What I want to do is populate an Array (sequence) by appending in the elements of another Array (availableExercises), one by one. I want to do it one by one because the sequence has to hold a given number of items. The available exercises list is in nature finite, and I want to use its elements as many times as I want, as opposed to a multiple number of the available list total.
The current code included does exactly that and works. It is possible to just paste that in a Playground to see it at work.
My question is: Is there a better Swift3 way to achieve the same result? Although the code works, I'd like to not need the variable i. Swift3 allows for structured code like closures and I'm failing to see how I could use them better. It seems to me there would be a better structure for this which is just out of reach at the moment.
Here's the code:
import UIKit
let repTime = 20 //seconds
let restTime = 10 //seconds
let woDuration = 3 //minutes
let totalWOTime = woDuration * 60
let sessionTime = repTime + restTime
let totalSessions = totalWOTime / sessionTime
let availableExercises = ["push up","deep squat","burpee","HHSA plank"]
var sequence = [String]()
var i = 0
while sequence.count < totalSessions {
if i < availableExercises.count {
sequence.append(availableExercises[i])
i += 1
}
else { i = 0 }
}
sequence
You can overcome from i using modulo of sequence.count % availableExercises.count like this way.
var sequence = [String]()
while(sequence.count < totalSessions) {
let currentIndex = sequence.count % availableExercises.count
sequence.append(availableExercises[currentIndex])
}
print(sequence)
//["push up", "deep squat", "burpee", "HHSA plank", "push up", "deep squat"]
You can condense your logic by using map(_:) and the remainder operator %:
let sequence = (0..<totalSessions).map {
availableExercises[$0 % availableExercises.count]
}
map(_:) will iterate from 0 up to (but not including) totalSessions, and for each index, the corresponding element in availableExercises will be used in the result, with the remainder operator allowing you to 'wrap around' once you reach the end of availableExercises.
This also has the advantage of preallocating the resultant array (which map(_:) will do for you), preventing it from being needlessly re-allocated upon appending.
Personally, Nirav's solution is probably the best, but I can't help offering this solution, particularly because it demonstrates (pseudo-)infinite lazy sequences in Swift:
Array(
repeatElement(availableExercises, count: .max)
.joined()
.prefix(totalSessions))
If you just want to iterate over this, you of course don't need the Array(), you can leave the whole thing lazy. Wrapping it up in Array() just forces it to evaluate immediately ("strictly") and avoids the crazy BidirectionalSlice<FlattenBidirectionalCollection<Repeated<Array<String>>>> type.
Related
I would like to filter a lazy structure and then reduce it using Swift language.
func main() -> () {
let result = (1...)
.lazy
.filter { $0 < 3 }
.reduce(0, {$0 + $1})
return print(
result
)
}
main()
This code compiles; however, the program doesn't execute in a proper way (takes too long). The printed result on the screen should be 3.
Is there a way to accomplish this goal ?
The issue is not that your sequence is lazy, it's that your sequence is infinite. You might be looking for the sequence method. Example:
let s = sequence(first: 0) {
$0 > 3 ? nil : $0 + 1
}
let result = s.reduce(0) { $0 + $1 }
print(result) // 10
s is lazy and is potentially infinite but not actually infinite, because the method that generates the next item in the series does an early exit by returning nil when the sequence goes past 3. This is similar to your filter except that it is not a filter, it's a stopper. You can use any condition you like here to generate the stopper.
To get the program to terminate, you would need to add an upper limit on your original sequence (1...).
As it's written, you have an infinite sequence of numbers, starting at 1. The following operators — the filter, in particular — have no way of "knowing" that they can discard the rest of the sequence once they pass 3. They have to process the entire infinite sequence, filtering out all but the first two elements, before your reduce can produce a final result and you can print it out. (In practice, you'll eventually overflow Int, so the program would terminate then, but that's not really a good thing to rely on.)
If you don't want to change the original (1...), you can approximate the same behavior by swapping out your filter with a prefix. A filter has to look at every element; a prefix can "know" that it stops after a certain number of elements. For example, this runs very quickly and prints out 3:
let result = (1...)
.lazy
.prefix(2)
.reduce(0) {$0 + $1}
I was playing with swift's Data in the following a small code:
var d = Data(count: 10)
d[5] = 3
let d2 = d[5..<8]
print("\(d2[0])")
To my surprise, this code throws exception on print() while the following code does not:
var d = Data(count: 10)
d[5] = 3
let d2 = d.subdata(in: 5..<8)
print("\(d2[0])")
I somehow understand why this happens, but I don't get why this is designed like this. When I use subdata() I get a whole copy of range, so indexing is valid from 0. But when I use range subscribe [], I get access to the requested range while indexing is the same as before. So in my first example d2[5] is 3.
But I wonder why it is designed like this? I don't want to make a copy of my data by using subdata() method. I just wanted to access a portion of my data with better indexing.
This is especially creates unexpected behaviors if you pass it to a function. For example, following code creates unexpected results and exceptions and you may not find out easily why:
func testit(idata: Data) {
if idata.count > 0 {
print("\(idata.count)")
print("\(idata[0])")
}
}
//...
var d = Data(count: 10)
d[5] = 3
let d2 = d[5..<8]
testit(idata: d2)
This code is really strange. Because if you debug your code, you see that print("\(idata.count)") prints 3 as size of idata which is correct, but accessing it with idata[0] creates exception.
Is there any reason for this design? I was expecting that I could access resulting Data from subscribe starting index 0 while it is not true. Can I do this without using subdata() which creates copy of data or using additional arguments to pass base of data slice?
d[5..<8] returns Data.Slice – which happens to be Data. Generally, slices share the indices with their base collection, as documented in Slice.
One possible reason for this design decision is that it guarantees that subscripting a slice is a O(1) operation (adding an offset for accessing the base collection is not necessarily O(1), e.g. not for strings.)
It is also convenient, as in this example to locate the text after the second occurrence of a character in a string:
let string = "abcdefgabcdefg"
// Find first occurrence of "d":
if let r1 = string.range(of: "d") {
// Find second occurrence of "d":
if let r2 = string[r1.upperBound...].range(of: "d") {
print(string[r2.upperBound...]) // efg
}
}
As a consequence, you must never assume that the indices of a collection are zero-based (unless documented, as for Array.startIndex). Use startIndex to get the first index, or first to get the first element.
I am trying to store all numbers that the random number generator generate. After that the number generator needs to check if the number already was generated and if so it will keep generate a new number until all number for example 1 to 30 are generated. I have so far only the random number generator:
if let Aantalvragen = snapshot?.data()!["Aantal vragen"] as? String {
self.AantalVragenDef = Aantalvragen
}
let RandomVraag = Int(arc4random_uniform(UInt32(self.AantalVragenDef)!) + 1)
AantalVragenDef is an number that indicates how many questions there are. So the generator knows how far it can generate. Please help.
The easiest is probably to create an array or list and fill it with the numbers 1 to n that you want, shuffle it and then use the numbers in the order they appear. That way you are guaranteed that each number show up exactly once.
See how to shuffle an array in Swift
I believe what you are trying to get is a random generator that generates numbers from 1 to the number of questions, but if the number already exists, you don't want to keep it. I suggest using if-else statements and arrays.
The code might look something like this:
if let Aantalvragen = snapshot?.data()!["Aantal vragen"] as? String {
self.AantalVragenDef = Aantalvragen
}
var array = [Int]()
while array.count != self.AantalVragenDef {
let RandomVraag = Int(arc4random_uniform(UInt32(self.AantalVragenDef)!) + 1)
if array.contains(RandomVraag) == false {
array.append(RandomVraag)
}
}
This loop will continue until there are (number of questions) integers in the array. Let me know if this is what you are looking for.
Good Luck, Arnav
I'm new to Swift, and just start to learn this language by following The Swift Programming Language. In this book, there is an exercise question that ask me to write a function to calculate the average of an array. Here is my code:
func avgArray(elements: Int...)->Double{
var avg:Double = 0
var sum = 0
var count = 0
for element in elements {
sum += element
count += 1
}
avg = Double(sum) / Double(count)
return avg
}
let numberlist = [2,3,6,7,2,7,0,9,12]
let average = avgArray(numberlist)
I don't know why I can't pass the array into my function. Also, is there a way besides using a count variable to keep track of the number of elements in the array?
I don't know why I can't pass the array into my function.
Your elements is not an array, it is a variadic parameter. Change it to
func avgArray(elements: [Int])->Double{
and you should be good to go.
is there a way besides using a count variable to keep track of the
number of elements in the array?
Absolutely. count property of the array itself. You can use it in your code like this:
avg = Double(sum) / Double(elements.count)
Which loop should I use when have to be extremely aware of the time it takes to iterate over a large array.
Short answer
Don’t micro-optimize like this – any difference there is could be far outweighed by the speed of the operation you are performing inside the loop. If you truly think this loop is a performance bottleneck, perhaps you would be better served by using something like the accelerate framework – but only if profiling shows you that effort is truly worth it.
And don’t fight the language. Use for…in unless what you want to achieve cannot be expressed with for…in. These cases are rare. The benefit of for…in is that it’s incredibly hard to get it wrong. That is much more important. Prioritize correctness over speed. Clarity is important. You might even want to skip a for loop entirely and use map or reduce.
Longer Answer
For arrays, if you try them without the fastest compiler optimization, they perform identically, because they essentially do the same thing.
Presumably your for ;; loop looks something like this:
var sum = 0
for var i = 0; i < a.count; ++i {
sum += a[i]
}
and your for…in loop something like this:
for x in a {
sum += x
}
Let’s rewrite the for…in to show what is really going on under the covers:
var g = a.generate()
while let x = g.next() {
sum += x
}
And then let’s rewrite that for what a.generate() returns, and something like what the let is doing:
var g = IndexingGenerator<[Int]>(a)
var wrapped_x = g.next()
while wrapped_x != nil {
let x = wrapped_x!
sum += x
wrapped_x = g.next()
}
Here is what the implementation for IndexingGenerator<[Int]> might look like:
struct IndexingGeneratorArrayOfInt {
private let _seq: [Int]
var _idx: Int = 0
init(_ seq: [Int]) {
_seq = seq
}
mutating func generate() -> Int? {
if _idx != _seq.endIndex {
return _seq[_idx++]
}
else {
return nil
}
}
}
Wow, that’s a lot of code, surely it performs way slower than the regular for ;; loop!
Nope. Because while that might be what it is logically doing, the compiler has a lot of latitude to optimize. For example, note that IndexingGeneratorArrayOfInt is a struct not a class. This means it has no overhead over declaring the two member variables directly. It also means the compiler might be able to inline the code in generate – there is no indirection going on here, no overloaded methods and vtables or objc_MsgSend. Just some simple pointer arithmetic and deferencing. If you strip away all the syntax for the structs and method calls, you’ll find that what the for…in code ends up being is almost exactly the same as what the for ;; loop is doing.
for…in helps avoid performance errors
If, on the other hand, for the code given at the beginning, you switch compiler optimization to the faster setting, for…in appears to blow for ;; away. In some non-scientific tests I ran using XCTestCase.measureBlock, summing a large array of random numbers, it was an order of magnitude faster.
Why? Because of the use of count:
for var i = 0; i < a.count; ++i {
// ^-- calling a.count every time...
sum += a[i]
}
Maybe the optimizer could have fixed this for you, but in this case it hasn’t. If you pull the invariant out, it goes back to being the same as for…in in terms of speed:
let count = a.count
for var i = 0; i < count; ++i {
sum += a[i]
}
“Oh, I would definitely do that every time, so it doesn’t matter”. To which I say, really? Are you sure? Bet you forget sometimes.
But you want the even better news? Doing the same summation with reduce was (in my, again not very scientific, tests) even faster than the for loops:
let sum = a.reduce(0,+)
But it is also so much more expressive and readable (IMO), and allows you to use let to declare your result. Given that this should be your primary goal anyway, the speed is an added bonus. But hopefully the performance will give you an incentive to do it regardless.
This is just for arrays, but what about other collections? Of course this depends on the implementation but there’s a good reason to believe it would be faster for other collections like dictionaries, custom user-defined collections.
My reason for this would be that the author of the collection can implement an optimized version of generate, because they know exactly how the collection is being used. Suppose subscript lookup involves some calculation (such as pointer arithmetic in the case of an array - you have to add multiple the index by the value size then add that to the base pointer). In the case of generate, you know what is being done is to sequentially walk the collection, and therefore you could optimize for this (for example, in the case of an array, hold a pointer to the next element which you increment each time next is called). Same goes for specialized member versions of reduce or map.
This might even be why reduce is performing so well on arrays – who knows (you could stick a breakpoint on the function passed in if you wanted to try and find out). But it’s just another justification for using the language construct you should probably be using regardless.
Famously stated: "We should forget about small efficiencies, say about 97% of the time: premature optimization is the root of all evil" Donald Knuth. It seems unlikely that you are in the %3.
Focus on the bigger problem at hand. After it is working, if it needs a performance boost, then worry about for loops. But I guarantee you, in the end, bigger structural inefficiencies or poor algorithm choice will be the performance problem, not a for loop.
Worrying about for loops is oh so 1960s.
FWIW, a rudimentary playground test shows map() is about 10 times faster than for enumeration:
class SomeClass1 {
let value: UInt32 = arc4random_uniform(100)
}
class SomeClass2 {
let value: UInt32
init(value: UInt32) {
self.value = value
}
}
var someClass1s = [SomeClass1]()
for _ in 0..<1000 {
someClass1s.append(SomeClass1())
}
var someClass2s = [SomeClass2]()
let startTimeInterval1 = CFAbsoluteTimeGetCurrent()
someClass1s.map { someClass2s.append(SomeClass2(value: $0.value)) }
println("Time1: \(CFAbsoluteTimeGetCurrent() - startTimeInterval1)") // "Time1: 0.489435970783234"
var someMoreClass2s = [SomeClass2]()
let startTimeInterval2 = CFAbsoluteTimeGetCurrent()
for item in someClass1s { someMoreClass2s.append(SomeClass2(value: item.value)) }
println("Time2: \(CFAbsoluteTimeGetCurrent() - startTimeInterval2)") // "Time2 : 4.81457495689392"
The for (with a counter) is just incrementing a counter. Very fast. The for-in uses an iterator (call object to pass the next element). This is much slower. But finally you want to access the element in both cases wich will then make no difference in the end.