I am trying to replicate the Array.reduce() method in my custom class and realised that it uses Result as type. Just could not understand that is the Result type been created as Enum or is it something else.
import Foundation
public class MyArray {
private var arr: [Int] = []
internal static var instance: MyArray?
private init() {}
public static func getInstance() -> MyArray {
if self.instance == nil {
self.instance = MyArray()
}
return self.instance!
}
public func insert(value val: Int) {
arr.append(val)
}
/*************** Custom reduce like function ***************/
public func perform(_ initialResult: Int, _ nextPartialResult: (Int, Int) -> Int) -> Int {
var result = initialResult
for element in arr {
result = nextPartialResult(result, element) // calling the closure
}
return result
}
}
Now accessing the MyArray class from outside
var arr1 = MyArray.getInstance()
arr1.insert(value: 1)
arr1.insert(value: 2)
arr1.insert(value: 4)
arr1.insert(value: 3)
arr1.insert(value: 2)
arr1.insert(value: 5)
arr1.insert(value: 2)
arr1.insert(value: 2)
// :Complex calculations left for user to implement
var result = arr1.perform(0) {
return $0 + ( $1 * $1)
}
print("Complex calculation in elements of MEMBER array of arr1: \(result)")
// :Just another way of writing the above closure
result = arr1.perform(0) { (result, num1) -> Int in
return result + ( num1 * num1)
}
print("Complex calculation in elements of MEMBER array of hello arr1: \(result)")
// :Simple calculations
print("Factorial of elements in MEMBER array of arr1: \(arr1.perform(1, *))")
print("Sum of elements in MEMBER array of arr1: \(arr1.perform(0, +))")
The problem is that I have to define my perform() function with one particular type at a time ( Int or String or Double etc ). I am trying to create my function to work with any type just like the reduce() function.
I am not able to understand how to define the Result type in my class and then use it in my function !!
I understand that Result type is not a part of standard library in swift.
The standard reduce function makes use of generics. See the Generics chapter in the Swift book.
func reduce<Result>(_ initialResult: Result, _ nextPartialResult: (Result, Element) throws -> Result) rethrows -> Result
It has two generic types: Result and Element. Element comes from the type of the values in the collection and Result comes from the result type of the reduced value.
So your first step is to use the identical signature in your own perform function.
But in doing so you will discover that you now need to make your MyArray class also based on a generic instead of being hardcoded to work only with Int.
And in attempting to do that you will discover that you can't define MyArray to be generic and support the singleton pattern at the same time. So you need to remove instance and getIntance().
The end result becomes:
public class MyArray<Element> {
private var arr: [Element] = []
public init() {}
public func insert(value val: Element) {
arr.append(val)
}
/*************** Custom reduce like function ***************/
public func perform<Result>(_ initialResult: Result, _ nextPartialResult: (Result, Element) -> Result) -> Result {
var result = initialResult
for element in arr {
result = nextPartialResult(result, element)
}
return result
}
}
With this in place, your first example becomes:
var arr1 = MyArray<Int>()
arr1.insert(value: 1)
arr1.insert(value: 2)
arr1.insert(value: 4)
arr1.insert(value: 3)
arr1.insert(value: 2)
arr1.insert(value: 5)
arr1.insert(value: 2)
arr1.insert(value: 2)
// :Complex calculations left for user to implement
var result = arr1.perform(0) {
return $0 + ( $1 * $1)
}
print(result)
And this outputs the desired result of 67.
In the end, it works but if you'll notice, there's no point to this MyArray class (other than a learning exercise). Just use Array.
Is there a more elegant way to filter with an additional parameter (or map, reduce).
When I filter with a single parameter, we get a beautiful easy to ready syntax
let numbers = Array(1...10)
func isGreaterThan5(number:Int) -> Bool {
return number > 5
}
numbers.filter(isGreaterThan5)
However, if I need to pass an additional parameter to my function it turns out ugly
func isGreaterThanX(number:Int,x:Int) -> Bool {
return number > x
}
numbers.filter { (number) -> Bool in
isGreaterThanX(number: number, x: 8)
}
I would like to use something like
numbers.filter(isGreaterThanX(number: $0, x: 3))
but this gives a compile error annonymous closure argument not contained in a closure
You could change your function to return a closure which serves
as predicate for the filter method:
func isGreaterThan(_ lowerBound: Int) -> (Int) -> Bool {
return { $0 > lowerBound }
}
let filtered = numbers.filter(isGreaterThan(5))
isGreaterThan is a function taking an Int argument and returning
a closure of type (Int) -> Bool. The returned closure "captures"
the value of the given lower bound.
If you make the function generic then it can be used with
other comparable types as well:
func isGreaterThan<T: Comparable>(_ lowerBound: T) -> (T) -> Bool {
return { $0 > lowerBound }
}
print(["D", "C", "B", "A"].filter(isGreaterThan("B")))
In this particular case however, a literal closure is also easy to read:
let filtered = numbers.filter( { $0 > 5 })
And just for the sake of completeness: Using the fact that
Instance Methods are Curried Functions in Swift, this would work as well:
extension Comparable {
func greaterThanFilter(value: Self) -> Bool {
return value > self
}
}
let filtered = numbers.filter(5.greaterThanFilter)
but the "reversed logic" might be confusing.
Remark: In earlier Swift versions you could use a curried function
syntax:
func isGreaterThan(lowerBound: Int)(value: Int) -> Bool {
return value > lowerBound
}
but this feature has been removed in Swift 3.
In Swift, how do you convert an Array to a Tuple?
The issue came up because I am trying to call a function that takes a variable number of arguments inside a function that takes a variable number of arguments.
// Function 1
func sumOf(numbers: Int...) -> Int {
var sum = 0
for number in numbers {
sum += number
}
return sum
}
// Example Usage
sumOf(2, 5, 1)
// Function 2
func averageOf(numbers: Int...) -> Int {
return sumOf(numbers) / numbers.count
}
This averageOf implementation seemed reasonable to me, but it does not compile. It gives the following error when you try to call sumOf(numbers):
Could not find an overload for '__converstion' that accepts the supplied arguments
Inside averageOf, numbers has the type Int[]. I believe sumOf is expecting a Tuple rather than an Array.
Thus, in Swift, how do you convert an Array to a Tuple?
This has nothing to do with tuples. Anyway, it isn't possible to convert from an array to a tuple in the general case, as the arrays can have any length, and the arity of a tuple must be known at compile time.
However, you can solve your problem by providing overloads:
// This function does the actual work
func sumOf(_ numbers: [Int]) -> Int {
return numbers.reduce(0, +) // functional style with reduce
}
// This overload allows the variadic notation and
// forwards its args to the function above
func sumOf(_ numbers: Int...) -> Int {
return sumOf(numbers)
}
sumOf(2, 5, 1)
func averageOf(_ numbers: Int...) -> Int {
// This calls the first function directly
return sumOf(numbers) / numbers.count
}
averageOf(2, 5, 1)
Maybe there is a better way (e.g., Scala uses a special type ascription to avoid needing the overload; you could write in Scala sumOf(numbers: _*) from within averageOf without defining two functions), but I haven't found it in the docs.
As of Swift 4.1 (in Xcode 9.2), there is no need to overload with sumOf(_ numbers: Int...), the function that forward variadic parameter(s) will IMPLICITLY change it to a single parameter of array of individual parameter(s). E.g. the following code will work without the overloading:
// This function does the actual work
func sumOf(_ numbers: [Int]) -> Int {
return numbers.reduce(0, +) // functional style with reduce
}
func averageOf(_ numbers: Int...) -> Int {
// This calls the first function directly
return sumOf(numbers) / numbers.count
}
print(averageOf(2, 5, 1))
Don't know whether this is a bug of the compiler or not :)
I realize this is an older post, but this came up rather high in the search results and I found a working solution.
You can write the sumOf function to accept an array of integers as the number parameter and overload the sumOf function to accept a variadic input for the numbers parameter which will be passed to the first version as an array. This way the averageOf function can pass its variadic input as array to sumOf.
This does not seem very ideal because you need to overload each function that works like this, but it will work in the way you wanted.
func sumOf(numbers: [Int]) -> Int {
var sum = 0
for number in numbers {
sum += number
}
return sum
}
// Function 1
func sumOf(numbers: Int...) -> Int {
return sumOf(numbers: numbers)
}
// Example Usage
sumOf(2, 5, 1)
// Function 2
func averageOf(numbers: Int...) -> Int {
return sumOf(numbers: numbers) / numbers.count
}
I don't think he needs to use .reduce. Instead just change the parameter definition in his sumOf function. Instead of:
func sumOf(numbers: Int...) -> Int {
var sum = 0
for number in numbers {
sum += number
}
return sum
}
write:
func sumOf(numbers: [Int]) -> Int {
var sum = 0
for number in numbers {
sum += number
}
return sum
}
I'd like a function runningSum on an array of numbers a (or any ordered collection of addable things) that returns an array of the same length where each element i is the sum of all elements in A up to an including i.
Examples:
runningSum([1,1,1,1,1,1]) -> [1,2,3,4,5,6]
runningSum([2,2,2,2,2,2]) -> [2,4,6,8,10,12]
runningSum([1,0,1,0,1,0]) -> [1,1,2,2,3,3]
runningSum([0,1,0,1,0,1]) -> [0,1,1,2,2,3]
I can do this with a for loop, or whatever. Is there a more functional option? It's a little like a reduce, except that it builds a result array that has all the intermediate values.
Even more general would be to have a function that takes any sequence and provides a sequence that's the running total of the input sequence.
The general combinator you're looking for is often called scan, and can be defined (like all higher-order functions on lists) in terms of reduce:
extension Array {
func scan<T>(initial: T, _ f: (T, Element) -> T) -> [T] {
return self.reduce([initial], combine: { (listSoFar: [T], next: Element) -> [T] in
// because we seeded it with a non-empty
// list, it's easy to prove inductively
// that this unwrapping can't fail
let lastElement = listSoFar.last!
return listSoFar + [f(lastElement, next)]
})
}
}
(But I would suggest that that's not a very good implementation.)
This is a very useful general function, and it's a shame that it's not included in the standard library.
You can then generate your cumulative sum by specializing the starting value and operation:
let cumSum = els.scan(0, +)
And you can omit the zero-length case rather simply:
let cumSumTail = els.scan(0, +).dropFirst()
Swift 4
The general sequence case
Citing the OP:
Even more general would be to have a function that takes any sequence
and provides a sequence that's the running total of the input
sequence.
Consider some arbitrary sequence (conforming to Sequence), say
var seq = 1... // 1, 2, 3, ... (CountablePartialRangeFrom)
To create another sequence which is the (lazy) running sum over seq, you can make use of the global sequence(state:next:) function:
var runningSumSequence =
sequence(state: (sum: 0, it: seq.makeIterator())) { state -> Int? in
if let val = state.it.next() {
defer { state.sum += val }
return val + state.sum
}
else { return nil }
}
// Consume and print accumulated values less than 100
while let accumulatedSum = runningSumSequence.next(),
accumulatedSum < 100 { print(accumulatedSum) }
// 1 3 6 10 15 21 28 36 45 55 66 78 91
// Consume and print next
print(runningSumSequence.next() ?? -1) // 120
// ...
If we'd like (for the joy of it), we could condense the closure to sequence(state:next:) above somewhat:
var runningSumSequence =
sequence(state: (sum: 0, it: seq.makeIterator())) {
(state: inout (sum: Int, it: AnyIterator<Int>)) -> Int? in
state.it.next().map { (state.sum + $0, state.sum += $0).0 }
}
However, type inference tends to break (still some open bugs, perhaps?) for these single-line returns of sequence(state:next:), forcing us to explicitly specify the type of state, hence the gritty ... in in the closure.
Alternatively: custom sequence accumulator
protocol Accumulatable {
static func +(lhs: Self, rhs: Self) -> Self
}
extension Int : Accumulatable {}
struct AccumulateSequence<T: Sequence>: Sequence, IteratorProtocol
where T.Element: Accumulatable {
var iterator: T.Iterator
var accumulatedValue: T.Element?
init(_ sequence: T) {
self.iterator = sequence.makeIterator()
}
mutating func next() -> T.Element? {
if let val = iterator.next() {
if accumulatedValue == nil {
accumulatedValue = val
}
else { defer { accumulatedValue = accumulatedValue! + val } }
return accumulatedValue
}
return nil
}
}
var accumulator = AccumulateSequence(1...)
// Consume and print accumulated values less than 100
while let accumulatedSum = accumulator.next(),
accumulatedSum < 100 { print(accumulatedSum) }
// 1 3 6 10 15 21 28 36 45 55 66 78 91
The specific array case: using reduce(into:_:)
As of Swift 4, we can use reduce(into:_:) to accumulate the running sum into an array.
let runningSum = arr
.reduce(into: []) { $0.append(($0.last ?? 0) + $1) }
// [2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12]
By using reduce(into:_:), the [Int] accumulator will not be copied in subsequent reduce iterations; citing the Language reference:
This method is preferred over reduce(_:_:) for efficiency when the
result is a copy-on-write type, for example an Array or a
Dictionary.
See also the implementation of reduce(into:_:), noting that the accumulator is provided as an inout parameter to the supplied closure.
However, each iteration will still result in an append(_:) call on the accumulator array; amortized O(1) averaged over many invocations, but still an arguably unnecessary overhead here as we know the final size of the accumulator.
Because arrays increase their allocated capacity using an exponential
strategy, appending a single element to an array is an O(1) operation
when averaged over many calls to the append(_:) method. When an array
has additional capacity and is not sharing its storage with another
instance, appending an element is O(1). When an array needs to
reallocate storage before appending or its storage is shared with
another copy, appending is O(n), where n is the length of the array.
Thus, knowing the final size of the accumulator, we could explicitly reserve such a capacity for it using reserveCapacity(_:) (as is done e.g. for the native implementation of map(_:))
let runningSum = arr
.reduce(into: [Int]()) { (sums, element) in
if let sum = sums.last {
sums.append(sum + element)
}
else {
sums.reserveCapacity(arr.count)
sums.append(element)
}
} // [2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12]
For the joy of it, condensed:
let runningSum = arr
.reduce(into: []) {
$0.append(($0.last ?? ($0.reserveCapacity(arr.count), 0).1) + $1)
} // [2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12]
Swift 3: Using enumerated() for subsequent calls to reduce
Another Swift 3 alternative (with an overhead ...) is using enumerated().map in combination with reduce within each element mapping:
func runningSum(_ arr: [Int]) -> [Int] {
return arr.enumerated().map { arr.prefix($0).reduce($1, +) }
} /* thanks #Hamish for improvement! */
let arr = [2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2]
print(runningSum(arr)) // [2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12]
The upside is you wont have to use an array as the collector in a single reduce (instead repeatedly calling reduce).
Just for fun: The running sum as a one-liner:
let arr = [1, 2, 3, 4]
let rs = arr.map({ () -> (Int) -> Int in var s = 0; return { (s += $0, s).1 } }())
print(rs) // [1, 3, 6, 10]
It does the same as the (updated) code in JAL's answer, in particular,
no intermediate arrays are generated.
The sum variable is captured in an immediately-evaluated closure returning the transformation.
If you just want it to work for Int, you can use this:
func runningSum(array: [Int]) -> [Int] {
return array.reduce([], combine: { (sums, element) in
return sums + [element + (sums.last ?? 0)]
})
}
If you want it to be generic over the element type, you have to do a lot of extra work declaring the various number types to conform to a custom protocol that provides a zero element, and (if you want it generic over both floating point and integer types) an addition operation, because Swift doesn't do that already. (A future version of Swift may fix this problem.)
Assuming an array of Ints, sounds like you can use map to manipulate the input:
let arr = [0,1,0,1,0,1]
var sum = 0
let val = arr.map { (sum += $0, sum).1 }
print(val) // "[0, 1, 1, 2, 2, 3]\n"
I'll keep working on a solution that doesn't use an external variable.
I thought I'd be cool to extend Sequence with a generic scan function as is suggested in the great first answer.
Given this extension, you can get the running sum of an array like this: [1,2,3].scan(0, +)
But you can also get other interesting things…
Running product: array.scan(1, *)
Running max: array.scan(Int.min, max)
Running min: array.scan(Int.max, min)
Because the implementation is a function on Sequence and returns a Sequence, you can chain it together with other sequence functions. It is efficient, having linear running time.
Here's the extension…
extension Sequence {
func scan<Result>(_ initialResult: Result, _ nextPartialResult: #escaping (Result, Self.Element) -> Result) -> ScanSequence<Self, Result> {
return ScanSequence(initialResult: initialResult, underlying: self, combine: nextPartialResult)
}
}
struct ScanSequence<Underlying: Sequence, Result>: Sequence {
let initialResult: Result
let underlying: Underlying
let combine: (Result, Underlying.Element) -> Result
typealias Iterator = ScanIterator<Underlying.Iterator, Result>
func makeIterator() -> Iterator {
return ScanIterator(previousResult: initialResult, underlying: underlying.makeIterator(), combine: combine)
}
var underestimatedCount: Int {
return underlying.underestimatedCount
}
}
struct ScanIterator<Underlying: IteratorProtocol, Result>: IteratorProtocol {
var previousResult: Result
var underlying: Underlying
let combine: (Result, Underlying.Element) -> Result
mutating func next() -> Result? {
guard let nextUnderlying = underlying.next() else {
return nil
}
previousResult = combine(previousResult, nextUnderlying)
return previousResult
}
}
One solution using reduce:
func runningSum(array: [Int]) -> [Int] {
return array.reduce([], combine: { (result: [Int], item: Int) -> [Int] in
if result.isEmpty {
return [item] //first item, just take the value
}
// otherwise take the previous value and append the new item
return result + [result.last! + item]
})
}
I'm very late to this party. The other answers have good explanations. But none of them have provided the initial result, in a generic way. This implementation is useful to me.
public extension Sequence {
/// A sequence of the partial results that `reduce` would employ.
func scan<Result>(
_ initialResult: Result,
_ nextPartialResult: #escaping (Result, Element) -> Result
) -> AnySequence<Result> {
var iterator = makeIterator()
return .init(
sequence(first: initialResult) { partialResult in
iterator.next().map {
nextPartialResult(partialResult, $0)
}
}
)
}
}
extension Sequence where Element: AdditiveArithmetic & ExpressibleByIntegerLiteral {
var runningSum: AnySequence<Element> { scan(0, +).dropFirst() }
}
As an exercise, I'm implementing a map function that takes an array and a function and applies the function to all elements of the array, but I don't know how to declare it such that it works for any type of array.
I can do something like
func intMap(var arr: [Int], fun: (Int) -> Int) -> [Int] {
for i in 0 ..< arr.count {
arr[i] = fun(arr[i])
}
return arr
}
intMap([1,2,3], {x in return x * x})
But this only works for int.
What is the type signature for Swift's built-in map?
Edit:
So I was missing the fact that I can declare param type signatures without declaring their types explicitly.
func myMap<T>(var arr: [T], fun: (T) -> T) -> [T] {
for i in 0 ..< arr.count {
arr[i] = fun(arr[i])
}
return arr
}
myMap([1,2,3], fun: {
x in return x * x
})
Create a new Playground
Just under where it has import UIKit type import Swift
Command click on the word Swift
This will open the Swift library and you can see all the type definitions there.
And you can see:
extension CollectionType {
/// Return an `Array` containing the results of mapping `transform`
/// over `self`.
///
/// - Complexity: O(N).
#warn_unused_result
#rethrows public func map<T>(#noescape transform: (Self.Generator.Element) throws -> T) rethrows -> [T]
Edited to add
Alternatively, you can write a more generalised map
func myMap<T, U>(var arr: [T], fun: T -> U) -> [U] {
var a: [U] = []
for i in 0 ..< arr.count {
a.append(fun(arr[i]))
}
return a
}
Which returns a new array, of a possibly different type, which you can see for yourself by putting this in your playground.
let a = [1, 2, 3]
let b = myMap(a, fun: { x in Double(x) * 2.1 })
a
b