Range(i ..< i + 1)]
}
}
private func getHammingDistance(w1: String, w2: String) -> Int {
if w1.length != w2.length { return -1 }
var counter = 0
for i in 0 ..< w1.length {
if w1[i] != w2[i] { counter += 1 }
}
return counter
}
Results: 434 seconds
Way 2 - Removing Characters
private func getHammingDistance(w1: String, w2: String) -> Int {
if w1.length != w2.length { return -1 }
var counter = 0
var c1 = w1, c2 = w2 // need to mutate
let length = w1.length
for i in 0 ..< length {
if c1.removeFirst() != c2.removeFirst() { counter += 1 }
}
return counter
}
Results: 156 seconds
Same Thing in Java
Results: 0.3 seconds
Where it's being called
var graph: Graph
func connectData() {
let verticies = graph.canvas // canvas is Array<Node>
// Node has key that holds the String
for vertex in 0 ..< verticies.count {
for compare in vertex + 1 ..< verticies.count {
if getHammingDistance(w1: verticies[vertex].key!, w2: verticies[compare].key!) == 1 {
graph.addEdge(source: verticies[vertex], neighbor: verticies[compare])
}
}
}
}
156 seconds is still far too inefficient for me. What is the absolute most efficient way of comparing characters in Swift? Is there a possible workaround for computing hamming distance that involves not comparing characters?
Edit
Edit 1: I am taking an entire dictionary of 4 and 5 letter words and creating a connected graph where the edges indicate a hamming distance of 1. Therefore, I am comparing 8,000+ words to each other to generate edges.
Edit 2: Added method call.
Unless you chose a fixed length character model for your strings, methods and properties such as .count and .characters will have a complexity of O(n) or at best O(n/2) (where n is the string length). If you were to store your data in an array of character (e.g. [Character] ), your functions would perform much better.
You can also combine the whole calculation in a single pass using the zip() function
let hammingDistance = zip(word1.characters,word2.characters)
.filter{$0 != $1}.count
but that still requires going through all characters of every word pair.
...
Given that you're only looking for Hamming distances of 1, there is a faster way to get to all the unique pairs of words:
The strategy is to group words by the 4 (or 5) patterns that correspond to one "missing" letter. Each of these pattern groups defines a smaller scope for word pairs because words in different groups would be at a distance other than 1.
Each word will belong to as many groups as its character count.
For example :
"hear" will be part of the pattern groups:
"*ear", "h*ar", "he*r" and "hea*".
Any other word that would correspond to one of these 4 pattern groups would be at a Hamming distance of 1 from "hear".
Here is how this can be implemented:
// Test data 8500 words of 4-5 characters ...
var seenWords = Set<String>()
var allWords = try! String(contentsOfFile: "/usr/share/dict/words")
.lowercased()
.components(separatedBy:"\n")
.filter{$0.characters.count == 4 || $0.characters.count == 5}
.filter{seenWords.insert($0).inserted}
.enumerated().filter{$0.0 < 8500}.map{$1}
// Compute patterns for a Hamming distance of 1
// Replace each letter position with "*" to create patterns of
// one "non-matching" letter
public func wordH1Patterns(_ aWord:String) -> [String]
{
var result : [String] = []
let fullWord : [Character] = aWord.characters.map{$0}
for index in 0..<fullWord.count
{
var pattern = fullWord
pattern[index] = "*"
result.append(String(pattern))
}
return result
}
// Group words around matching patterns
// and add unique pairs from each group
func addHamming1Edges()
{
// Prepare pattern groups ...
//
var patternIndex:[String:Int] = [:]
var hamming1Groups:[[String]] = []
for word in allWords
{
for pattern in wordH1Patterns(word)
{
if let index = patternIndex[pattern]
{
hamming1Groups[index].append(word)
}
else
{
let index = hamming1Groups.count
patternIndex[pattern] = index
hamming1Groups.append([word])
}
}
}
// add edge nodes ...
//
for h1Group in hamming1Groups
{
for (index,sourceWord) in h1Group.dropLast(1).enumerated()
{
for targetIndex in index+1..<h1Group.count
{ addEdge(source:sourceWord, neighbour:h1Group[targetIndex]) }
}
}
}
On my 2012 MacBook Pro, the 8500 words go through 22817 (unique) edge pairs in 0.12 sec.
[EDIT] to illustrate my first point, I made a "brute force" algorithm using arrays of characters instead of Strings :
let wordArrays = allWords.map{Array($0.unicodeScalars)}
for i in 0..<wordArrays.count-1
{
let word1 = wordArrays[i]
for j in i+1..<wordArrays.count
{
let word2 = wordArrays[j]
if word1.count != word2.count { continue }
var distance = 0
for c in 0..<word1.count
{
if word1[c] == word2[c] { continue }
distance += 1
if distance > 1 { break }
}
if distance == 1
{ addEdge(source:allWords[i], neighbour:allWords[j]) }
}
}
This goes through the unique pairs in 0.27 sec. The reason for the speed difference is the internal model of Swift Strings which is not actually an array of equal length elements (characters) but rather a chain of varying length encoded characters (similar to the UTF model where special bytes indicate that the following 2 or 3 bytes are part of a single character. There is no simple Base+Displacement indexing of such a structure which must always be iterated from the beginning to get to the Nth element.
Note that I used unicodeScalars instead of Character because they are 16 bit fixed length representations of characters that allow a direct binary comparison. The Character type isn't as straightforward and take longer to compare.
Try this:
extension String {
func hammingDistance(to other: String) -> Int? {
guard self.characters.count == other.characters.count else { return nil }
return zip(self.characters, other.characters).reduce(0) { distance, chars in
distance + (chars.0 == chars.1 ? 0 : 1)
}
}
}
print("read".hammingDistance(to: "hear")) // => 2
The following code executed in 0.07 secounds for 8500 characters:
func getHammingDistance(w1: String, w2: String) -> Int {
if w1.characters.count != w2.characters.count {
return -1
}
let arr1 = Array(w1.characters)
let arr2 = Array(w2.characters)
var counter = 0
for i in 0 ..< arr1.count {
if arr1[i] != arr2[i] { counter += 1 }
}
return counter
}
After some messing around, I found a faster solution to #Alexander's answer (and my previous broken answer)
extension String {
func hammingDistance(to other: String) -> Int? {
guard !self.isEmpty, !other.isEmpty, self.characters.count == other.characters.count else {
return nil
}
var w1Iterator = self.characters.makeIterator()
var w2Iterator = other.characters.makeIterator()
var distance = 0;
while let w1Char = w1Iterator.next(), let w2Char = w2Iterator.next() {
distance += (w1Char != w2Char) ? 1 : 0
}
return distance
}
}
For comparing strings with a million characters, on my machine it's 1.078 sec compared to 1.220 sec, so roughly a 10% improvement. My guess is this is due to avoiding .zip and the slight overhead of .reduce and tuples
As others have noted, calling .characters repeatedly takes time. If you convert all of the strings once, it should help.
func connectData() {
let verticies = graph.canvas // canvas is Array<Node>
// Node has key that holds the String
// Convert all of the keys to utf16, and keep them
let nodesAsUTF = verticies.map { $0.key!.utf16 }
for vertex in 0 ..< verticies.count {
for compare in vertex + 1 ..< verticies.count {
if getHammingDistance(w1: nodesAsUTF[vertex], w2: nodesAsUTF[compare]) == 1 {
graph.addEdge(source: verticies[vertex], neighbor: verticies[compare])
}
}
}
}
// Calculate the hamming distance of two UTF16 views
func getHammingDistance(w1: String.UTF16View, w2: String.UTF16View) -> Int {
if w1.count != w2.count {
return -1
}
var counter = 0
for i in w1.startIndex ..< w1.endIndex {
if w1[i] != w1[i] {
counter += 1
}
}
return counter
}
I used UTF16, but you might want to try UTF8 depending on the data. Since I don't have the dictionary you are using, please let me know the result!
*broken*, see new answer
My approach:
private func getHammingDistance(w1: String, w2: String) -> Int {
guard w1.characters.count == w2.characters.count else {
return -1
}
let countArray: Int = w1.characters.indices
.reduce(0, {$0 + (w1[$1] == w2[$1] ? 0 : 1)})
return countArray
}
comparing 2 strings of 10,000 random characters took 0.31 seconds
To expand a bit: it should only require one iteration through the strings, adding as it goes.
Also it's way more concise 🙂.
I have a quick question that is confusing me a little bit. I made a simple average function that takes an array of optional Ints. I check to make sure the array does not contain a nil value but when I use reduce I have to force unwrap one of the two elements in the closure. Why is it that I only force unwrap the second one (in my case $1!)
func average2(array: [Int?]) -> Double? {
let N = Double(array.count)
guard N > 0 && !array.contains({$0 == nil}) else {
return nil
}
let sum = Double(array.reduce(0) {$0+$1!})
let average = sum / N
return average
}
I know it is simple but I would like to understand it properly.
The first parameter of reduce is the sum, which is 0 in the beginning. The second one is the current element of your array which is an optional Int and therefore has to be unwrapped.
Your invocation of reduce does this:
var sum = 0 // Your starting value (an Int)
for elem in array {
sum = sum + elem! // This is the $0 + $1!
}
EDIT: I couldn't get a more functional approach than this to work:
func average(array: [Int?]) -> Double? {
guard !array.isEmpty else { return nil }
let nonNilArray = array.flatMap{ $0 }
guard nonNilArray.count == array.count else { return nil }
return Double(nonNilArray.reduce(0, combine: +)) / Double(nonNilArray.count)
}
You can also discard the second guard if you want something like average([1, 2, nil]) to return 1.5 instead of nil