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]))
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 know that if there is an array of values it must be used this approach:
console.log(['joe', 'jane', 'mary'].includes('jane')); // true
But in case of an array of arrays, is there a short way to do it? Without other computations between.
For this input:
[['jane'],['joe'],['mary']]
You can use flat method to flatten the array. For more neted array, you can also mention depth like flat(depth)
let arr = [["jane"],["joe"],["mary"]];
arr.flat().includes('jane'); //true
You can easily achieve this result using some
arr.some((a) => a.includes("jane"))
const arr = [
["jane"],
["joe"],
["mary"]
];
const arr2 = [
["joe"],
["mary"]
];
console.log(arr.some((a) => a.includes("jane")));
console.log(arr2.some((a) => a.includes("jane")));
it can also be done by first flattening the 2d arrays in 1 d aaray and then using includes to find whether the array contains the element or not
var arr = [['jane'],['joe'],['marry']]
var newarr=[].concat(...arr)
var v=newarr.includes('jane')
console.log(v)
In its most basic form, having an array of objects:
let arr = [
{val:"a"},
{val:"b"}
];
How can destructuring be used, to obtain only the values ['a', 'b'].
getting the first value is easy:
let [{val:res}] = arr; //res contains 'a'
Obtaining all values inside the array can be done with the rest operator:
let [...res] = arr; //res contains all objects
Combining those, I expected to be able to use:
let [...{val:res}] = arr; //undefined, expected all 'val's (['a', 'b'])
The above returns undefined (Tested in FF). Some further testing seems to indicate that adding the rest operator when using an object destructuring as well doesn't use the iteration, but gets back the original object, e.g. let [...{length:res}] = arr; //res= 2. Some other trials, such as let [{val:...res}] = arr; or let [{val}:...res] = arr; produce syntax errors.
It's easy enough to do with other methods, such as using map on the array, but mostly I stumble upon this problem while destructuring multiple levels (an array with objects which have their own property containing an array). Therefore I'm really trying to get around how to do it solely with destructuring.
For convenience: a test fiddle
edit
My apologies if I failed to explain the goal of the question. I'm not looking for a solution to a specific problem, only to find the correct syntax to use when destructuring.
Otherwise formulated, a first question would be: in the example above, why doesn't let [...{val:res}] = arr; return all values (['a', 'b']). The second question would be: what is the proper syntax to use a rest operator with a nested object destructuring? (pretty sure I've gotten some definitions mixed up here). It seems that the latter is not supported, but I haven't come across any documentation that (and why) it wouldn't be.
Why doesn't let [...{val:res}] = arr; return all values (['a', 'b'])?
You seem to confuse the rest syntax with array comprehensions.
If you assign a value to [someElements, ...someExpression], the value is tested to be iterable and then each element generated by the iterator is assigned to the respective someElements variable. If you use the rest syntax in the destructuring expression, an array is created and the iterator is ran till its end while filling the array with the generated values. Then that array is assigned to the someExpression.
All of these assignment targets can be other destructuring expressions (arbitrarily nested and recursively evaluated), or references to variable or properties.
So if you do let [...{val:res}] = arr, it will create an array and fill that with all the values from the iterator of arr:
let {val:res} = Array.from(arr[Symbol.iterator]())
You can see now why that ends up with undefined, and why using something like [...{length:res}] does yield a result. Another example:
let [{val:res1}, ...{length: res2}] = arr;
console.log(res1) // 'a'
console.log(res2) // 1 (length of `[{val: 'b'}]`)
How can destructuring be used to obtain only the values ['a', 'b']?
Not at all. Use the map method.
You can destructure nested objects like this
https://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Operators/Destructuring_assignment#Nested_object_and_array_destructuring
let arr = [
{val:"a"},
{val:"b"}
];
const [{val: valueOfA}, {val: valueOfB}] = arr
console.log(
valueOfA, valueOfB
)
Beside mapping with a callback for the value
let arr = [{ val: "a" }, { val: "b" }];
console.log(arr.map(o => o.val));
you could use deconstructiong inside of the paramter list and use only the value to return.
let arr = [{ val: "a" }, { val: "b" }];
console.log(arr.map(({val}) => val));
At this point of time you can use both For of loop with ES6 Object destructuring.
let arr = [{val:"a"},{val:"b"}];
for (const item in arr){
const {val} = arr[item];
console.log(val);
}
You can declare assignment target before destructuring assignment; at destructuring target, set values of assignments target indexes by from destructuring source
let arr1 = [{val: "a"}, {val: "b"}];
let arr2 = [{"foo":1,"arr":[{"val":"a"},{"val":"b"}]}
, {"foo":2,"arr":[{"val":"c"},{"val":"d"}]}];
let [res1, res2] = [[], []];
[{val: res1[0]}, {val: res1[1]}] = arr1;
[{arr: [{val:res2[0]}, {val:res2[1]}]}
, {arr: [{val:res2[2]}, {val:res2[3]}]}] = arr2;
console.log(res1, res2);
You can alternatively use rest element at target to collect values at source by including comma operator following object pattern to return value pulled from object
let arr = [{val: "a"}, {val: "b"}];
let [...res] = [({val} = arr[0], val), ({val} = arr[1], val)];
console.log(res)
I have an array of objects
var array = [{"a":11,"b":2},{"a":22,"b":2}]
From this, I want a list of values of the key 'a' in all the objects of the array.
var res = [11,22]
How do I do this as a one liner without writing a loop?
You can transform arrays with the map function:
var allA= array.map(function(o) {
return o.a;
});
var array = [{"a":11,"b":2},{"a":22,"b":2}];
var res = array.map(function(val){
return val["a"];
});
console.log(res); // [11, 22]
I know you didn't mention underscore, but just so you are aware there is a library there that you could do this in one line. The other answers are all better as they don't use any libraries and avail of the native javascript map method but I thought it would be good to highlight underscore.
var array = [{"a":11,"b":2},{"a":22,"b":2}];
_.pluck(arr, "a");
You won't get shorter than that. To use this function you need to include the underscore library, and also, you can read the annotated source code here which is a great way to learn javascript to a more advanced level - http://underscorejs.org/docs/underscore.html
// given this array:
var arr = [{"a":11,"b":2},{"a":22,"b":2}];
// you can do this:
var res = arr.map(function (o, i, a) {
return o.a;
});
jsFiddle example
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)