I am trying to understand why my code doesn't work! I am trying to solve the classic balance parentheses problem and Im getting a no such element on my third if statement which doesn't make sense to me because I thought my second if statement would avoid that case but I dont think my second if statement is returning?
def balance(chars: List[Char]): Boolean = {
def check(left: Int,right: List[Char]): Boolean = {
if (left < 0) false
if (right.isEmpty) left == 0
if (right.head == ')') check(left + 1, right.tail)
else check(left - 1, right.tail)
}
check(0,chars.filter(x => (x == ')') || (x == '(')))
}
Following up on my comment. I don't believe that you are actually getting a Null Pointer exception. Scala doesn't encourage the use of nulls and I don't know of any case where the standard library will return a null. Nulls are encapsulated by Option.None in Scala (or see upcoming explicit nulls in Scala 3) and even when you are integrating with a Java library, it is recommended that you wrap the null behavior in an option.
That being said, under the assumption that you are getting a No Such Element Exception in reality, let's look at you code.
Understanding the return behavior in Scala
A Scala function will take the last value in it's body as it's return value. In your case it is this block
if (right.head == ')') check(left + 1, right.tail)
else check(left - 1, right.tail)
Since the previous if blocks are not conditionally linked together all 3 of them will be evaluated. Even if one of the first two evaluates the true, Scala will NOT return and continue to evaluate because it sees more code in the function body it has not computed yet.
So in this case even if the second condition is true, the third one still gets evaluated.
Use the full ternary syntax and add else
if (left < 0) false else
if (right.isEmpty) left == 0 else
if (right.head == ')') check(left + 1, right.tail)
else check(left - 1, right.tail)
More on ternary syntax here
Let us desugar check definition a little bit:
def check(...) =
{
if (left < 0) false else (); // expression 1
if (right.isEmpty) left == 0 else (); // expression 2
return if (right.head == ')') check(...) else check(...); // expression 3 (last expression)
}
Note how the semicolons ; make it clear we have three separate expressions in the expression block, and only the last one is passed to return. Now the two key concepts to understand are
conditional expressions if (𝑒1) 𝑒2 else 𝑒3 are first-class values (and not control statements)
the "returned" value of the whole block expression is only the value of the last expression in the block
Hence to fix the issue, as suggested by others, we need to connect the three separate expressions into a single expression of the form if...else if ... else if ... else.
I think the answer is probably 'no' as from what I can tell maths libraries don't seem to handle null, but what I'd like to have is to be handle null in these scenarios:
x=1
(y not defined)
z = sum(x, y)
with eval() ideally giving:
z=1
However, this throws an exception, as y is not defined.
In effect I'm defaulting 'y' to zero in that example, and that won't work in all scenarios.
So, what I suppose I'm asking is, is there an in-built way to define a default for a variable if it's not assigned a value?
If not, I'm assuming that this would be possible by writing a custom function. If someone could confirm this, I'd really appreciate it.
Thanks :-).
Ok - I was looking through the release notes for v4 and saw it talking about the constants 'null, undefined' (and others). So, in order to solve this I have to define a variable as undefined (probably should have known this!).
(Note: I suspect these constants are available in previous version too.)
Then combined with a 'default' custom function I can get what I wanted:
x=1
y = null
z = sum(x, def(y, 0))
z=1
where 'def' is defined and imported as below (making use of 'lodash'):
var customFunctions = {
def: function (value, defaultValue) {
return !_.isNil(value) ? value : defaultValue;
}
};
math.import(customFunctions);
BOSH!
I am currently programming in BCPL for an OS course and wanted to write a simple is_digit() function for validation in a program of mine.
A code snippet of my current code follows:
let is_digit(n) be {
if ((n >= '0') /\ (n <= '9')) then
resultis true;
}
I am aware that BCPL has no notion of types, but how would I be able to accomplish this sort of thing in the language?
Passing in a number yields a false result instead of the expected true.
is_digit() is a function returning a value, rather than a routine, so should use = VALOF rather than BE. Otherwise, the code is OK.
let is_digit(n) = valof {
.....
resultis true
}
Functions that return values should be using valof rather than be, the latter (a routine rather than a function) can be called as a function but the return value you get back from it will be undefined(a).
In addition, you should ensure you return a valid value for every code path. At the moment, a non-digit will not execute a RESULTIS statement, and I'm not entirely certain what happens in that case (so best to be safe).
That means something like this is what you're after, keeping in mind there can be implementation variations, such as & and /\ for and, or {...} and $(...$) for the block delimiters - I've used the ones documented in Martin's latest manual:
LET is_digit(n) = VALOF {
RESULTIS (n >= '0') & (n <= '9')
}
(a) Since Martin Richards is still doing stuff with BCPL, this manual may help in any future questions (or see his home page for a large selection of goodies).
I am new to SML and don't know how to use the "or" operator in an if statement. I would be really grateful if someone explains it to me, since I have checked multiple sources and nothing seems to work.
Thank you !
In SML, logical or is called orelse and logical and is called andalso.
As an example
if x = 2 orelse x = 3 orelse x = 5
then print "x is a prime"
else print "x is not a prime (also, I don't believe in primes > 5; please respect my beliefs)"
Given an arbitrary list of booleans, what is the most elegant way of determining that exactly one of them is true?
The most obvious hack is type conversion: converting them to 0 for false and 1 for true and then summing them, and returning sum == 1.
I'd like to know if there is a way to do this without converting them to ints, actually using boolean logic.
(This seems like it should be trivial, idk, long week)
Edit: In case it wasn't obvious, this is more of a code-golf / theoretical question. I'm not fussed about using type conversion / int addition in PROD code, I'm just interested if there is way of doing it without that.
Edit2: Sorry folks it's a long week and I'm not explaining myself well. Let me try this:
In boolean logic, ANDing a collection of booleans is true if all of the booleans are true, ORing the collection is true if least one of them is true. Is there a logical construct that will be true if exactly one boolean is true? XOR is this for a collection of two booleans for example, but any more than that and it falls over.
You can actually accomplish this using only boolean logic, although there's perhaps no practical value of that in your example. The boolean version is much more involved than simply counting the number of true values.
Anyway, for the sake of satisfying intellectual curiosity, here goes. First, the idea of using a series of XORs is good, but it only gets us half way. For any two variables x and y,
x ⊻ y
is true whenever exactly one of them is true. However, this does not continue to be true if you add a third variable z,
x ⊻ y ⊻ z
The first part, x ⊻ y, is still true if exactly one of x and y is true. If either x or y is true, then z needs to be false for the whole expression to be true, which is what we want. But consider what happens if both x and y are true. Then x ⊻ y is false, yet the whole expression can become true if z is true as well. So either one variable or all three must be true. In general, if you have a statement that is a chain of XORs, it will be true if an uneven number of variables are true.
Since one is an uneven number, this might prove useful. Of course, checking for an uneven number of truths is not enough. We additionally need to ensure that no more than one variable is true. This can be done in a pairwise fashion by taking all pairs of two variables and checking that they are not both true. Taken together these two conditions ensure that exactly one if the variables are true.
Below is a small Python script to illustrate the approach.
from itertools import product
print("x|y|z|only_one_is_true")
print("======================")
for x, y, z in product([True, False], repeat=3):
uneven_number_is_true = x ^ y ^ z
max_one_is_true = (not (x and y)) and (not (x and z)) and (not (y and z))
only_one_is_true = uneven_number_is_true and max_one_is_true
print(int(x), int(y), int(z), only_one_is_true)
And here's the output.
x|y|z|only_one_is_true
======================
1 1 1 False
1 1 0 False
1 0 1 False
1 0 0 True
0 1 1 False
0 1 0 True
0 0 1 True
0 0 0 False
Sure, you could do something like this (pseudocode, since you didn't mention language):
found = false;
alreadyFound = false;
for (boolean in booleans):
if (boolean):
found = true;
if (alreadyFound):
found = false;
break;
else:
alreadyFound = true;
return found;
After your clarification, here it is with no integers.
bool IsExactlyOneBooleanTrue( bool *boolAry, int size )
{
bool areAnyTrue = false;
bool areTwoTrue = false;
for(int i = 0; (!areTwoTrue) && (i < size); i++) {
areTwoTrue = (areAnyTrue && boolAry[i]);
areAnyTrue |= boolAry[i];
}
return ((areAnyTrue) && (!areTwoTrue));
}
No-one mentioned that this "operation" we're looking for is shortcut-able similarly to boolean AND and OR in most languages. Here's an implementation in Java:
public static boolean exactlyOneOf(boolean... inputs) {
boolean foundAtLeastOne = false;
for (boolean bool : inputs) {
if (bool) {
if (foundAtLeastOne) {
// found a second one that's also true, shortcut like && and ||
return false;
}
foundAtLeastOne = true;
}
}
// we're happy if we found one, but if none found that's less than one
return foundAtLeastOne;
}
With plain boolean logic, it may not be possible to achieve what you want. Because what you are asking for is a truth evaluation not just based on the truth values but also on additional information(count in this case). But boolean evaluation is binary logic, it cannot depend on anything else but on the operands themselves. And there is no way to reverse engineer to find the operands given a truth value because there can be four possible combinations of operands but only two results. Given a false, can you tell if it is because of F ^ F or T ^ T in your case, so that the next evaluation can be determined based on that?.
booleanList.Where(y => y).Count() == 1;
Due to the large number of reads by now, here comes a quick clean up and additional information.
Option 1:
Ask if only the first variable is true, or only the second one, ..., or only the n-th variable.
x1 & !x2 & ... & !xn |
!x1 & x2 & ... & !xn |
...
!x1 & !x2 & ... & xn
This approach scales in O(n^2), the evaluation stops after the first positive match is found. Hence, preferred if it is likely that there is a positive match.
Option 2:
Ask if there is at least one variable true in total. Additionally check every pair to contain at most one true variable (Anders Johannsen's answer)
(x1 | x2 | ... | xn) &
(!x1 | !x2) &
...
(!x1 | !xn) &
(!x2 | !x3) &
...
(!x2 | !xn) &
...
This option also scales in O(n^2) due to the number of possible pairs. Lazy evaluation stops the formula after the first counter example. Hence, it is preferred if its likely there is a negative match.
(Option 3):
This option involves a subtraction and is thus no valid answer for the restricted setting. Nevertheless, it argues how looping the values might not be the most beneficial solution in an unrestricted stetting.
Treat x1 ... xn as a binary number x. Subtract one, then AND the results. The output is zero <=> x1 ... xn contains at most one true value. (the old "check power of two" algorithm)
x 00010000
x-1 00001111
AND 00000000
If the bits are already stored in such a bitboard, this might be beneficial over looping. Though, keep in mind this kills the readability and is limited by the available board length.
A last note to raise awareness: by now there exists a stack exchange called computer science which is exactly intended for this type of algorithmic questions
It can be done quite nicely with recursion, e.g. in Haskell
-- there isn't exactly one true element in the empty list
oneTrue [] = False
-- if the list starts with False, discard it
oneTrue (False : xs) = oneTrue xs
-- if the list starts with True, all other elements must be False
oneTrue (True : xs) = not (or xs)
// Javascript
Use .filter() on array and check the length of the new array.
// Example using array
isExactly1BooleanTrue(boolean:boolean[]) {
return booleans.filter(value => value === true).length === 1;
}
// Example using ...booleans
isExactly1BooleanTrue(...booleans) {
return booleans.filter(value => value === true).length === 1;
}
One way to do it is to perform pairwise AND and then check if any of the pairwise comparisons returned true with chained OR. In python I would implement it using
from itertools import combinations
def one_true(bools):
pairwise_comp = [comb[0] and comb[1] for comb in combinations(bools, 2)]
return not any(pairwise_comp)
This approach easily generalizes to lists of arbitrary length, although for very long lists, the number of possible pairs grows very quickly.
Python:
boolean_list.count(True) == 1
OK, another try. Call the different booleans b[i], and call a slice of them (a range of the array) b[i .. j]. Define functions none(b[i .. j]) and just_one(b[i .. j]) (can substitute the recursive definitions to get explicit formulas if required). We have, using C notation for logical operations (&& is and, || is or, ^ for xor (not really in C), ! is not):
none(b[i .. i + 1]) ~~> !b[i] && !b[i + 1]
just_one(b[i .. i + 1]) ~~> b[i] ^ b[i + 1]
And then recursively:
none(b[i .. j + 1]) ~~> none(b[i .. j]) && !b[j + 1]
just_one(b[i .. j + 1] ~~> (just_one(b[i .. j]) && !b[j + 1]) ^ (none(b[i .. j]) && b[j + 1])
And you are interested in just_one(b[1 .. n]).
The expressions will turn out horrible.
Have fun!
That python script does the job nicely. Here's the one-liner it uses:
((x ∨ (y ∨ z)) ∧ (¬(x ∧ y) ∧ (¬(z ∧ x) ∧ ¬(y ∧ z))))
Retracted for Privacy and Anders Johannsen provided already correct and simple answers. But both solutions do not scale very well (O(n^2)). If performance is important you can stick to the following solution, which performs in O(n):
def exact_one_of(array_of_bool):
exact_one = more_than_one = False
for array_elem in array_of_bool:
more_than_one = (exact_one and array_elem) or more_than_one
exact_one = (exact_one ^ array_elem) and (not more_than_one)
return exact_one
(I used python and a for loop for simplicity. But of course this loop could be unrolled to a sequence of NOT, AND, OR and XOR operations)
It works by tracking two states per boolean variable/list entry:
is there exactly one "True" from the beginning of the list until this entry?
are there more than one "True" from the beginning of the list until this entry?
The states of a list entry can be simply derived from the previous states and corresponding list entry/boolean variable.
Python:
let see using example...
steps:
below function exactly_one_topping takes three parameter
stores their values in the list as True, False
Check whether there exists only one true value by checking the count to be exact 1.
def exactly_one_topping(ketchup, mustard, onion):
args = [ketchup,mustard,onion]
if args.count(True) == 1: # check if Exactly one value is True
return True
else:
return False
How do you want to count how many are true without, you know, counting? Sure, you could do something messy like (C syntax, my Python is horrible):
for(i = 0; i < last && !booleans[i]; i++)
;
if(i == last)
return 0; /* No true one found */
/* We have a true one, check there isn't another */
for(i++; i < last && !booleans[i]; i++)
;
if(i == last)
return 1; /* No more true ones */
else
return 0; /* Found another true */
I'm sure you'll agree that the win (if any) is slight, and the readability is bad.
It is not possible without looping. Check BitSet cardinality() in java implementation.
http://fuseyism.com/classpath/doc/java/util/BitSet-source.html
We can do it this way:-
if (A=true or B=true)and(not(A=true and B=true)) then
<enter statements>
end if