My purpose is to punch multiple strings into a single (shortest) string that will contain all the character of each string in a forward direction. The question is not specific to any language, but more into the algorithm part. (probably will implement it in a node server, so tagging nodejs/javascript).
So, to explain the problem:
Let's consider I have few strings
["jack", "apple", "maven", "hold", "solid", "mark", "moon", "poor", "spark", "live"]
The Resultant string should be something like:
"sjmachppoalidveonrk"
jack: sjmachppoalidveonrk
apple: sjmachppoalidveonrk
solid: sjmachppoalidveonrk
====================================>>>> all in the forward direction
These all are manual evaluation and the output may not 100% perfect in the example.
So, the point is all the letters of each string have to exist in the output in
FORWARD DIRECTION (here the actual problem belongs), and possibly the server will send the final strings and numbers like 27594 will be generated and passed to extract the token, in the required end. If I have to punch it in a minimal possible string it would have much easier (That case only unique chars are enough). But in this case there are some points:
Letters can be present multiple time, though I have to reuse any
letter if possible, eg: for solid and hold o > l > d can be
reused as forward direction but for apple (a > p) and spark
(p > a) we have to repeat a as in one case it appears before p
for apple, and after p for sparks so either we need to repeat
a or p. Even, we cannot do p > a > p as it will not cover both the case
because we need two p after a for apple
We directly have no option to place a single p and use the same
index twice in a time of extract, we need multiple p with no option
left as the input string contains that
I am (not) sure, that there is multiple outputs possible for a set of
strings. but the concern is it should be minimal in length,
the combination doesn't matter if its cover all the tokens in a forward direction. all (or one ) outputs of minimal possible length
need to trace.
Adding this point as an EDIT to this post. After reading the comments and knowing that it's already an existing
problem is known as shortest common supersequence problem we can
define that the resultant string will be the shortest possible
string from which we can re generate any input string by simply
removing some (0 to N) chars, this is same as all inputs can be found in a forward direction in the resultant string.
I have tried, by starting with an arbitrary string, and then made an analysis of next string and splitting all the letters, and place them accordingly, but after some times, it seems that current string letters can be placed in a better way, If the last string's (or a previous string's) letters were placed according to the current string. But again that string was analysed and placed based on something (multiple) what was processed, and placing something in the favor of something that is not processed seems difficult because to that we need to process that. Or might me maintaining a tree of all processed/unprocessed tree will help, building the building the final string? Any better way than it, it seems a brute force?
Note: I know there are a lot of other transformation possible, please try not to suggest anything else to use, we are doing a bit research on it.
I came up with a somewhat brute force method. This way finds the optimal way to combine 2 words then does it for each element in the array.
This strategy works by trying finding the best possible way to combine 2 words together. It is considered the best by having the fewest letters. Each word is fed into an ever growing "merged" word. Each time a new word is added the existing word is searched for a matching character which exists in the word to be merged. Once one is found both are split into 2 sets and attempted to be joined (using the rules at hand, no need 2 add if letter already exists ect..). The strategy generally yields good results.
The join_word method takes 2 words you wish to join, the first parameter is considered to be the word you wish to place the other into. It then searches for the best way to split into and word into 2 separate parts to merge together, it does this by looking for any shared common characters. This is where the splits_on_letter method comes in.
The splits_on_letter method takes a word and a letter which you wish to split on, then returns a 2d array of all the possible left and right sides of splitting on that character. For example splits_on_letter('boom', 'o') would return [["b","oom"],["bo","om"],["boo","m"]], this is all the combinations of how we could use the letter o as a split point.
The sort() at the beginning is to attempt to place like elements together. The order in which you merge the elements generally effects the results length. One approach I tried was to sort them based upon how many common letters they used (with their peers), however the results were varying. However in all my tests I had maybe 5 or 6 different word sets to test with, its possible with a larger, more varying word arrays you might find different results.
Output is
spmjhooarckpplivden
var words = ["jack", "apple", "maven", "hold", "solid", "mark", "moon", "poor", "spark", "live"];
var result = minify_words(words);
document.write(result);
function minify_words(words) {
// Theres a good sorting method somewhere which can place this in an optimal order for combining them,
// hoever after quite a few attempts i couldnt get better than just a regular sort... so just use that
words = words.sort();
/*
Joins 2 words together ensuring each word has all its letters in the result left to right
*/
function join_word(into, word) {
var best = null;
// straight brute force each word down. Try to run a split on each letter and
for(var i=0;i<word.length;i++) {
var letter = word[i];
// split our 2 words into 2 segments on that pivot letter
var intoPartsArr = splits_on_letter(into, letter);
var wordPartsArr = splits_on_letter(word, letter);
for(var p1=0;p1<intoPartsArr.length;p1++) {
for(var p2=0;p2<wordPartsArr.length;p2++) {
var intoParts = intoPartsArr[p1], wordParts = wordPartsArr[p2];
// merge left and right and push them together
var result = add_letters(intoParts[0], wordParts[0]) + add_letters(intoParts[1], wordParts[1]);
if(!best || result.length <= best.length) {
best = result;
}
}
}
}
// its possible that there is no best, just tack the words together at that point
return best || (into + word);
}
/*
Splits a word at the index of the provided letter
*/
function splits_on_letter(word, letter) {
var ix, result = [], offset = 0;;
while((ix = word.indexOf(letter, offset)) !== -1) {
result.push([word.substring(0, ix), word.substring(ix, word.length)]);
offset = ix+1;
}
result.push([word.substring(0, offset), word.substring(offset, word.length)]);
return result;
}
/*
Adds letters to the word given our set of rules. Adds them starting left to right, will only add if the letter isnt found
*/
function add_letters(word, addl) {
var rIx = 0;
for (var i = 0; i < addl.length; i++) {
var foundIndex = word.indexOf(addl[i], rIx);
if (foundIndex == -1) {
word = word.substring(0, rIx) + addl[i] + word.substring(rIx, word.length);
rIx += addl[i].length;
} else {
rIx = foundIndex + addl[i].length;
}
}
return word;
}
// For each of our words, merge them together
var joinedWords = words[0];
for (var i = 1; i < words.length; i++) {
joinedWords = join_word(joinedWords, words[i]);
}
return joinedWords;
}
A first try, not really optimized (183% shorter):
function getShort(arr){
var perfect="";
//iterate the array
arr.forEach(function(string){
//iterate over the characters in the array
string.split("").reduce(function(pos,char){
var n=perfect.indexOf(char,pos+1);//check if theres already a possible char
if(n<0){
//if its not existing, simply add it behind the current
perfect=perfect.substr(0,pos+1)+char+perfect.substr(pos+1);
return pos+1;
}
return n;//continue with that char
},-1);
})
return perfect;
}
In action
This can be improved trough simply running the upper code with some variants of the array (200% improvement):
var s=["jack",...];
var perfect=null;
for(var i=0;i<s.length;i++){
//shift
s.push(s.shift());
var result=getShort(s);
if(!perfect || result.length<perfect.length) perfect=result;
}
In action
Thats quite close to the minimum number of characters ive estimated ( 244% minimization might be possible in the best case)
Ive also wrote a function to get the minimal number of chars and one to check if a certain word fails, you can find them here
I have used the idea of Dynamic programming to first generate the shortest possible string in forward direction as stated in OP. Then I have combined the result obtained in the previous step to send as a parameter along with the next String in the list. Below is the working code in java. Hope this would help to reach the most optimal solution, in case my solution is identified to be non optimal. Please feel free to report any countercases for the below code:
public String shortestPossibleString(String a, String b){
int[][] dp = new int[a.length()+1][b.length()+1];
//form the dynamic table consisting of
//length of shortest substring till that points
for(int i=0;i<=a.length();i++){
for(int j=0;j<=b.length();j++){
if(i == 0)
dp[i][j] = j;
else if(j == 0)
dp[i][j] = i;
else if(a.charAt(i-1) == b.charAt(j-1))
dp[i][j] = 1+dp[i-1][j-1];
else
dp[i][j] = 1+Math.min(dp[i-1][j],dp[i][j-1]);
}
}
//Backtrack from here to find the shortest substring
char[] sQ = new char[dp[a.length()][b.length()]];
int s = dp[a.length()][b.length()]-1;
int i=a.length(), j=b.length();
while(i!=0 && j!=0){
// If current character in a and b are same, then
// current character is part of shortest supersequence
if(a.charAt(i-1) == b.charAt(j-1)){
sQ[s] = a.charAt(i-1);
i--;
j--;
s--;
}
else {
// If current character in a and b are different
if(dp[i-1][j] > dp[i][j-1]){
sQ[s] = b.charAt(j-1);
j--;
s--;
}
else{
sQ[s] = a.charAt(i-1);
i--;
s--;
}
}
}
// If b reaches its end, put remaining characters
// of a in the result string
while(i!=0){
sQ[s] = a.charAt(i-1);
i--;
s--;
}
// If a reaches its end, put remaining characters
// of b in the result string
while(j!=0){
sQ[s] = b.charAt(j-1);
j--;
s--;
}
return String.valueOf(sQ);
}
public void getCombinedString(String... values){
String sSQ = shortestPossibleString(values[0],values[1]);
for(int i=2;i<values.length;i++){
sSQ = shortestPossibleString(values[i],sSQ);
}
System.out.println(sSQ);
}
Driver program:
e.getCombinedString("jack", "apple", "maven", "hold",
"solid", "mark", "moon", "poor", "spark", "live");
Output:
jmapphsolivecparkonidr
Worst case time complexity of the above solution would be O(product of length of all input strings) when all strings have all characters distinct and not even a single character matches between any pair of strings.
Here is an optimal solution based on dynamic programming in JavaScript, but it can only get through solid on my computer before it runs out of memory. It differs from #CodeHunter's solution in that it keeps the entire set of optimal solutions after each added string, not just one of them. You can see that the number of optimal solutions grows exponentially; even after solid there are already 518,640 optimal solutions.
const STRINGS = ["jack", "apple", "maven", "hold", "solid", "mark", "moon", "poor", "spark", "live"]
function map(set, f) {
const result = new Set
for (const o of set) result.add(f(o))
return result
}
function addAll(set, other) {
for (const o of other) set.add(o)
return set
}
function shortest(set) { //set is assumed non-empty
let minLength
let minMatching
for (const s of set) {
if (!minLength || s.length < minLength) {
minLength = s.length
minMatching = new Set([s])
}
else if (s.length === minLength) minMatching.add(s)
}
return minMatching
}
class ZipCache {
constructor() {
this.cache = new Map
}
get(str1, str2) {
const cached1 = this.cache.get(str1)
if (!cached1) return undefined
return cached1.get(str2)
}
set(str1, str2, zipped) {
let cached1 = this.cache.get(str1)
if (!cached1) {
cached1 = new Map
this.cache.set(str1, cached1)
}
cached1.set(str2, zipped)
}
}
const zipCache = new ZipCache
function zip(str1, str2) {
const cached = zipCache.get(str1, str2)
if (cached) return cached
if (!str1) { //str1 is empty, so only choice is str2
const result = new Set([str2])
zipCache.set(str1, str2, result)
return result
}
if (!str2) { //str2 is empty, so only choice is str1
const result = new Set([str1])
zipCache.set(str1, str2, result)
return result
}
//Both strings start with same letter
//so optimal solution must start with this letter
if (str1[0] === str2[0]) {
const zipped = zip(str1.substring(1), str2.substring(1))
const result = map(zipped, s => str1[0] + s)
zipCache.set(str1, str2, result)
return result
}
//Either do str1[0] + zip(str1[1:], str2)
//or str2[0] + zip(str1, str2[1:])
const zip1 = zip(str1.substring(1), str2)
const zip2 = zip(str1, str2.substring(1))
const test1 = map(zip1, s => str1[0] + s)
const test2 = map(zip2, s => str2[0] + s)
const result = shortest(addAll(test1, test2))
zipCache.set(str1, str2, result)
return result
}
let cumulative = new Set([''])
for (const string of STRINGS) {
console.log(string)
const newCumulative = new Set
for (const test of cumulative) {
addAll(newCumulative, zip(test, string))
}
cumulative = shortest(newCumulative)
console.log(cumulative.size)
}
console.log(cumulative) //never reached
When I wrote in JavaScript "Ł" > "Z" it returns true. In Unicode order it should be of course false. How to fix this? My site is using UTF-8.
You can use Intl.Collator or String.prototype.localeCompare, introduced by ECMAScript Internationalization API:
"Ł".localeCompare("Z", "pl"); // -1
new Intl.Collator("pl").compare("Ł","Z"); // -1
-1 means that Ł comes before Z, like you want.
Note it only works on latest browsers, though.
Here is an example for the french alphabet that could help you for a custom sort:
var alpha = function(alphabet, dir, caseSensitive){
return function(a, b){
var pos = 0,
min = Math.min(a.length, b.length);
dir = dir || 1;
caseSensitive = caseSensitive || false;
if(!caseSensitive){
a = a.toLowerCase();
b = b.toLowerCase();
}
while(a.charAt(pos) === b.charAt(pos) && pos < min){ pos++; }
return alphabet.indexOf(a.charAt(pos)) > alphabet.indexOf(b.charAt(pos)) ?
dir:-dir;
};
};
To use it on an array of strings a:
a.sort(
alpha('ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZaàâäbcçdeéèêëfghiïîjklmnñoôöpqrstuûüvwxyÿz')
);
Add 1 or -1 as the second parameter of alpha() to sort ascending or descending.
Add true as the 3rd parameter to sort case sensitive.
You may need to add numbers and special chars to the alphabet list
You may be able to build your own sorting function using localeCompare() that - at least according to the MDC article on the topic - should sort things correctly.
If that doesn't work out, here is an interesting SO question where the OP employs string replacement to build a "brute-force" sorting mechanism.
Also in that question, the OP shows how to build a custom textExtract function for the jQuery tablesorter plugin that does locale-aware sorting - maybe also worth a look.
Edit: As a totally far-out idea - I have no idea whether this is feasible at all, especially because of performance concerns - if you are working with PHP/mySQL on the back-end anyway, I would like to mention the possibility of sending an Ajax query to a mySQL instance to have it sorted there. mySQL is great at sorting locale aware data, because you can force sorting operations into a specific collation using e.g. ORDER BY xyz COLLATE utf8_polish_ci, COLLATE utf8_german_ci.... those collations would take care of all sorting woes at once.
Mic's code improved for non-mentioned chars:
var alpha = function(alphabet, dir, caseSensitive){
dir = dir || 1;
function compareLetters(a, b) {
var ia = alphabet.indexOf(a);
var ib = alphabet.indexOf(b);
if(ia === -1 || ib === -1) {
if(ib !== -1)
return a > 'a';
if(ia !== -1)
return 'a' > b;
return a > b;
}
return ia > ib;
}
return function(a, b){
var pos = 0;
var min = Math.min(a.length, b.length);
caseSensitive = caseSensitive || false;
if(!caseSensitive){
a = a.toLowerCase();
b = b.toLowerCase();
}
while(a.charAt(pos) === b.charAt(pos) && pos < min){ pos++; }
return compareLetters(a.charAt(pos), b.charAt(pos)) ? dir:-dir;
};
};
function assert(bCondition, sErrorMessage) {
if (!bCondition) {
throw new Error(sErrorMessage);
}
}
assert(alpha("bac")("a", "b") === 1, "b is first than a");
assert(alpha("abc")("ac", "a") === 1, "shorter string is first than longer string");
assert(alpha("abc")("1abc", "0abc") === 1, "non-mentioned chars are compared as normal");
assert(alpha("abc")("0abc", "1abc") === -1, "non-mentioned chars are compared as normal [2]");
assert(alpha("abc")("0abc", "bbc") === -1, "non-mentioned chars are compared with mentioned chars in special way");
assert(alpha("abc")("zabc", "abc") === 1, "non-mentioned chars are compared with mentioned chars in special way [2]");
You have to keep two sortkey strings. One is for primary order, where German ä=a (primary a->a) and French é=e (primary sortkey e->e) and one for secondary order, where ä comes after a (translating a->azzzz in secondary key) or é comes after e (secondary key e->ezzzz). Especially in Czech some letters are variations of a letter (áéí…) whereas others stand in their full right in the list (ABCČD…GHChI…RŘSŠT…). Plus the problem to consider digraphs a single letters (primary ch->hzzzz). No trivial problem, and there should be a solution within JS.
Funny, I have to think about that problem and finished searching here, because it came in mind, that I can use my own javascript module. I wrote a module to generate a clean URL, therefor I have to translitate the input string... (http://pid.github.io/speakingurl/)
var mySlug = require('speakingurl').createSlug({
maintainCase: true,
separator: " "
});
var input = "Schöner Titel läßt grüßen!? Bel été !";
var result;
slug = mySlug(input);
console.log(result); // Output: "Schoener Titel laesst gruessen bel ete"
Now you can sort with this results. You can ex. store the original titel in the field "title" and the field for sorting in "title_sort" with the result of mySlug.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about programming within the scope defined in the help center.
Closed 7 years ago.
Locked. This question and its answers are locked because the question is off-topic but has historical significance. It is not currently accepting new answers or interactions.
This is a challenge to come up with the most elegant JavaScript, Ruby or other solution to a relatively trivial problem.
This problem is a more specific case of the Longest common substring problem. I need to only find the longest common starting substring in an array. This greatly simplifies the problem.
For example, the longest substring in [interspecies, interstelar, interstate] is "inters". However, I don't need to find "ific" in [specifics, terrific].
I've solved the problem by quickly coding up a solution in JavaScript as a part of my answer about shell-like tab-completion (test page here). Here is that solution, slightly tweaked:
function common_substring(data) {
var i, ch, memo, idx = 0
do {
memo = null
for (i=0; i < data.length; i++) {
ch = data[i].charAt(idx)
if (!ch) break
if (!memo) memo = ch
else if (ch != memo) break
}
} while (i == data.length && idx < data.length && ++idx)
return (data[0] || '').slice(0, idx)
}
This code is available in this Gist along with a similar solution in Ruby. You can clone the gist as a git repo to try it out:
$ git clone git://gist.github.com/257891.git substring-challenge
I'm not very happy with those solutions. I have a feeling they might be solved with more elegance and less execution complexity—that's why I'm posting this challenge.
I'm going to accept as an answer the solution I find the most elegant or concise. Here is for instance a crazy Ruby hack I come up with—defining the & operator on String:
# works with Ruby 1.8.7 and above
class String
def &(other)
difference = other.to_str.each_char.with_index.find { |ch, idx|
self[idx].nil? or ch != self[idx].chr
}
difference ? self[0, difference.last] : self
end
end
class Array
def common_substring
self.inject(nil) { |memo, str| memo.nil? ? str : memo & str }.to_s
end
end
Solutions in JavaScript or Ruby are preferred, but you can show off clever solution in other languages as long as you explain what's going on. Only code from standard library please.
Update: my favorite solutions
I've chosen the JavaScript sorting solution by kennebec as the "answer" because it struck me as both unexpected and genius. If we disregard the complexity of actual sorting (let's imagine it's infinitely optimized by the language implementation), the complexity of the solution is just comparing two strings.
Other great solutions:
"regex greed" by FM takes a minute or two to grasp, but then the elegance of it hits you. Yehuda Katz also made a regex solution, but it's more complex
commonprefix in Python — Roberto Bonvallet used a feature made for handling filesystem paths to solve this problem
Haskell one-liner is short as if it were compressed, and beautiful
the straightforward Ruby one-liner
Thanks for participating! As you can see from the comments, I learned a lot (even about Ruby).
It's a matter of taste, but this is a simple javascript version:
It sorts the array, and then looks just at the first and last items.
//longest common starting substring in an array
function sharedStart(array){
var A= array.concat().sort(),
a1= A[0], a2= A[A.length-1], L= a1.length, i= 0;
while(i<L && a1.charAt(i)=== a2.charAt(i)) i++;
return a1.substring(0, i);
}
DEMOS
sharedStart(['interspecies', 'interstelar', 'interstate']) //=> 'inters'
sharedStart(['throne', 'throne']) //=> 'throne'
sharedStart(['throne', 'dungeon']) //=> ''
sharedStart(['cheese']) //=> 'cheese'
sharedStart([]) //=> ''
sharedStart(['prefix', 'suffix']) //=> ''
In Python:
>>> from os.path import commonprefix
>>> commonprefix('interspecies interstelar interstate'.split())
'inters'
Ruby one-liner:
l=strings.inject{|l,s| l=l.chop while l!=s[0...l.length];l}
My Haskell one-liner:
import Data.List
commonPre :: [String] -> String
commonPre = map head . takeWhile (\(x:xs)-> all (==x) xs) . transpose
EDIT: barkmadley gave a good explanation of the code below. I'd also add that haskell uses lazy evaluation, so we can be lazy about our use of transpose; it will only transpose our lists as far as necessary to find the end of the common prefix.
You just need to traverse all strings until they differ, then take the substring up to this point.
Pseudocode:
loop for i upfrom 0
while all strings[i] are equal
finally return substring[0..i]
Common Lisp:
(defun longest-common-starting-substring (&rest strings)
(loop for i from 0 below (apply #'min (mapcar #'length strings))
while (apply #'char=
(mapcar (lambda (string) (aref string i))
strings))
finally (return (subseq (first strings) 0 i))))
Yet another way to do it: use regex greed.
words = %w(interspecies interstelar interstate)
j = '='
str = ['', *words].join(j)
re = "[^#{j}]*"
str =~ /\A
(?: #{j} ( #{re} ) #{re} )
(?: #{j} \1 #{re} )*
\z/x
p $1
And the one-liner, courtesy of mislav (50 characters):
p ARGV.join(' ').match(/^(\w*)\w*(?: \1\w*)*$/)[1]
In Python I wouldn't use anything but the existing commonprefix function I showed in another answer, but I couldn't help to reinvent the wheel :P. This is my iterator-based approach:
>>> a = 'interspecies interstelar interstate'.split()
>>>
>>> from itertools import takewhile, chain, izip as zip, imap as map
>>> ''.join(chain(*takewhile(lambda s: len(s) == 1, map(set, zip(*a)))))
'inters'
Edit: Explanation of how this works.
zip generates tuples of elements taking one of each item of a at a time:
In [6]: list(zip(*a)) # here I use list() to expand the iterator
Out[6]:
[('i', 'i', 'i'),
('n', 'n', 'n'),
('t', 't', 't'),
('e', 'e', 'e'),
('r', 'r', 'r'),
('s', 's', 's'),
('p', 't', 't'),
('e', 'e', 'a'),
('c', 'l', 't'),
('i', 'a', 'e')]
By mapping set over these items, I get a series of unique letters:
In [7]: list(map(set, _)) # _ means the result of the last statement above
Out[7]:
[set(['i']),
set(['n']),
set(['t']),
set(['e']),
set(['r']),
set(['s']),
set(['p', 't']),
set(['a', 'e']),
set(['c', 'l', 't']),
set(['a', 'e', 'i'])]
takewhile(predicate, items) takes elements from this while the predicate is True; in this particular case, when the sets have one element, i.e. all the words have the same letter at that position:
In [8]: list(takewhile(lambda s: len(s) == 1, _))
Out[8]:
[set(['i']),
set(['n']),
set(['t']),
set(['e']),
set(['r']),
set(['s'])]
At this point we have an iterable of sets, each containing one letter of the prefix we were looking for. To construct the string, we chain them into a single iterable, from which we get the letters to join into the final string.
The magic of using iterators is that all items are generated on demand, so when takewhile stops asking for items, the zipping stops at that point and no unnecessary work is done. Each function call in my one-liner has a implicit for and an implicit break.
This is probably not the most concise solution (depends if you already have a library for this), but one elegant method is to use a trie. I use tries for implementing tab completion in my Scheme interpreter:
http://github.com/jcoglan/heist/blob/master/lib/trie.rb
For example:
tree = Trie.new
%w[interspecies interstelar interstate].each { |s| tree[s] = true }
tree.longest_prefix('')
#=> "inters"
I also use them for matching channel names with wildcards for the Bayeux protocol; see these:
http://github.com/jcoglan/faye/blob/master/client/channel.js
http://github.com/jcoglan/faye/blob/master/lib/faye/channel.rb
Just for the fun of it, here's a version written in (SWI-)PROLOG:
common_pre([[C|Cs]|Ss], [C|Res]) :-
maplist(head_tail(C), [[C|Cs]|Ss], RemSs), !,
common_pre(RemSs, Res).
common_pre(_, []).
head_tail(H, [H|T], T).
Running:
?- S=["interspecies", "interstelar", "interstate"], common_pre(S, CP), string_to_list(CPString, CP).
Gives:
CP = [105, 110, 116, 101, 114, 115],
CPString = "inters".
Explanation:
(SWI-)PROLOG treats strings as lists of character codes (numbers). All the predicate common_pre/2 does is recursively pattern-match to select the first code (C) from the head of the first list (string, [C|Cs]) in the list of all lists (all strings, [[C|Cs]|Ss]), and appends the matching code C to the result iff it is common to all (remaining) heads of all lists (strings), else it terminates.
Nice, clean, simple and efficient... :)
A javascript version based on #Svante's algorithm:
function commonSubstring(words){
var iChar, iWord,
refWord = words[0],
lRefWord = refWord.length,
lWords = words.length;
for (iChar = 0; iChar < lRefWord; iChar += 1) {
for (iWord = 1; iWord < lWords; iWord += 1) {
if (refWord[iChar] !== words[iWord][iChar]) {
return refWord.substring(0, iChar);
}
}
}
return refWord;
}
Combining answers by kennebec, Florian F and jberryman yields the following Haskell one-liner:
commonPrefix l = map fst . takeWhile (uncurry (==)) $ zip (minimum l) (maximum l)
With Control.Arrow one can get a point-free form:
commonPrefix = map fst . takeWhile (uncurry (==)) . uncurry zip . (minimum &&& maximum)
Python 2.6 (r26:66714, Oct 4 2008, 02:48:43)
>>> a = ['interspecies', 'interstelar', 'interstate']
>>> print a[0][:max(
[i for i in range(min(map(len, a)))
if len(set(map(lambda e: e[i], a))) == 1]
) + 1]
inters
i for i in range(min(map(len, a))), number of maximum lookups can't be greater than the length of the shortest string; in this example this would evaluate to [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9]
len(set(map(lambda e: e[i], a))), 1) create an array of the i-thcharacter for each string in the list; 2) make a set out of it; 3) determine the size of the set
[i for i in range(min(map(len, a))) if len(set(map(lambda e: e[i], a))) == 1], include just the characters, for which the size of the set is 1 (all characters at that position were the same ..); here it would evaluate to [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
finally take the max, add one, and get the substring ...
Note: the above does not work for a = ['intersyate', 'intersxate', 'interstate', 'intersrate'], but this would:
>>> index = len(
filter(lambda l: l[0] == l[1],
[ x for x in enumerate(
[i for i in range(min(map(len, a)))
if len(set(map(lambda e: e[i], a))) == 1]
)]))
>>> a[0][:index]
inters
Doesn't seem that complicated if you're not too concerned about ultimate performance:
def common_substring(data)
data.inject { |m, s| s[0,(0..m.length).find { |i| m[i] != s[i] }.to_i] }
end
One of the useful features of inject is the ability to pre-seed with the first element of the array being interated over. This avoids the nil memo check.
puts common_substring(%w[ interspecies interstelar interstate ]).inspect
# => "inters"
puts common_substring(%w[ feet feel feeble ]).inspect
# => "fee"
puts common_substring(%w[ fine firkin fail ]).inspect
# => "f"
puts common_substring(%w[ alpha bravo charlie ]).inspect
# => ""
puts common_substring(%w[ fork ]).inspect
# => "fork"
puts common_substring(%w[ fork forks ]).inspect
# => "fork"
Update: If golf is the game here, then 67 characters:
def f(d)d.inject{|m,s|s[0,(0..m.size).find{|i|m[i]!=s[i]}.to_i]}end
This one is very similar to Roberto Bonvallet's solution, except in ruby.
chars = %w[interspecies interstelar interstate].map {|w| w.split('') }
chars[0].zip(*chars[1..-1]).map { |c| c.uniq }.take_while { |c| c.size == 1 }.join
The first line replaces each word with an array of chars. Next, I use zip to create this data structure:
[["i", "i", "i"], ["n", "n", "n"], ["t", "t", "t"], ...
map and uniq reduce this to [["i"],["n"],["t"], ...
take_while pulls the chars off the array until it finds one where the size isn't one (meaning not all chars were the same). Finally, I join them back together.
The accepted solution is broken (for example, it returns a for strings like ['a', 'ba']). The fix is very simple, you literally have to change only 3 characters (from indexOf(tem1) == -1 to indexOf(tem1) != 0) and the function would work as expected.
Unfortunately, when I tried to edit the answer to fix the typo, SO told me that "edits must be at least 6 characters". I could change more then those 3 chars, by improving naming and readability but that feels like a little bit too much.
So, below is a fixed and improved (at least from my point of view) version of the kennebec's solution:
function commonPrefix(words) {
max_word = words.reduce(function(a, b) { return a > b ? a : b });
prefix = words.reduce(function(a, b) { return a > b ? b : a }); // min word
while(max_word.indexOf(prefix) != 0) {
prefix = prefix.slice(0, -1);
}
return prefix;
}
(on jsFiddle)
Note, that it uses reduce method (JavaScript 1.8) in order to find alphanumeric max / min instead of sorting the array and then fetching the first and the last elements of it.
While reading these answers with all the fancy functional programming, sorting and regexes and whatnot, I just thought: what's wrong a little bit of C? So here's a goofy looking little program.
#include <stdio.h>
int main (int argc, char *argv[])
{
int i = -1, j, c;
if (argc < 2)
return 1;
while (c = argv[1][++i])
for (j = 2; j < argc; j++)
if (argv[j][i] != c)
goto out;
out:
printf("Longest common prefix: %.*s\n", i, argv[1]);
}
Compile it, run it with your list of strings as command line arguments, then upvote me for using goto!
Here's a solution using regular expressions in Ruby:
def build_regex(string)
arr = []
arr << string.dup while string.chop!
Regexp.new("^(#{arr.join("|")})")
end
def substring(first, *strings)
strings.inject(first) do |accum, string|
build_regex(accum).match(string)[0]
end
end
I would do the following:
Take the first string of the array as the initial starting substring.
Take the next string of the array and compare the characters until the end of one of the strings is reached or a mismatch is found. If a mismatch is found, reduce starting substring to the length where the mismatch was found.
Repeat step 2 until all strings have been tested.
Here’s a JavaScript implementation:
var array = ["interspecies", "interstelar", "interstate"],
prefix = array[0],
len = prefix.length;
for (i=1; i<array.length; i++) {
for (j=0, len=Math.min(len,array[j].length); j<len; j++) {
if (prefix[j] != array[i][j]) {
len = j;
prefix = prefix.substr(0, len);
break;
}
}
}
Instead of sorting, you could just get the min and max of the strings.
To me, elegance in a computer program is a balance of speed and simplicity.
It should not do unnecessary computation, and it should be simple enough to make its correctness evident.
I could call the sorting solution "clever", but not "elegant".
Oftentimes it's more elegant to use a mature open source library instead of rolling your own. Then, if it doesn't completely suit your needs, you can extend it or modify it to improve it, and let the community decide if that belongs in the library.
diff-lcs is a good Ruby gem for least common substring.
My solution in Java:
public static String compute(Collection<String> strings) {
if(strings.isEmpty()) return "";
Set<Character> v = new HashSet<Character>();
int i = 0;
try {
while(true) {
for(String s : strings) v.add(s.charAt(i));
if(v.size() > 1) break;
v.clear();
i++;
}
} catch(StringIndexOutOfBoundsException ex) {}
return strings.iterator().next().substring(0, i);
}
Golfed JS solution just for fun:
w=["hello", "hell", "helen"];
c=w.reduce(function(p,c){
for(r="",i=0;p[i]==c[i];r+=p[i],i++){}
return r;
});
Here's an efficient solution in ruby. I based the idea of the strategy for a hi/lo guessing game where you iteratively zero in on the longest prefix.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the complexity is O(n log n), where n is the length of the shortest string and the number of strings is considered a constant.
def common(strings)
lo = 0
hi = strings.map(&:length).min - 1
return '' if hi < lo
guess, last_guess = lo, hi
while guess != last_guess
last_guess = guess
guess = lo + ((hi - lo) / 2.0).ceil
if strings.map { |s| s[0..guess] }.uniq.length == 1
lo = guess
else
hi = guess
end
end
strings.map { |s| s[0...guess] }.uniq.length == 1 ? strings.first[0...guess] : ''
end
And some checks that it works:
>> common %w{ interspecies interstelar interstate }
=> "inters"
>> common %w{ dog dalmation }
=> "d"
>> common %w{ asdf qwerty }
=> ""
>> common ['', 'asdf']
=> ""
Fun alternative Ruby solution:
def common_prefix(*strings)
chars = strings.map(&:chars)
length = chars.first.zip( *chars[1..-1] ).index{ |a| a.uniq.length>1 }
strings.first[0,length]
end
p common_prefix( 'foon', 'foost', 'forlorn' ) #=> "fo"
p common_prefix( 'foost', 'foobar', 'foon' ) #=> "foo"
p common_prefix( 'a','b' ) #=> ""
It might help speed if you used chars = strings.sort_by(&:length).map(&:chars), since the shorter the first string, the shorter the arrays created by zip. However, if you cared about speed, you probably shouldn't use this solution anyhow. :)
Javascript clone of AShelly's excellent answer.
Requires Array#reduce which is supported only in firefox.
var strings = ["interspecies", "intermediate", "interrogation"]
var sub = strings.reduce(function(l,r) {
while(l!=r.slice(0,l.length)) {
l = l.slice(0, -1);
}
return l;
});
This is by no means elegant, but if you want concise:
Ruby, 71 chars
def f(a)b=a[0];b[0,(0..b.size).find{|n|a.any?{|i|i[0,n]!=b[0,n]}}-1]end
If you want that unrolled it looks like this:
def f(words)
first_word = words[0];
first_word[0, (0..(first_word.size)).find { |num_chars|
words.any? { |word| word[0, num_chars] != first_word[0, num_chars] }
} - 1]
end
It's not code golf, but you asked for somewhat elegant, and I tend to think recursion is fun. Java.
/** Recursively find the common prefix. */
public String findCommonPrefix(String[] strings) {
int minLength = findMinLength(strings);
if (isFirstCharacterSame(strings)) {
return strings[0].charAt(0) + findCommonPrefix(removeFirstCharacter(strings));
} else {
return "";
}
}
/** Get the minimum length of a string in strings[]. */
private int findMinLength(final String[] strings) {
int length = strings[0].size();
for (String string : strings) {
if (string.size() < length) {
length = string.size();
}
}
return length;
}
/** Compare the first character of all strings. */
private boolean isFirstCharacterSame(String[] strings) {
char c = string[0].charAt(0);
for (String string : strings) {
if (c != string.charAt(0)) return false;
}
return true;
}
/** Remove the first character of each string in the array,
and return a new array with the results. */
private String[] removeFirstCharacter(String[] source) {
String[] result = new String[source.length];
for (int i=0; i<result.length; i++) {
result[i] = source[i].substring(1);
}
return result;
}
A ruby version based on #Svante's algorithm. Runs ~3x as fast as my first one.
def common_prefix set
i=0
rest=set[1..-1]
set[0].each_byte{|c|
rest.each{|e|return set[0][0...i] if e[i]!=c}
i+=1
}
set
end
My Javascript solution:
IMOP, using sort is too tricky.
My solution is compare letter by letter through looping the array.
Return string if letter is not macthed.
This is my solution:
var longestCommonPrefix = function(strs){
if(strs.length < 1){
return '';
}
var p = 0, i = 0, c = strs[0][0];
while(p < strs[i].length && strs[i][p] === c){
i++;
if(i === strs.length){
i = 0;
p++;
c = strs[0][p];
}
}
return strs[0].substr(0, p);
};
Realizing the risk of this turning into a match of code golf (or is that the intention?), here's my solution using sed, copied from my answer to another SO question and shortened to 36 chars (30 of which are the actual sed expression). It expects the strings (each on a seperate line) to be supplied on standard input or in files passed as additional arguments.
sed 'N;s/^\(.*\).*\n\1.*$/\1\n\1/;D'
A script with sed in the shebang line weighs in at 45 chars:
#!/bin/sed -f
N;s/^\(.*\).*\n\1.*$/\1\n\1/;D
A test run of the script (named longestprefix), with strings supplied as a "here document":
$ ./longestprefix <<EOF
> interspecies
> interstelar
> interstate
> EOF
inters
$