I can do this quite easily, and cleanly, using a for loop. For instance, if I wanted to traverse a Seq from every element back to itself I would do the following:
val seq = Seq(1,2,3,4,5)
for (i <- seq.indices) {
for (j <- seq.indices) {
print(seq(i + j % seq.length))
}
}
But as I'm looking to fold over the collection, I'm wondering if there is a more idiomatic approach. A recursive approach would allow me to avoid any vars. But basically, I'm wondering if something like the following is possible:
seq.rotatedView(i)
Which would create a rotated view, like rotating bits (or circular shift).
Is it like below:
scala> def rotatedView(i:Int)=Seq(1,2,3,4,5).drop(i)++Seq(1,2,3,4,5).take(i)
rotatedView: (i: Int)Seq[Int]
scala> rotatedView(1)
res48: Seq[Int] = List(2, 3, 4, 5, 1)
scala> rotatedView(2)
res49: Seq[Int] = List(3, 4, 5, 1, 2)
This ought to do it in a fairly generic way, and allow for arbitrary rotations:
def rotateLeft[A](seq: Seq[A], i: Int): Seq[A] = {
val size = seq.size
seq.drop(i % size) ++ seq.take(i % size)
}
def rotateRight[A](seq: Seq[A], i: Int): Seq[A] = {
val size = seq.size
seq.drop(size - (i % size)) ++ seq.take(size - (i % size))
}
The idea is simple enough, to rotate left, drop the first i elements from the left, and take them again from the left to concatenate them in the opposite order. If you don't mind calculating the size of the collection, you can do your operations modulo the size, to allow i to be arbitrary.
scala> rotateRight(seq, 1)
res34: Seq[Int] = List(5, 1, 2, 3, 4)
scala> rotateRight(seq, 7)
res35: Seq[Int] = List(4, 5, 1, 2, 3)
scala> rotateRight(seq, 70)
res36: Seq[Int] = List(1, 2, 3, 4, 5)
Similarly, you can use splitAt:
def rotateLeft[A](seq: Seq[A], i: Int): Seq[A] = {
val size = seq.size
val (first, last) = seq.splitAt(i % size)
last ++ first
}
def rotateRight[A](seq: Seq[A], i: Int): Seq[A] = {
val size = seq.size
val (first, last) = seq.splitAt(size - (i % size))
last ++ first
}
To make it even more generic, using the enrich my library pattern:
import scala.collection.TraversableLike
import scala.collection.generic.CanBuildFrom
implicit class TraversableExt[A, Repr <: TraversableLike[A, Repr]](xs: TraversableLike[A, Repr]) {
def rotateLeft(i: Int)(implicit cbf: CanBuildFrom[Repr, A, Repr]): Repr = {
val size = xs.size
val (first, last) = xs.splitAt(i % size)
last ++ first
}
def rotateRight(i: Int)(implicit cbf: CanBuildFrom[Repr, A, Repr]): Repr = {
val size = xs.size
val (first, last) = xs.splitAt(size - (i % size))
last ++ first
}
}
scala> Seq(1, 2, 3, 4, 5).rotateRight(2)
res0: Seq[Int] = List(4, 5, 1, 2, 3)
scala> List(1, 2, 3, 4, 5).rotateLeft(2)
res1: List[Int] = List(3, 4, 5, 1, 2)
scala> Stream(1, 2, 3, 4, 5).rotateRight(1)
res2: scala.collection.immutable.Stream[Int] = Stream(5, ?)
Keep in mind these are not all necessarily the most tuned for performance, and they also can't work with infinite collections (none can).
Following the OP's comment that they want to fold over it, here's a slightly different take on it that avoids calculating the length of the sequence first.
Define an iterator that will iterate over the rotated sequence
class RotatedIterator[A](seq: Seq[A], start: Int) extends Iterator[A] {
var (before, after) = seq.splitAt(start)
def next = after match {
case Seq() =>
val (h :: t) = before; before = t; h
case h :: t => after = t; h
}
def hasNext = after.nonEmpty || before.nonEmpty
}
And use it like this:
val seq = List(1, 2, 3, 4, 5)
val xs = new RotatedIterator(seq, 2)
println(xs.toList) //> List(3, 4, 5, 1, 2)
A simple method is to concatenate the sequence with itself and then take the slice that is required:
(seq ++ seq).slice(start, start + seq.length)
This is just a variant of the drop/take version but perhaps a little clearer.
Given:
val seq = Seq(1,2,3,4,5)
Solution:
seq.zipWithIndex.groupBy(_._2<3).values.flatMap(_.map(_._1))
or
seq.zipWithIndex.groupBy(_._2<3).values.flatten.map(_._1)
Result:
List(4, 5, 1, 2, 3)
If rotation is more than length of collection - we need to use rotation%length, if negative than formula (rotation+1)%length and take absolute value.
It's not efficient
Another tail-recursive approach. When I benchmarked it with JMH it was about 2 times faster than solution based on drop/take:
def rotate[A](list: List[A], by: Int): List[A] = {
#tailrec
def go(list: List[A], n: Int, acc: List[A]): List[A] = {
if(n > 0) {
list match {
case x :: xs => go(xs, n-1, x :: acc)
}
} else {
list ++ acc.reverse
}
}
if (by < 0) {
go(list, -by % list.length, Nil)
} else {
go(list, list.length - by % list.length, Nil)
}
}
//rotate right
rotate(List(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10), 3) // List(8, 9, 10, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7)
//use negative number to rotate left
rotate(List(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10), -3) // List(4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 1, 2, 3)
Here is one liner solution
def rotateRight(A: Array[Int], K: Int): Array[Int] = {
if (null == A || A.size == 0) A else (A drop A.size - (K % A.size)) ++ (A take A.size - (K % A.size))
}
rotateRight(Array(1,2,3,4,5), 3)
Here's a fairly simple and idiomatic Scala collections way to write it:
def rotateSeq[A](seq: Seq[A], isLeft: Boolean = false, count: Int = 1): Seq[A] =
if (isLeft)
seq.drop(count) ++ seq.take(count)
else
seq.takeRight(count) ++ seq.dropRight(count)
We can simply use foldLeft to reverse a list as below.
val input = List(1,2,3,4,5)
val res = input.foldLeft(List[Int]())((s, a) => { List(a) ++: s})
println(res) // List(5, 4, 3, 2, 1)
Another one line solution if you don't need to validate the "offset":
def rotate[T](seq: Seq[T], offset: Int): Seq[T] = Seq(seq, seq).flatten.slice(offset, offset + seq.size)
This is a simple piece of code
object tesing_it extends App
{
val one = ArrayBuffer(1,2,3,4,5,6)
val i = 2 //the number of index you want to move
for(z<-0 to i){
val y = 0
var x = one += one(y)
x = x -= x(y)
println("for seq after process " +z +" " + x)
}
println(one)
}
Result:
for seq after process 0 ArrayBuffer(2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 1)
for seq after process 1 ArrayBuffer(3, 4, 5, 6, 1, 2)
for seq after process 2 ArrayBuffer(4, 5, 6, 1, 2, 3)
ArrayBuffer(4, 5, 6, 1, 2, 3)
I know I can do this:
scala> val a = List(1,2,3)
a: List[Int] = List(1, 2, 3)
scala> val b = List(2,4)
b: List[Int] = List(2, 4)
scala> a.filterNot(b.toSet)
res0: List[Int] = List(1, 3)
But I'd like to select elements of a collection based on their integer key, as in the following:
case class N (p: Int , q: Int)
val x = List(N(1,100), N(2,200), N(3,300))
val y = List(2,4)
val z = .... ?
Z // want Z to be ((N1,100), (N3,300)) after removing the items of type N with 'p'
// matching any item in list y.
I know one way to do it is is something like the following which makes the above broken code work:
val z = x.filterNot(e => y.contains(e.p))
but this seems very inefficient. Is there a better way?
Just do
val z = y.toSet
x.filterNot {z.contains(_.p)}
That's linear.
The problem with contains is that the search will be a linear search and you are looking at O(N^2) solution(which is still OK, if the dataset is not large)
Anyways, a simple solution can be to use Binary search to get O(NlnN) solution. You can easily convert val y to Array from list and then use java's binary search method.
scala> case class N(p: Int, q: Int)
defined class N
scala> val x = List(N(1, 100), N(2, 200), N(3, 300))
x: List[N] = List(N(1,100), N(2,200), N(3,300))
scala> val y = Array(2, 4) // Using Array directly.
y: Array[Int] = Array(2, 4)
scala> val z = x.filterNot(e => java.util.Arrays.binarySearch(y, e.p) >= 0)
z: List[N] = List(N(1,100), N(3,300))
Is there a quick scala idiom to have retrieve multiple elements of a a traversable using indices.
I am looking for something like
val L=1 to 4 toList
L(List(1,2)) //doesn't work
I have been using map so far, but wondering if there was a more "scala" way
List(1,2) map {L(_)}
Thanks in advance
Since a List is a Function you can write just
List(1,2) map L
Although, if you're going to be looking things up by index, you should probably use an IndexedSeq like Vector instead of a List.
You could add an implicit class that adds the functionality:
implicit class RichIndexedSeq[T](seq: IndexedSeq[T]) {
def apply(i0: Int, i1: Int, is: Int*): Seq[T] = (i0+:i1+:is) map seq
}
You can then use the sequence's apply method with one index or multiple indices:
scala> val data = Vector(1,2,3,4,5)
data: scala.collection.immutable.Vector[Int] = Vector(1, 2, 3, 4, 5)
scala> data(0)
res0: Int = 1
scala> data(0,2,4)
res1: Seq[Int] = ArrayBuffer(1, 3, 5)
You can do it with a for comprehension but it's no clearer than the code you have using map.
scala> val indices = List(1,2)
indices: List[Int] = List(1, 2)
scala> for (index <- indices) yield L(index)
res0: List[Int] = List(2, 3)
I think the most readable would be to implement your own function takeIndices(indices: List[Int]) that takes a list of indices and returns the values of a given List at those indices. e.g.
L.takeIndices(List(1,2))
List[Int] = List(2,3)
I am reading scaladocs and just wondering difference between direct assignment and .clone method.
val a=Array(1,2,3,4,5)
case 1:
val b=a
case 2 :
val b=a.clone()
Consider this:
scala> val a=Array(1,2,3,4,5)
a: Array[Int] = Array(1, 2, 3, 4, 5)
scala> val b = a
b: Array[Int] = Array(1, 2, 3, 4, 5)
scala> val c = a.clone()
c: Array[Int] = Array(1, 2, 3, 4, 5)
scala> b(0) = 0
scala> c(1) = 1
scala> a
res2: Array[Int] = Array(0, 2, 3, 4, 5)
scala> b
res3: Array[Int] = Array(0, 2, 3, 4, 5)
scala> c
res4: Array[Int] = Array(1, 1, 3, 4, 5)
As you can see, when you do val b = a, then a and b point to the same object. When the object is changed, the change will be seen by both.
On the other hand, when you clone the array, you produce a new array with the same content. Changing this new array does not change the old one.
I believe case 1 just sets the reference of a to b while case 2 creates an entirely new array that is a copy of a and putting the value in b.
In other words if you in case a edit the a array the b array will also be edited this is not the case in case 2
Here is an answer in code:
scala> val a = Array(1,2,3,4,5)
scala> a.hashCode()
res12: Int = 1382155266
scala> val b = a
scala> b.hashCode()
res13: Int = 1382155266
scala> val c = a.clone()
scala> c.hashCode()
res14: Int = 2062756135
scala> a eq b
res15: Boolean = true
scala> a eq c
res16: Boolean = false
scala> b eq c
res17: Boolean = false
In case 1, both reference leads to the same object while in the second case, a new object is created and a and b do not reference the same object.
If you have a mutable data structure like an Array, is it possible to use map operations or something similar to change its values?
Say I have val a = Array(5, 1, 3), what the best way of say, subtracting 1 from each value? The best I've come up with is
for(i <- 0 until a.size) { a(i) = a(i) - 1 }
I suppose way would be make the array a var rather than a val so I can say
a = a map (_-1)
edit: fairly easy to roll my own if there's nothing built-in, although I don't know how to generalise to other mutable collections
scala> implicit def ArrayToMutator[T](a: Array[T]) = new {
| def mutate(f: T => T) = a.indices.foreach {i => a(i) = f(a(i))}
| }
ArrayToMutator: [T](a: Array[T])java.lang.Object{def mutate(f: (T) => T): Unit}
scala> val a = Array(5, 1, 3)
a: Array[Int] = Array(5, 1, 3)
scala> a mutate (_-1)
scala> a
res16: Array[Int] = Array(4, 0, 2)
If you don't care about indices, you want the transform method.
scala> val a = Array(1,2,3)
a: Array[Int] = Array(1, 2, 3)
scala> a.transform(_+1)
res1: scala.collection.mutable.WrappedArray[Int] = WrappedArray(2, 3, 4)
scala> a
res2: Array[Int] = Array(2, 3, 4)
(It returns a copy of the wrapped array so that chaining transforms is more efficient, but the original array is modified as you can see.)
How about using foreach since you don't really want to return a modified collection, you want to perform a task for each element. For example:
a.indices.foreach{i => a(i) = a(i) - 1}
or
a.zipWithIndex.foreach{case (x,i) => a(i) = x - 1}