Related
Are there any substantial reasons why modifying Array.push() to return the object pushed rather than the length of the new array might be a bad idea?
I don't know if this has already been proposed or asked before; Google searches returned only a myriad number of questions related to the current functionality of Array.push().
Here's an example implementation of this functionality, feel free to correct it:
;(function() {
var _push = Array.prototype.push;
Array.prototype.push = function() {
return this[_push.apply(this, arguments) - 1];
}
}());
You would then be able to do something like this:
var someArray = [],
value = "hello world";
function someFunction(value, obj) {
obj["someKey"] = value;
}
someFunction(value, someArray.push({}));
Where someFunction modifies the object passed in as the second parameter, for example. Now the contents of someArray are [{"someKey": "hello world"}].
Are there any drawbacks to this approach?
See my detailed answer here
TLDR;
You can get the return value of the mutated array, when you instead add an element using array.concat[].
concat is a way of "adding" or "joining" two arrays together. The awesome thing about this method, is that it has a return value of the resultant array, so it can be chained.
newArray = oldArray.concat[newItem];
This also allows you to chain functions together
updatedArray = oldArray.filter((item) => {
item.id !== updatedItem.id).concat[updatedItem]};
Where item = {id: someID, value: someUpdatedValue}
The main thing to notice is, that you need to pass an array to concat.
So make sure that you put your value to be "pushed" inside a couple of square brackets, and you're good to go.
This will give you the functionality you expected from push()
You can use the + operator to "add" two arrays together, or by passing the arrays to join as parameters to concat().
let arrayAB = arrayA + arrayB;
let arrayCD = concat(arrayC, arrayD);
Note that by using the concat method, you can take advantage of "chaining" commands before and after concat.
Are there any substantial reasons why modifying Array.push() to return the object pushed rather than the length of the new array might be a bad idea?
Of course there is one: Other code will expect Array::push to behave as defined in the specification, i.e. to return the new length. And other developers will find your code incomprehensible if you did redefine builtin functions to behave unexpectedly.
At least choose a different name for the method.
You would then be able to do something like this: someFunction(value, someArray.push({}));
Uh, what? Yeah, my second point already strikes :-)
However, even if you didn't use push this does not get across what you want to do. The composition that you should express is "add an object which consist of a key and a value to an array". With a more functional style, let someFunction return this object, and you can write
var someArray = [],
value = "hello world";
function someFunction(value, obj) {
obj["someKey"] = value;
return obj;
}
someArray.push(someFunction(value, {}));
Just as a historical note -- There was an older version of JavaScript -- JavaScript version 1.2 -- that handled a number of array functions quite differently.
In particular to this question, Array.push did return the item, not the length of the array.
That said, 1.2 has been not been used for decades now -- but some very old references might still refer to this behavior.
http://web.archive.org/web/20010408055419/developer.netscape.com/docs/manuals/communicator/jsguide/js1_2.htm
By the coming of ES6, it is recommended to extend array class in the proper way , then , override push method :
class XArray extends Array {
push() {
super.push(...arguments);
return (arguments.length === 1) ? arguments[0] : arguments;
}
}
//---- Application
let list = [1, 3, 7,5];
list = new XArray(...list);
console.log(
'Push one item : ',list.push(4)
);
console.log(
'Push multi-items :', list.push(-9, 2)
);
console.log(
'Check length :' , list.length
)
Method push() returns the last element added, which makes it very inconvenient when creating short functions/reducers. Also, push() - is a rather archaic stuff in JS. On ahother hand we have spread operator [...] which is faster and does what you needs: it exactly returns an array.
// to concat arrays
const a = [1,2,3];
const b = [...a, 4, 5];
console.log(b) // [1, 2, 3, 4, 5];
// to concat and get a length
const arrA = [1,2,3,4,5];
const arrB = [6,7,8];
console.log([0, ...arrA, ...arrB, 9].length); // 10
// to reduce
const arr = ["red", "green", "blue"];
const liArr = arr.reduce( (acc,cur) => [...acc, `<li style='color:${cur}'>${cur}</li>`],[]);
console.log(liArr);
//[ "<li style='color:red'>red</li>",
//"<li style='color:green'>green</li>",
//"<li style='color:blue'>blue</li>" ]
var arr = [];
var element = Math.random();
assert(element === arr[arr.push(element)-1]);
How about doing someArray[someArray.length]={} instead of someArray.push({})? The value of an assignment is the value being assigned.
var someArray = [],
value = "hello world";
function someFunction(value, obj) {
obj["someKey"] = value;
}
someFunction(value, someArray[someArray.length]={});
console.log(someArray)
I want to merge all the properties from an array of objects into one single object using lodash? I can iterate the array or call apply on _.merge:
const arr = [{1:1, 2:2},{3:3},{4:4}];
_.merge.apply(_, arr); //{1:1, 2:2, 3:3, 4:4};
is there an alternative without using apply?
Working Example
You could use each and extend:
var o = {};
var arr = [{1:1, 2:2},{3:3},{4:4}];
_.each(arr, function(e) {
_.extend(o, e);
});
or reduce:
var otherWay = _.reduce(arr, function(obj, next) {
return _.extend(obj, next);
}, {});
With ES6, you can do this:
const arr = [{1:1, 2:2},{3:3},{4:4}];
_.merge(...arr);
You should only do this if you're only targeting new browsers that support this, or if you're using a transpiler like Babel.
If you don't want to use ES6, then there's no reason to not use .apply. It's part of Javascript. Lodash has no need to re-invent this feature. You shouldn't expect a library to do everything and replace the language itself. The other loop-based answers (.reduce, .each, etc.) are needlessly less efficient than they need to be, since both _.merge and Object.assign support more than two parameters.
looks like the prefect situation to use [].reduce (JS not lodash) :
const arr = [{1:1, 2:2},{3:3},{4:4}];
const r = arr.reduce((ac,x) => Object.assign(ac,x),{})
console.log(r)
You can use reduce() with merge() as the iterator and an empty object as the base object for the merge to prevent the mutation any mutation of the items of the array.
var arr = [{1:1, 2:2},{3:3},{4:4}];
var result = _.reduce(arr, _.merge, {});
document.write('<pre>' + JSON.stringify(result, 0, 4) + '</pre>');
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.11.2/lodash.js"></script>
Note: The solution that you're using right now mutates the items of the array.
I will give a very silly answer. Well thinking it over, since Object.assign() just makes shallow copies this might practically work out better if you are not fond of recursive operations.
var arr = [{1:1, 2:2},{3:3},{4:4}],
merged = JSON.parse(arr.reduce((s,o)=> s+JSON.stringify(o),"").replace(/}{/g,","));
document.write("<pre>" +JSON.stringify(merged,null,2) + "</pre>");
This question already has answers here:
Copy array by value
(39 answers)
Closed 8 years ago.
I have an array example fruit . I'd like to copy it as array fruits2, without keeping reference.
As in the following example reference is kept so fruits is modified.
var fruit = function (name){
this.name = name;
}
var fruits = [];
fruits.push(new fruit('apple'));
fruits.push(new fruit('banana'));
fruits.push(new fruit('orange'));
var fruits2 = fruits;
fruits2.length = 0;
console.log(fruits);
http://jsfiddle.net/vkdqur82/
Using JSON.stringify and JSON.parse does the trick but the objects in fruits2 are not any longer of type fruit but are of general type object
var temp = JSON.stringify(fruits);
var fruits2 = JSON.parse(temp);
I would like to know an alternative approach which would keep inner object of fruit.
Use slice: var fruits2 = fruits.slice(); should do it.
Your jsFiddle, modified
See also: MDN
**Edit. I was a bit lazy, let's correct my answer to make up for that.
For an Array of just values slice is perfect. For an Array of objects or arrays or a mix of values/objects/arrays, the Array and Object elements of the Array to clone need cloning too. Otherwise they will be references to the original arrays or objects (so: not copies) and a change of one [of these references of arrays or objects] will be reflected in all 'clones' containing a reference to it.
To clone an Array of Arrays/Objects/mixed values Array.map is your friend. There are several methods to think of:
creating a new instance with old data
var fruits1 = fruits.map(function(v) {return new Fruit(v.name);});
using JSON
var fruits2 = fruits.map(function(v) {return JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(v));});
create and use some cloning method
var fruits3 = fruits.map(function(v) {return cloneObj(v);});
In case 3, a method for cloning could look like:
function cloneObj(obj) {
function clone(o, curr) {
for (var l in o){
if (o[l] instanceof Object) {
curr[l] = cloneObj(o[l]);
} else {
curr[l] = o[l];
}
}
return curr;
}
return obj instanceof Array
? obj.slice().map( function (v) { return cloneObj(v); } )
: obj instanceof Object
? clone(obj, {})
: obj;
}
Using this cloneObj method, Array.map is obsolete.
You can also use var fruitsx = cloneObj(fruits);
The jsFiddle from the link above is modified to demonstrate these methods.
For Array.map, see again MDN
slice can do the trick.
You can also use .map but .slice is normally faster.
var copy = fruits.map(function(item) {return item});
Hope it helps
You can declare a new array and use concat method, so that you concat all values from your array to the new array. Something like this:
var x = ["a","b"];
var a = [];
a = a.concat(x);
console.log(a);
I edited my poor answer.
Best regards.
Are there any substantial reasons why modifying Array.push() to return the object pushed rather than the length of the new array might be a bad idea?
I don't know if this has already been proposed or asked before; Google searches returned only a myriad number of questions related to the current functionality of Array.push().
Here's an example implementation of this functionality, feel free to correct it:
;(function() {
var _push = Array.prototype.push;
Array.prototype.push = function() {
return this[_push.apply(this, arguments) - 1];
}
}());
You would then be able to do something like this:
var someArray = [],
value = "hello world";
function someFunction(value, obj) {
obj["someKey"] = value;
}
someFunction(value, someArray.push({}));
Where someFunction modifies the object passed in as the second parameter, for example. Now the contents of someArray are [{"someKey": "hello world"}].
Are there any drawbacks to this approach?
See my detailed answer here
TLDR;
You can get the return value of the mutated array, when you instead add an element using array.concat[].
concat is a way of "adding" or "joining" two arrays together. The awesome thing about this method, is that it has a return value of the resultant array, so it can be chained.
newArray = oldArray.concat[newItem];
This also allows you to chain functions together
updatedArray = oldArray.filter((item) => {
item.id !== updatedItem.id).concat[updatedItem]};
Where item = {id: someID, value: someUpdatedValue}
The main thing to notice is, that you need to pass an array to concat.
So make sure that you put your value to be "pushed" inside a couple of square brackets, and you're good to go.
This will give you the functionality you expected from push()
You can use the + operator to "add" two arrays together, or by passing the arrays to join as parameters to concat().
let arrayAB = arrayA + arrayB;
let arrayCD = concat(arrayC, arrayD);
Note that by using the concat method, you can take advantage of "chaining" commands before and after concat.
Are there any substantial reasons why modifying Array.push() to return the object pushed rather than the length of the new array might be a bad idea?
Of course there is one: Other code will expect Array::push to behave as defined in the specification, i.e. to return the new length. And other developers will find your code incomprehensible if you did redefine builtin functions to behave unexpectedly.
At least choose a different name for the method.
You would then be able to do something like this: someFunction(value, someArray.push({}));
Uh, what? Yeah, my second point already strikes :-)
However, even if you didn't use push this does not get across what you want to do. The composition that you should express is "add an object which consist of a key and a value to an array". With a more functional style, let someFunction return this object, and you can write
var someArray = [],
value = "hello world";
function someFunction(value, obj) {
obj["someKey"] = value;
return obj;
}
someArray.push(someFunction(value, {}));
Just as a historical note -- There was an older version of JavaScript -- JavaScript version 1.2 -- that handled a number of array functions quite differently.
In particular to this question, Array.push did return the item, not the length of the array.
That said, 1.2 has been not been used for decades now -- but some very old references might still refer to this behavior.
http://web.archive.org/web/20010408055419/developer.netscape.com/docs/manuals/communicator/jsguide/js1_2.htm
By the coming of ES6, it is recommended to extend array class in the proper way , then , override push method :
class XArray extends Array {
push() {
super.push(...arguments);
return (arguments.length === 1) ? arguments[0] : arguments;
}
}
//---- Application
let list = [1, 3, 7,5];
list = new XArray(...list);
console.log(
'Push one item : ',list.push(4)
);
console.log(
'Push multi-items :', list.push(-9, 2)
);
console.log(
'Check length :' , list.length
)
Method push() returns the last element added, which makes it very inconvenient when creating short functions/reducers. Also, push() - is a rather archaic stuff in JS. On ahother hand we have spread operator [...] which is faster and does what you needs: it exactly returns an array.
// to concat arrays
const a = [1,2,3];
const b = [...a, 4, 5];
console.log(b) // [1, 2, 3, 4, 5];
// to concat and get a length
const arrA = [1,2,3,4,5];
const arrB = [6,7,8];
console.log([0, ...arrA, ...arrB, 9].length); // 10
// to reduce
const arr = ["red", "green", "blue"];
const liArr = arr.reduce( (acc,cur) => [...acc, `<li style='color:${cur}'>${cur}</li>`],[]);
console.log(liArr);
//[ "<li style='color:red'>red</li>",
//"<li style='color:green'>green</li>",
//"<li style='color:blue'>blue</li>" ]
var arr = [];
var element = Math.random();
assert(element === arr[arr.push(element)-1]);
How about doing someArray[someArray.length]={} instead of someArray.push({})? The value of an assignment is the value being assigned.
var someArray = [],
value = "hello world";
function someFunction(value, obj) {
obj["someKey"] = value;
}
someFunction(value, someArray[someArray.length]={});
console.log(someArray)
Set seems like a nice way to create Arrays with guaranteed unique elements, but it does not expose any good way to get properties, except for generator [Set].values, which is called in an awkward way of mySet.values.next().
This would have been ok, if you could call map and similar functions on Sets. But you cannot do that, as well.
I've tried Array.from, but seems to be converting only array-like (NodeList and TypedArrays ?) objects to Array. Another try: Object.keys does not work for Sets, and Set.prototype does not have similar static method.
So, the question: Is there any convenient inbuilt method for creating an Array with values of a given Set ? (Order of element does not really matter).
if no such option exists, then maybe there is a nice idiomatic one-liner for doing that ? like, using for...of, or similar ?
if no such option exists, then maybe there is a nice idiomatic
one-liner for doing that ? like, using for...of, or similar ?
Indeed, there are several ways to convert a Set to an Array:
Using Array.from:
Note: safer for TypeScript.
const array = Array.from(mySet);
Simply spreading the Set out in an array:
Note: Spreading a Set has issues when compiled with TypeScript (See issue #8856). It's safer to use Array.from above instead.
const array = [...mySet];
The old-fashioned way, iterating and pushing to a new array (Sets do have forEach):
const array = [];
mySet.forEach(v => array.push(v));
Previously, using the non-standard, and now deprecated array comprehension syntax:
const array = [v for (v of mySet)];
via https://speakerdeck.com/anguscroll/es6-uncensored by Angus Croll
It turns out, we can use spread operator:
var myArr = [...mySet];
Or, alternatively, use Array.from:
var myArr = Array.from(mySet);
Assuming you are just using Set temporarily to get unique values in an array and then converting back to an Array, try using this:
_.uniq([])
This relies on using underscore or lo-dash.
Perhaps to late to the party, but you could just do the following:
const set = new Set(['a', 'b']);
const values = set.values();
const array = Array.from(values);
This should work without problems in browsers that have support for ES6 or if you have a shim that correctly polyfills the above functionality.
Edit: Today you can just use what #c69 suggests:
const set = new Set(['a', 'b']);
const array = [...set]; // or Array.from(set)
Use spread Operator to get your desired result
var arrayFromSet = [...set];
The code below creates a set from an array and then, using the ... operator.
var arr=[1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,];
var set=new Set(arr);
let setarr=[...set];
console.log(setarr);
SIMPLEST ANSWER
just spread the set inside []
let mySet = new Set()
mySet.add(1)
mySet.add(5)
mySet.add(5)
let arr = [...mySet ]
Result: [1,5]
In my case the solution was:
var testSet = new Set();
var testArray = [];
testSet.add("1");
testSet.add("2");
testSet.add("2"); // duplicate item
testSet.add("3");
var someFunction = function (value1, value2, setItself) {
testArray.push(value1);
};
testSet.forEach(someFunction);
console.log("testArray: " + testArray);
value1 equals value2 => The value contained in the the current position in the Set. The same value is passed for both arguments
Worked under IE11.
Using Set and converting it to an array is very similar to copying an Array...
So you can use the same methods for copying an array which is very easy in ES6
For example, you can use ...
Imagine you have this Set below:
const a = new Set(["Alireza", "Dezfoolian", "is", "a", "developer"]);
You can simply convert it using:
const b = [...a];
and the result is:
["Alireza", "Dezfoolian", "is", "a", "developer"]
An array and now you can use all methods that you can use for an array...
Other common ways of doing it:
const b = Array.from(a);
or using loops like:
const b = [];
a.forEach(v => b.push(v));
the simplistic way to doing this
const array = [...new Set([1,1,2,3,3,4,5])]
console.log(array)
Here is an easy way to get only unique raw values from array. If you convert the array to Set and after this, do the conversion from Set to array. This conversion works only for raw values, for objects in the array it is not valid. Try it by yourself.
let myObj1 = {
name: "Dany",
age: 35,
address: "str. My street N5"
}
let myObj2 = {
name: "Dany",
age: 35,
address: "str. My street N5"
}
var myArray = [55, 44, 65, myObj1, 44, myObj2, 15, 25, 65, 30];
console.log(myArray);
var mySet = new Set(myArray);
console.log(mySet);
console.log(mySet.size === myArray.length);// !! The size differs because Set has only unique items
let uniqueArray = [...mySet];
console.log(uniqueArray);
// Here you will see your new array have only unique elements with raw
// values. The objects are not filtered as unique values by Set.
// Try it by yourself.
I would prefer to start with removing duplications from an array and then try to sort.
Return the 1st element from new array.
function processData(myArray) {
var s = new Set(myArray);
var arr = [...s];
return arr.sort((a,b) => b-a)[1];
}
console.log(processData([2,3,6,6,5]);
function countUniqueValues(arr) {
return Array.from(new Set(arr)).length
}
console.log(countUniqueValues([1, 2, 3, 4, 4, 4, 7, 7, 12, 12, 13]))