How can I break the iteration of reduce() method?
for:
for (var i = Things.length - 1; i >= 0; i--) {
if(Things[i] <= 0){
break;
}
};
reduce()
Things.reduce(function(memo, current){
if(current <= 0){
//break ???
//return; <-- this will return undefined to memo, which is not what I want
}
}, 0)
You CAN break on any iteration of a .reduce() invocation by mutating the 4th argument of the reduce function: "array". No need for a custom reduce function. See Docs for full list of .reduce() parameters.
Array.prototype.reduce((acc, curr, i, array))
The 4th argument is the array being iterated over.
const array = ['apple', '-pen', '-pineapple', '-pen'];
const x = array
.reduce((acc, curr, i, arr) => {
if(i === 2) arr.splice(1); // eject early
return acc += curr;
}, '');
console.log('x: ', x); // x: apple-pen-pineapple
WHY?:
The one and only reason I can think of to use this instead of the many other solutions presented is if you want to maintain a functional programming methodology to your algorithm, and you want the most declarative approach possible to accomplish that. If your entire goal is to literally REDUCE an array to an alternate non-falsey primitive (string, number, boolean, Symbol) then I would argue this IS in fact, the best approach.
WHY NOT?
There's a whole list of arguments to make for NOT mutating function parameters as it's a bad practice.
UPDATE
Some of the commentators make a good point that the original array is being mutated in order to break early inside the .reduce() logic.
Therefore, I've modified the answer slightly by adding a .slice(0) before calling a follow-on .reduce() step, yielding a copy of the original array.
NOTE: Similar ops that accomplish the same task are slice() (less explicit), and spread operator [...array] (slightly less performant). Bear in mind, all of these add an additional constant factor of linear time to the overall runtime ... + O(n).
The copy, serves to preserve the original array from the eventual mutation that causes ejection from iteration.
const array = ['apple', '-pen', '-pineapple', '-pen'];
const x = array
.slice(0) // create copy of "array" for iterating
.reduce((acc, curr, i, arr) => {
if (i === 2) arr.splice(1); // eject early by mutating iterated copy
return (acc += curr);
}, '');
console.log("x: ", x, "\noriginal Arr: ", array);
// x: apple-pen-pineapple
// original Arr: ['apple', '-pen', '-pineapple', '-pen']
Don't use reduce. Just iterate on the array with normal iterators (for, etc) and break out when your condition is met.
You can use functions like some and every as long as you don't care about the return value. every breaks when the callback returns false, some when it returns true:
things.every(function(v, i, o) {
// do stuff
if (timeToBreak) {
return false;
} else {
return true;
}
}, thisArg);
Edit
A couple of comments that "this doesn't do what reduce does", which is true, but it can. Here's an example of using every in a similar manner to reduce that returns as soon as the break condition is reached.
// Soruce data
let data = [0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8];
// Multiple values up to 5 by 6,
// create a new array and stop processing once
// 5 is reached
let result = [];
data.every(a => a < 5? result.push(a*6) : false);
console.log(result);
This works because the return value from push is the length of the result array after the new element has been pushed, which will always be 1 or greater (hence true), otherwise it returns false and the loop stops.
There is no way, of course, to get the built-in version of reduce to exit prematurely.
But you can write your own version of reduce which uses a special token to identify when the loop should be broken.
var EXIT_REDUCE = {};
function reduce(a, f, result) {
for (let i = 0; i < a.length; i++) {
let val = f(result, a[i], i, a);
if (val === EXIT_REDUCE) break;
result = val;
}
return result;
}
Use it like this, to sum an array but exit when you hit 99:
reduce([1, 2, 99, 3], (a, b) => b === 99 ? EXIT_REDUCE : a + b, 0);
> 3
Array.every can provide a very natural mechanism for breaking out of high order iteration.
const product = function(array) {
let accumulator = 1;
array.every( factor => {
accumulator *= factor;
return !!factor;
});
return accumulator;
}
console.log(product([2,2,2,0,2,2]));
// 0
You can break every code - and thus every build in iterator - by throwing an exception:
function breakReduceException(value) {
this.value = value
}
try {
Things.reduce(function(memo, current) {
...
if (current <= 0) throw new breakReduceException(memo)
...
}, 0)
} catch (e) {
if (e instanceof breakReduceException) var memo = e.value
else throw e
}
You can use try...catch to exit the loop.
try {
Things.reduce(function(memo, current){
if(current <= 0){
throw 'exit loop'
//break ???
//return; <-- this will return undefined to memo, which is not what I want
}
}, 0)
} catch {
// handle logic
}
As the promises have resolve and reject callback arguments, I created the reduce workaround function with the break callback argument. It takes all the same arguments as native reduce method, except the first one is an array to work on (avoid monkey patching). The third [2] initialValue argument is optional. See the snippet below for the function reducer.
var list = ["w","o","r","l","d"," ","p","i","e","r","o","g","i"];
var result = reducer(list,(total,current,index,arr,stop)=>{
if(current === " ") stop(); //when called, the loop breaks
return total + current;
},'hello ');
console.log(result); //hello world
function reducer(arr, callback, initial) {
var hasInitial = arguments.length >= 3;
var total = hasInitial ? initial : arr[0];
var breakNow = false;
for (var i = hasInitial ? 0 : 1; i < arr.length; i++) {
var currentValue = arr[i];
var currentIndex = i;
var newTotal = callback(total, currentValue, currentIndex, arr, () => breakNow = true);
if (breakNow) break;
total = newTotal;
}
return total;
}
And here is the reducer as an Array method modified script:
Array.prototype.reducer = function(callback,initial){
var hasInitial = arguments.length >= 2;
var total = hasInitial ? initial : this[0];
var breakNow = false;
for (var i = hasInitial ? 0 : 1; i < this.length; i++) {
var currentValue = this[i];
var currentIndex = i;
var newTotal = callback(total, currentValue, currentIndex, this, () => breakNow = true);
if (breakNow) break;
total = newTotal;
}
return total;
};
var list = ["w","o","r","l","d"," ","p","i","e","r","o","g","i"];
var result = list.reducer((total,current,index,arr,stop)=>{
if(current === " ") stop(); //when called, the loop breaks
return total + current;
},'hello ');
console.log(result);
Reduce functional version with break can be implemented as 'transform', ex. in underscore.
I tried to implement it with a config flag to stop it so that the implementation reduce doesn't have to change the data structure that you are currently using.
const transform = (arr, reduce, init, config = {}) => {
const result = arr.reduce((acc, item, i, arr) => {
if (acc.found) return acc
acc.value = reduce(config, acc.value, item, i, arr)
if (config.stop) {
acc.found = true
}
return acc
}, { value: init, found: false })
return result.value
}
module.exports = transform
Usage1, simple one
const a = [0, 1, 1, 3, 1]
console.log(transform(a, (config, acc, v) => {
if (v === 3) { config.stop = true }
if (v === 1) return ++acc
return acc
}, 0))
Usage2, use config as internal variable
const pixes = Array(size).fill(0)
const pixProcessed = pixes.map((_, pixId) => {
return transform(pics, (config, _, pic) => {
if (pic[pixId] !== '2') config.stop = true
return pic[pixId]
}, '0')
})
Usage3, capture config as external variable
const thrusts2 = permute([9, 8, 7, 6, 5]).map(signals => {
const datas = new Array(5).fill(_data())
const ps = new Array(5).fill(0)
let thrust = 0, config
do {
config = {}
thrust = transform(signals, (_config, acc, signal, i) => {
const res = intcode(
datas[i], signal,
{ once: true, i: ps[i], prev: acc }
)
if (res) {
[ps[i], acc] = res
} else {
_config.stop = true
}
return acc
}, thrust, config)
} while (!config.stop)
return thrust
}, 0)
You cannot break from inside of a reduce method. Depending on what you are trying to accomplish you could alter the final result (which is one reason you may want to do this)
const result = [1, 1, 1].reduce((a, b) => a + b, 0); // returns 3
console.log(result);
const result = [1, 1, 1].reduce((a, b, c, d) => {
if (c === 1 && b < 3) {
return a + b + 1;
}
return a + b;
}, 0); // now returns 4
console.log(result);
Keep in mind: you cannot reassign the array parameter directly
const result = [1, 1, 1].reduce( (a, b, c, d) => {
if (c === 0) {
d = [1, 1, 2];
}
return a + b;
}, 0); // still returns 3
console.log(result);
However (as pointed out below), you CAN affect the outcome by changing the array's contents:
const result = [1, 1, 1].reduce( (a, b, c, d) => {
if (c === 0) {
d[2] = 100;
}
return a + b;
}, 0); // now returns 102
console.log(result);
Providing you do not need to return an array, perhaps you could use some()?
Use some instead which auto-breaks when you want. Send it a this accumulator. Your test and accumulate function cannot be an arrow function as their this is set when the arrow function is created.
const array = ['a', 'b', 'c', 'd', 'e'];
var accum = {accum: ''};
function testerAndAccumulator(curr, i, arr){
this.tot += arr[i];
return curr==='c';
};
accum.tot = "";
array.some(testerAndAccumulator, accum);
var result = accum.tot;
In my opinion this is the better solution to the accepted answer provided you do not need to return an array (eg in a chain of array operators), as you do not alter the original array and you do not need to make a copy of it which could be bad for large arrays.
So, to terminate even earlier the idiom to use would be arr.splice(0).
Which prompts the question, why can't one just use arr = [] in this case?
I tried it and the reduce ignored the assignment, continuing on unchanged.
The reduce idiom appears to respond to forms such as splice but not forms such as the assignment operator??? - completely unintuitive - and has to be rote-learnt as precepts within the functional programming credo ...
const array = ['9', '91', '95', '96', '99'];
const x = array
.reduce((acc, curr, i, arr) => {
if(i === 2) arr.splice(1); // eject early
return acc += curr;
}, '');
console.log('x: ', x); // x: 99195
The problem is, that inside of the accumulator it is not possible to just stop the whole process. So by design something in the outer scope must be manipulated, which always leads to a necessary mutation.
As many others already mentioned throw with try...catch is not really an approach which can be called "solution". It is more a hack with many unwanted side effects.
The only way to do this WITHOUT ANY MUTATIONS is by using a second compare function, which decides whether to continue or stop. To still avoid a for-loop, it has to be solved with a recursion.
The code:
function reduceCompare(arr, cb, cmp, init) {
return (function _(acc, i) {
return i < arr.length && cmp(acc, arr[i], i, arr) === true ? _(cb(acc, arr[i], i, arr), i + 1) : acc;
})(typeof init !== 'undefined' ? init : arr[0], 0);
}
This can be used like:
var arr = ['a', 'b', 'c', 'd'];
function join(acc, curr) {
return acc + curr;
}
console.log(
reduceCompare(
arr,
join,
function(acc) { return acc.length < 1; },
''
)
); // logs 'a'
console.log(
reduceCompare(
arr,
join,
function(acc, curr) { return curr !== 'c'; },
''
)
); // logs 'ab'
console.log(
reduceCompare(
arr,
join,
function(acc, curr, i) { return i < 3; },
''
)
); // logs 'abc'
I made an npm library out of this, also containing a TypeScript and ES6 version. Feel free to use it:
https://www.npmjs.com/package/array-reduce-compare
or on GitHub:
https://github.com/StefanJelner/array-reduce-compare
You could to write your own reduce method. Invoking it like this, so it follows same logic and you control your own escape / break solution. It retains functional style and allows breaking.
const reduce = (arr, fn, accum) => {
const len = arr.length;
let result = null;
for(let i = 0; i < len; i=i+1) {
result = fn(accum, arr[i], i)
if (accum.break === true) {
break;
}
}
return result
}
const arr = ['a', 'b', 'c', 'shouldnotgethere']
const myResult = reduce(arr, (accum, cur, ind) => {
accum.result = accum.result + cur;
if(ind === 2) {
accum.break = true
}
return accum
}, {result:'', break: false}).result
console.log({myResult})
Or create your own reduce recursion method:
const rcReduce = (arr, accum = '', ind = 0) => {
const cur = arr.shift();
accum += cur;
const isBreak = ind > 1
return arr.length && !isBreak ? rcReduce(arr, accum, ind + 1) : accum
}
const myResult = rcReduce(['a', 'b', 'c', 'shouldngethere'])
console.log({myResult})
Another simple implementation that I came with solving the same issue:
function reduce(array, reducer, first) {
let result = first || array.shift()
while (array.length > 0) {
result = reducer(result, array.shift())
if (result && result.reduced) {
return result.reduced
}
}
return result
}
If you want to chain promises sequentially with reduce using the pattern below:
return [1,2,3,4].reduce(function(promise,n,i,arr){
return promise.then(function(){
// this code is executed when the reduce loop is terminated,
// so truncating arr here or in the call below does not works
return somethingReturningAPromise(n);
});
}, Promise.resolve());
But need to break according to something happening inside or outside a promise
things become a little bit more complicated because the reduce loop is terminated before the first promise is executed, making truncating the array in the promise callbacks useless, I ended up with this implementation:
function reduce(array, promise, fn, i) {
i=i||0;
return promise
.then(function(){
return fn(promise,array[i]);
})
.then(function(result){
if (!promise.break && ++i<array.length) {
return reduce(array,promise,fn,i);
} else {
return result;
}
})
}
Then you can do something like this:
var promise=Promise.resolve();
reduce([1,2,3,4],promise,function(promise,val){
return iter(promise, val);
}).catch(console.error);
function iter(promise, val) {
return new Promise(function(resolve, reject){
setTimeout(function(){
if (promise.break) return reject('break');
console.log(val);
if (val==3) {promise.break=true;}
resolve(val);
}, 4000-1000*val);
});
}
I solved it like follows, for example in the some method where short circuiting can save a lot:
const someShort = (list, fn) => {
let t;
try {
return list.reduce((acc, el) => {
t = fn(el);
console.log('found ?', el, t)
if (t) {
throw ''
}
return t
}, false)
} catch (e) {
return t
}
}
const someEven = someShort([1, 2, 3, 1, 5], el => el % 2 === 0)
console.log(someEven)
UPDATE
Away more generic answer could be something like the following
const escReduce = (arr, fn, init, exitFn) => {
try {
return arr.reduce((...args) => {
if (exitFn && exitFn(...args)) {
throw args[0]
}
return fn(...args)
}, init)
} catch(e){ return e }
}
escReduce(
Array.from({length: 100}, (_, i) => i+1),
(acc, e, i) => acc * e,
1,
acc => acc > 1E9
); // 6227020800
give we pass an optional exitFn which decides to break or not
Related
I wrote this solution that works, although I would like to verify with the community if there is a better way to add a pair (key, value) to a hash while I am iterating. I have to create a new function with name addPairToHashAndReturnIt as an auxiliar function.
The challenge is the following:
Create a function countBy that accepts an array and a callback, and returns an object. countBy will iterate through the array and perform the callback on each element. Each return value from the callback will be saved as a key on the object. The value associated with each key will be the number of times that particular return value was returned.
function countBy(array, callback) {
return array.reduce(
(acc, each) =>
(!acc[callback(each)] && addPairToHashAndReturnIt(acc, callback(each), each)) ||
((acc[callback(each)] += 1) && acc),
{}
);
}
const addPairToHashAndReturnIt = (hash, key, value) => {
hash[key] = 1;
return hash;
};
function evenOrOddNumber(num) {
if (num % 2 === 0) return 'even';
else return 'odd';
};
console.log(
countBy([1, 2, 3, 4, 5], evenOrOddNumber)
); // should log: { odd: 3, even: 2 }
So, what do you think about this solution?
Simplify your logic, don't make it unnecessarily complicated.
We aren't wanting to overwrite the value of hash[value] with 5 (for instance), we're just wanting to increment hash[value] every time we get a match. The form will look like hash[value]++, not hash[value] = item.
See also: Is Reduce() Bad?
const evenOrOddNumber = (num) => (num % 2 == 0)
? 'even'
: 'odd';
const countBy = (array, callback) => {
// store counts
const counts = {};
array.forEach(item => {
// store callback result, previous count
const val = callback(item);
const prevCount = counts[val] || 0;
// increment count
counts[val] = prevCount + 1;
});
return counts;
}
console.log(
countBy([1, 2, 3, 4, 5], evenOrOddNumber)
); // should log: { odd: 3, even: 2 }
For this problem, the function accepts an array of strings and returns an object. Keys are supposed to be the number of characters in a string and the value is supposed to be how many time a string with that amount of characters occurred.
I thought I was going somewhere and then I got stuck. I'd appreciate some help on this, I've tried googling it a million different ways but no luck. Thank you!
The result is supposed to look like : characterCount(['apple', 'berry', 'cherry']) // {5:2, 6:1}
function characterCount(arr){
var newObj = {};
var valueMax = 0;
var currentValue = 0;
for(var i=0; i < arr.length; i++){
var key = arr[i].length;
for(var z=0; z < arr.length; z++){
if (arr[z].length === arr[i].length){
currentValue ++;
if (currentValue > valueMax){
valueMax = currentValue;
}
}
}
newObj.key = "valueMax";
}
return newObj;
}
Look at the Array.prototype.reduce function. This allows you to take an array, iterate over each value, and return a new, reduced value.
function characterCount(arr) {
return arr.reduce((counts, str) => ({
...counts,
[str.length]: (counts[str.length] || 0) + 1
}), {});
}
const counts = characterCount(['apple', 'berry', 'cheery']);
console.log(counts);
Alternatively, you could use Object.assign instead of spreading the accumulator object.
function characterCount(arr) {
return arr.reduce((counts, str) => Object.assign(counts, {
[str.length]: (counts[str.length] || 0) + 1
}), {});
}
const counts = characterCount(['apple', 'berry', 'cheery']);
console.log(counts);
You could just reduce the array to accomplish the output
function characterCount( array ) {
return array.reduce( (agg, cur) => {
// get the length of the current item
const len = cur.length;
// increase the value of the key index with one (if none exist, start with 0)
agg[len] = (agg[len] || 0) + 1;
// return the next value for the iteration
return agg;
}, {});
}
console.log( characterCount(['apple', 'berry', 'cherry']) );
Using reduce is arguably better but here is a more straightforward approach.
function characterCount(arr) {
const countByLength = {};
for (let item of arr) {
countByLength[item.length] = (countByLength[item.length] || 0) + 1;
}
return countByLength;
}
console.log(characterCount(['apple', 'berry', 'cherry']));
const arr = [5,6,0,7,8];
const sum = (arr,num) => arr.reduce((total)=>(num==0 ? total : total+num), 0)
console.log(sum(arr, 0))
Please check how can I make it work. Did some mistake but don't know what exactly. Output is a function instead of a result.
This is awkward to do in .reduce because it goes through the entire array. If we do a naive implementation you can see the problem:
const arr = [5,6,0,7,8];
const sum = (arr,num) => arr.reduce((total, x)=>(num==x ? total : total+x), 0)
console.log(sum(arr, 0))
We now make the check correctly - num==x will return true when x is zero (the value of num). However, the result is wrong because this only returns true once but any other iteration it's still true. And here is the same thing with more logging that describes each step of the process:
const arr = [5,6,0,7,8];
const sum = (arr,num) => arr.reduce((total, x)=> {
const boolCheck = num==x;
const result = boolCheck ? total : total+x;
console.log(
`total: ${total}
num: ${num}
x: ${x}
boolCheck: ${boolCheck}
result: ${result}`);
return result;
}, 0)
console.log(sum(arr, 0))
So, you need to add some flag that persists between iterations, so it doesn't get lost.
One option is to have an external flag that you change within the reduce callback:
const arr = [5,6,0,7,8];
const sum = (arr,num) => {
let finished = false;
return arr.reduce((total, x) => {
if(x === num)
finished = true;
return finished ? total : total+x;
}, 0)
}
console.log(sum(arr, 0))
Alternatively, you can have that flag internal to the reduce callback and pass it around between calls. It works the same way in the end but makes the callback function pure. At the cost of some unorthodox construct:
const arr = [5,6,0,7,8];
const sum = (arr,num) => {
return arr.reduce(({total, finished}, x) => {
if(x === num)
finished = true;
total = finished ? total : total+x;
return {total, finished};
}, {total: 0, finished: false})
.total
}
console.log(sum(arr, 0))
If you want to use reduce but you're OK with using other methods, then you can use Array#indexOf to find the first instance of a value and Array#slice the array that contains any value up to the target value:
const arr = [5,6,0,7,8];
const sum = (arr,num) => {
const endIndex = arr.indexOf(num);
return arr.slice(0, endIndex)
.reduce((total, x)=> total+x, 0)
}
console.log(sum(arr, 0))
Or in as one chained expression:
const arr = [5,6,0,7,8];
const sum = (arr,num) => arr
.slice(0, arr.indexOf(num))
.reduce((total, x)=> total+x, 0);
console.log(sum(arr, 0))
Other libraries may have a takeUntil or takeWhile operation which is even closer to what you want - it gets you an array from the beginning up to a given value or condition. You can then reduce the result of that.
Here is an example of this using Lodash#takeWhile
By using chaining here, Lodash will do lazy evaluation, so it will only go through the array once, instead of scanning once to find the end index and going through the array again to sum it.
const arr = [5,6,0,7,8];
const sum = (arr,num) => _(arr)
.takeWhile(x => x !== num)
.reduce((total, x)=>total+x, 0)
console.log(sum(arr, 0))
<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/lodash#4.17.15/lodash.min.js"></script>
As a note, if you are using Lodash, then you may as well use _.sum(). I didn't above just to illustrate how a generic takeUntil/takeWhile looks.
const arr = [5, 6, 0, 7, 8];
const sum = (arr, num) => _(arr)
.takeWhile(x => x !== num)
.sum()
console.log(sum(arr, 0))
<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/lodash#4.17.15/lodash.min.js"></script>
Since you need to stop summing values part way through the array, this might be most simply implemented using a for loop:
const arr = [5, 6, 0, 7, 8];
const num = 0;
let sum = 0;
for (let i = 0; i < arr.length; i++) {
if (arr[i] == num) break;
sum += arr[i];
}
console.log(sum);
If you want to use reduce, you need to keep a flag that says whether you have seen the num value so you can stop adding values from the array:
const arr = [5, 6, 0, 7, 8];
const sum = (arr, num) => {
let seen = false;
return arr.reduce((c, v) => {
if (seen || v == num) {
seen = true;
return c;
}
return c + v;
}, 0);
}
console.log(sum(arr, 0));
console.log(sum(arr, 8));
call it as follows:
console.log(sum(arr, 0)());
You need parenthesis to execute the function ()
sum(arr, 0)
Without parenthesis you store a reference to the function in the variable
I would like to create a method that works like Array.prototype.findIndex but that returns all the indexes that match the condition:
Array.prototype.which = function(condition) {
let result = this.reduce((acc, x, i, arr) => {
if (condition) { acc.push(i) }
return acc
}, [])
return result
}
So that I could do:
[ 'a', null, 'b' ].which(x => x !== null) // [0, 2]
This doesn't work because I don't know how to link the x argument in the function call with the x value inside the which function.
You need to call the predicate:
Array.prototype.which = function(predicate) {
let result = this.reduce((acc, x, i, arr) => {
if (predicate(x)) { acc.push(i) }
return acc
}, [])
return result
}
I'd prefer Array#forEach.
Array.prototype.which = function(condition) {
let result = [];
this.forEach((v,i) => condition(v) ? result.push(i) : null);
return result;
}
console.log([1,2,3,4,5,6].which(v => v > 3));
An old-school for-loop method:
Array.prototype.which = function(test) {
const result = [];
for(let i = 0, l = this.length; i < l; i++) {
if (test(this[i])) {
result.push(i);
}
}
return result;
}
While it is easier to make a mistake with for and while, they sometimes offer performance gain because of fewer function calls.
I am trying to get the range of numbers using recursion. Can someone explain to me why it isn't working?
function range(x,y){
var results = [];
if(x === y){
return results;
}
return results.push(range(x + 1,y));
}
range(1,5);
The beauty of recursion is that you don't need local variables (var results). You just pass state as arguments to each recursive iteration:
const concat = (xs, y) => xs.concat(y);
const range = (x, y) => {
const rec = (x, y, acc) => x < y ? rec(x + 1, y, concat(acc, x)) : acc;
return rec(x, y, []);
}
ES5 version in case you aren't familiar with the arrow syntax:
function concat(xs, y) {
return xs.concat(y);
}
function range(x, y) {
function rec(x, y, acc) {
return x < y ? rec(x + 1, y, concat(acc, x)) : acc;
}
return rec(x, y, []);
}
That isn't the most elegant solution though!
With recursion we can simply build up the stack with each recursive call. Each stack frame contains a computed partial result. Then we just need to unwind the stack and attach each partial result to an array:
const range = (x, y) => x < y ? [x].concat(range(x + 1, y)) : [];
Or more functional:
const concat = (xs, y) => xs.concat(y);
const range = (x, y) => x < y ? concat([x], range(x + 1, y)) : [];
Note that concat([x], range(x + 1, y)) is the recursive case and [] the base case.
Try this:
function rangeOfNumbers(startNum, endNum) {
if (startNum - endNum === 0) {
return [startNum];
} else {
const numbers = rangeOfNumbers(startNum + 1, endNum);
numbers.unshift(startNum);
return numbers;
}
};
Solution:
Solved this recursion problem, which is taking 2 numbers as input and returning back the array which contains range of the numbers inclusive of the startNumber and EndNumber
Assumption-> end_num is always greater than start_num
function rangeOfNumbers(start_num, end_num) {
if(start_num!==end_num){
let numbers = rangeOfNumbers(start_num+1,end_num);
numbers.unshift(start_num);
return numbers;
}
else
return [start_num];
};
Results will be always empty since you actually don't put anything in it.
What would work is this
function range(x,y){
var results = [];
if(x === y){
return results;
}
results.push(x);
return results.concat(range(x + 1,y));
}
range(1,5);
Let's firstly try to answer your "why" question before we give a solution because none of these answers explain your "why" question.
When you return results.push(<any argument>) the return value is the length of the array after the push. On the first call in your example, x does not equal y, so we are returning the call to push. You can think of it like this:
return array.push(<anything>) is going to be the same as:
array.push(<anything>)
return array.length
Therefore, you will always return the number 1 from this because the length of the array when you push the function call to it is 1. The content of that array will be another array that's nested all the way to the n levels deep where n is the range, but it's length will still be one and you will never see the content of this array unless you did it this way:
results.push(rangeOfNumbers(x+1, y))
return results;
In your example rangeOfNumbers(1, 5), if you logged that return value it would look like this:
[ [ [ [ [ ] ] ] ] ]
I solved it this way, but I like the functional solution that was posted by another user more:
function rangeOfNumbers(s, e) {
return s == e ? [s] : [s, ...rangeOfNumbers(s+1, e)];
}
function rangeOfNumbers(startNum, endNum) {
if (startNum>endNum){
return [];
}
else{
const range = rangeOfNumbers(startNum+1, endNum);
range.unshift(startNum);
return range;
}
};
//or more simple
function rangeOfNumbers(startNum, endNum) {
return endNum>=startNum?rangeOfNumbers(startNum,endNum-1).concat(endNum):[];
};
function rangeOfNumbers(firstNum, lastNum) {
if (firstNum - lastNum === 0) {
return [lastNum];
} else {
let rangeArray = rangeOfNumbers(firstNum, lastNum - 1);
rangeArray.push(lastNum);
return rangeArray;
}
}
console.log(rangeOfNumbers(1, 5))
Lots of clever solutions posted, but I think this is a use case for the plain old 'for loop'. It's easier to see what's happening, and it will be easier for new devs on your team. My example is inclusive (it will include the min value and the max value), and it has an optional step parameter which will default to 1 if not passed in.
function range(min, max, step = 1) {
let arr = []
for (let i = min; i <= max; i = i + step ) {
arr.push(i)
}
return arr
}