I have a string like this being returned from my backend:
"1,2,3,4,5,6"
I have a large array locally and want to display only those items not in this list, so I was thinking of exploding this string into an array but how can I search efficiently? As far as I know there are no hashmaps in JS so how does one do this? I just need to check for key existence.
All Javascript objects are also hash tables that can store string or numeric keys:
var x = {};
x["foo"] = 1;
if("foo" in x) { alert("hello!"); }
if("bar" in x) { alert("should never see this"); }
"1,2,3,4,5,6".split(",").some(function(letter) {
return letter === '2'
});
Warning: Might not work in IE (or other crappy browser)
Cross browser version (that relies on native code for performance):
var arr = "1,2,3,4,5,6".split(",");
if(arr.some)
{
arr.some(function(letter) {
return letter === '2'
});
}
else
{
for(var i = 0 ; i < arr.length ; i++ )
{
if(arr[i] === '2') return true;
}
}
Related
I try to create arrays in arrays and then forward it to JSON.
First problem, when i try to use a lista.length or something, console always return 0. I tried to overpass this problem and create another array, but now I have problem with JSON - always return [] - empty lista array.
var lista = [];
var licz = [];
function ListujBledy(value, where) {
var checked = document.getElementById(value).checked;
var desc;
if (value == "blad-tab") {
desc = "Nieprzeźroczysta lista graczy.";
} else if (value == "blad-tab1") {
desc = "Brak listy graczy na początkowym zrzucie ekranu.";
} else if (value == "blad-tab2") {
desc = "Brak listy graczy na końcowym zrzucie ekranu.";
}
if (checked == true) {
if (lista[where] == undefined) {
var temp = [];
temp[value] = desc;
lista[where] = temp;
licz[where] = 1;
} else if (licz[where] == 1) {
var temp = lista[where];
temp[value] = desc;
lista[where] = temp;
licz[where] = 2;
} else if (licz[where] == 2) {
var temp = lista[where];
temp[value] = desc;
lista[where] = temp;
licz[where] = 3;
}
} else {
if (licz[where] == 1) {
delete lista[where];
licz[where] = 0;
} else if (licz[where] == 2) {
delete lista[where][value];
licz[where] = 1;
} else if (licz[where] == 3) {
delete lista[where][value];
licz[where] = 2;
}
}
console.log(lista.length);
console.log(lista);
console.log(JSON.stringify(lista));
console.log("---------------------------------------------------------");
}
Console log from browser:
I don't have more ideas, I can't use lista[0], lista[1] etc. everything must be functional. Eveyrthing is taken from variables but everywhere I was looking for information about it, everybody using numbers in key or permanent keys.
Editied version of code:
I know that checked could have been better done, so I corrected it here.
https://jsfiddle.net/5vdgLtue/1/
The main problem is that even if I do this https://jsfiddle.net/5vdgLtue/0/ the array returns this element, but the length function says it is 0.
It looks like you might be starting out with javascript. Keep in mind that you haven't actually called the function at any point in your code. Is that the case or are you not sharing the full code you have run?
There is only one condition in which the array 'lista' could gain value: if 'check'== true and 'where' == undefined.
In that scenario, you declare the array 'temp' and declare temp[value]= desc. However, if 'value' contains a value different than "blad-tab", "blad-tab1" or "blad-tab2", 'desc' remains empty therefore temp[value] has a name but no value. You are then assigning a named valueless item to lista[where] which would explain why your console displays content but no length. btw, this would be easier if you named your variable something other than 'value' .
Problem is your selector points to the parent element. In jquery you could do this less code but assuming you're not using jQuery. Try something like:
function getDesc(chkboxName) {
var checkboxes = document.getElementsByName(chkboxName);
//or use getElementsbyClassName...
var checkboxesChecked = [];
// loop over them all
for (var i=0; i<checkboxes.length; i++) {
// And stick the checked ones onto an array...
if (checkboxes[i].checked) {
checkboxesChecked.push(checkboxes[i]);
}
}
for (var i=0; i<checkboxesChecked.length; i++) {
if (checkboxesChecked[i].value === "blad-tab") {
desc = "Nieprzeźroczysta lista graczy.";
} else if (checkboxesChecked[i].value === "blad-tab1") {
desc = "Brak listy graczy na początkowym zrzucie ekranu.";
} else if (checkboxesChecked[i].value === "blad-tab2") {
desc = "Brak listy graczy na końcowym zrzucie ekranu.";
}
}
return desc;
}
This should answer most of your questions.
In summary:
In javascript there are 2 types of arrays: standard arrays and associative arrays
[ ] - standard array - 0 based integer indexes only
{ } - associative array - javascript objects where keys can be any strings
What you are doing is using array in an associative manner. Basically, you are adding properties to your array objects, unlike a standard array where you would only assign values by zero-indexed numbers like temp[0]='something', lista[1]='some other thing' etc.
If you want the length of the key set of the array, then you can use Object.keys(lista).length. This should solve your problem.
Hey guys I am trying trying to right this javascript code into c++. I am doing quick sort and everything is straight forward minus the last step.
function quickSort(arr)
{
//base case if the arr is 1 or 0 then return the array
if(arr.length === 1 || arr.length === 0)
{
return arr;
}
var pivotIndex = Math.floor(arr.length/2);
var pivotValue = arr[pivotIndex];
var before = [];
var after = [];
for(var counter = 0; counter < arr.length; counter++)
{
if(counter === pivotIndex)
continue;
if(pivotValue <= arr[counter])
{
before.push(arr[counter])
}
else
{
after.push(arr[counter])
}
}
//this step I am having trouble rewriting in c++
return quickSort(after).concat(pivotValue).concat(quickSort(before));
}
I am having a hard time rewriting the recursive step in c++. I am not sure how concat 2 vector. I tried using the insert method but I keep getting an error about invalid use of void expression.
vector<int> quickSort(vector<int> arr)
{
if(arr.size() == 1 || arr.size() == 0)
{
return arr;
}
int pivotIndex = arr.size()/2;
int pivotValue = arr[pivotIndex];
vector<int> before;
vector<int> after;
//put values in before or after the piv
for(size_t counter = 0; counter < arr.size(); counter++)
{
if(counter == pivotIndex)
continue;
if(pivotValue <= arr[counter])
before.push_back( arr[counter]);
else
after.push_back( arr[counter]);
}
return //????? not sure how to do this
}
So, you realized that your core question was "how to concatenate two vectors", and you found a right answer: using insert. Now your question is about why you were getting "an error about invalid use of void expression." (That's the assumption my answer is for, at least.)
That's because you were likely trying to do something like the following:
return quickSort(after).insert( /* stuff */ );
which is wrong. In JavaScript, array.concat returns the concatenated array. It's return type is effectively Array, and so doing return arr.concat(arr2) returns an Array because arr.concat would return an Array. Further, in JavaScript, array.concat doesn't modify the array it was called on, but rather returns a new array.
In C++, however, vector.insert (#4 in the reference) returns void. That means it returns nothing. So when you try to return the result of insert, you get that error about invalid use of a void expression. Further, in C++, vector.insert does modify the vector it was called on.
So how do you use insert in this case?
vector<int> quickSort(vector<int> arr)
{
// ...
// Sort `before` and `after`
before = quickSort(before);
after = quickSort(after);
// Modify `after` and return it.
after.push_back(pivotValue);
after.insert(after.end(), before.begin(), before.end());
return after;
}
Note: My code isn't optimal and the idea of rewriting JS in C++ is also oddly specific. My answer is to simply outline the problem asked in the question, not to give a good C++ implementation of quick sort.
To concat two vector , you can use std::merge
like:std::merge(v1.begin(), v1.end(), v2.begin(), v2.end(), std::back_inserter(dst));
I have found a few posts on here with similar questions but not entirely the same as what I am trying. I am currently using a simple if statement that checks the data the user enters then checks to see if it starts with a number of different values. I am doing this with the following:
var value = string;
var value = value.toLowerCase();
country = "NONE";
county = "NONE";
if (value.indexOf('ba1 ') == 0 || value.indexOf('ba2 ') == 0 || value.indexOf('ba3 ') == 0) { //CHECK AVON (MAINLAND UK) UK.AVON
country = "UK";
county = "UK.AVON";
} else if(value.indexOf('lu') == 0){//CHECK BEDFORDSHIRE (MAINLAND UK) UK.BEDS
country = "UK";
county = "UK.BEDS";
}
I have about 20-30 different if, else statements that are basically checking the post code entered and finding the county associated. However some of these if statements are incredibly long so I would like to store the values inside an array and then in the if statement simply check value.indexOf() for each of the array values.
So in the above example I would have an array as follows for the statement:
var avon = new Array('ba1 ','ba 2','ba3 ');
then inside the indexOf() use each value
Would this be possible with minimal script or am I going to need to make a function for this to work? I am ideally wanting to keep the array inside the if statement instead of querying for each array value.
You can use the some Array method (though you might need to shim it for legacy environments):
var value = string.toLowerCase(),
country = "NONE",
county = "NONE";
if (['ba1 ','ba 2','ba3 '].some(function(str) {
return value.slice(0, str.length) === str;
})) {
country = "UK";
county = "UK.AVON";
}
(using a more performant How to check if a string "StartsWith" another string? implementation also)
For an even shorter condition, you might also resort to regex (anchor and alternation):
if (/^ba(1 | 2|3 )/i.test(string)) { … }
No, it doesn’t exist, but you can make a function to do just that:
function containsAny(string, substrings) {
for(var i = 0; i < substrings.length; i++) {
if(string.indexOf(substrings[i]) !== -1) {
return true;
}
}
return false;
}
Alternatively, there’s a regular expression:
/ba[123] /.test(value)
My recomendation is to rethink your approach and use regular expressions instead of indexOf.
But if you really need it, you can use the following method:
function checkStart(value, acceptableStarts){
for (var i=0; i<acceptableStarts.length; i++) {
if (value.indexOf(acceptableStarts[i]) == 0) {
return true;
}
}
return false;
}
Your previous usage turns into:
if (checkStart(value, ['ba1', ba2 ', 'ba3'])) {
country = 'UK';
}
Even better you can generalize stuff, like this:
var countryPrefixes = {
'UK' : ['ba1','ba2 ', 'ba3'],
'FR' : ['fa2','fa2']
}
for (var key in countryPrefixes) {
if (checkStart(value, countryPrefixes[key]) {
country = key;
}
}
I'd forget using hard-coded logic for this, and just use data:
var countyMapping = {
'BA1': 'UK.AVON',
'BA2': 'UK.AVON',
'BA3': 'UK.AVON',
'LU': 'UK.BEDS',
...
};
Take successive characters off the right hand side of the postcode and do a trivial lookup in the table until you get a match. Four or so lines of code ought to do it:
function getCounty(str) {
while (str.length) {
var res = countyMapping[str];
if (res !== undefined) return res;
str = str.slice(0, -1);
}
}
I'd suggest normalising your strings first to ensure that the space between the two halves of the postcode is present and in the right place.
For extra bonus points, get the table out of a database so you don't have to modify your code when Scotland gets thrown out of leaves the UK ;-)
I'm pulling my hair out over this one. I have two arrays, likes & dislikes, both filled with about 50 strings each.
I also have a JSON object, data.results, which contains about 50 objects, each with an _id parameter.
I'm trying to check find all the objects within data.results that aren't in both likes and dislikes.
Here's my code at present:
var newResults = []
for(var i = 0; i<data.results.length; i++){
for(var x = 0; x<likes.length; x++){
if(!(data.results[i]._id == likes[x])){
for(var y = 0; y<dislikes.length; y++){
if(!(data.results[i]._id == dislikes[y])){
newResults.push(data.results[i]);
console.log("pushed " + data.results[i]._id);
}
else
{
console.log("They already HATE " + data.results[i]._id + " foo!"); //temp
}
}
}
else
{
console.log(data.results[i]._id + " is already liked!"); //temp
}
}
}
As you can see, I'm iterating through all the data.results objects. Then I check whether their _id is in likes. If it isn't, I check whether it's in dislikes. Then if it still isn't, I push it to newResults.
As you might expect by looking at it, this code currently pushes the result into my array once for each iteration, so i end up with a massive array of like 600 objects.
What's the good, simple way to achieve this?
for (var i = 0; i < data.results.length; i++) {
isInLiked = (likes.indexOf(data.results[i]) > -1);
isInHated = (dislikes.indexOf(data.results[i]) > -1);
if (!isInLiked && !isInHated) {
etc...
}
}
When checking whether an Array contains an element, Array.prototype.indexOf (which is ECMAScript 5, but shimmable for older browsers), comes in handy.
Even more when combined with the bitwise NOT operator ~ and a cast to a Boolean !
Lets take a look how this could work.
Array.prototype.indexOf returns -1 if an Element is not found.
Applying a ~ to -1 gives us 0, applying an ! to a 0 gives us true.
So !~[...].indexOf (var) gives us a Boolean represantation, of whether an Element is NOT in an Array. The other way round !!~[...].indexOf (var) would yield true if an Element was found.
Let's wrap this logic in a contains function, to simply reuse it.
function contains (array,element) {
return !!~array.indexOf (element);
}
Now we only need an logical AND && to combine the output, of your 2 arrays, passed to the contains function.
var likes = ["a","b","f"] //your likes
var dislikes = ["c","g","h"] //your dislikes
var result = ["a","c","d","e","f"]; //the result containing the strings
var newresult = []; //the new result you want the strings which are NOT in likes or dislikes, being pushed to
for (var i = 0,j;j=result[i++];) //iterate over the results array
if (!contains(likes,j) && !contains (dislikes,j)) //check if it is NOT in likes AND NOT in dislikes
newresult.push (j) //if so, push it to the newresult array.
console.log (newresult) // ["d","e"]
Here is a Fiddle
Edit notes:
1. Added an contains function, as #Scott suggested
Use likes.indexOf(data.results[i]._id) and dislikes.indexOf(data.results[i]._id).
if (likes.indexOf(data.results[i]._id) != -1)
{
// they like it :D
}
Try first creating an array of common strings between likes and dislikes
var commonStrAry=[];
for(var i = 0; i<likes.length; i++){
for(var j=0; j<dislikes.length; j++){
if(likes[i] === dislikes[j]){
commonStrAry.push(likes[i] );
}
}
}
then you can use this to check against data.results and just remove the elements that don't match.
I'm currently working on a script that helps to manage connections to phone numbers with different things like contacts, text messages, etc. The big problem with phone numbers in our data is that a phone number can be something like..
13334445555
3334445555
013334445555
444555
All of these would probably be the same number. So, I've got a 'lookupNumber' method on an object that contains all sorts of references (none of which are important for this question), and a hasVariant method on each 'cloud' - a name that I gave to an object that represents one or more variations of a phone number. The 'cloud' could start off with a shorter number than the ones given to it, so it has to be able to vary which number it is trying to place.
The object with all the 'clouds' has a relevant data structure of:
{
clouds: [], //0-n clouds
phoneNumberCache: {} //i.e. 333444555: {//ref to cloud}
}
The 'clouds' have the relevant data structure of:
{
numbers: [] //1-n numbers
}
lookupNumber method:
lookupNumber: function (number) {
if(this.phoneNumberCache[number] === undefined) {
var i, l, cloud;
for (i = 0, l = this.clouds.length; i < l; i++) {
cloud = this.clouds[i];
if(cloud.hasVariant(number)) {
this.phoneNumberCache[number] = cloud;
return cloud;
}
}
return false;
} else {
return this.phoneNumberCache[number];
}
}
hasVariant method:
hasVariant: function (testNumber) {
for(var i = 0, l = this.numbers.length; i < l; i++) {
var number = this.numbers[i], needle, haystack, index, needleLength, haystackLength;
if(testNumber.length < number.length) {
needle = testNumber;
haystack = number;
} else {
needle = number;
haystack = testNumber;
}
needleLength = needle.length;
haystackLength = haystack.length;
if(needleLength <= this.minimumLength && haystackLength != needleLength) {
continue;
}
index = haystack.indexOf(needle);
if(index != -1 && (index + needleLength) == haystackLength && (needleLength / haystackLength) > this.minimumMatch) {
return true;
}
}
return false;
}
On my testing account, the performance is 'meh' on firefox and terrible on IE8 (the minimum IE browser we support). Firebug is reporting the following times for the two methods:
Function Calls Percent Own Time Time Avg Min Max
hasVariant 1355484 32.1% 1653.577ms 1653.577ms 0.001ms 0.001ms 0.205ms
lookupNumber 2120 31.17% 1605.947ms 3259.524ms 1.538ms 0.001ms 4.736ms
The test data has 1674 unique phone numbers in it - about 450 of the 'lookupNumber' calls are going to return an already cached number.
Maybe I've been staring at the data too long, but it seems the number of times the 'hasVariant' gets called is way too high and they're both such simple methods.. I can't think of any way to make them faster. Because it's still very slow on IE, I'm still looking for a way to squeeze some more performance out of it. Any ideas on how to make this more efficient? Or do I have a bug in here that might be causing this to not cache a number?
I have an idea: don't use an array to store the numbers inside of the cloud. Instead, use an object as so:
cloud : {
numbers : {
"4445555" : true,
"3334445555" : true,
// Etc
}
}
This way, when you want to check if a number is in there, just do something like this:
hasVariant : function (number) {
while (number.length >= 7) {
if (this.numbers[number]) return true;
number = number.substring(1);
}
return false;
}
I think this should be faster than your version.