I would like to filter an array of items by using the map() function. Here is a code snippet:
var filteredItems = items.map(function(item)
{
if( ...some condition... )
{
return item;
}
});
The problem is that filtered out items still uses space in the array and I would like to completely wipe them out.
Any idea?
EDIT: Thanks, I forgot about filter(), what I wanted is actually a filter() then a map().
EDIT2: Thanks for pointing that map() and filter() are not implemented in all browsers, although my specific code was not intended to run in a browser.
You should use the filter method rather than map unless you want to mutate the items in the array, in addition to filtering.
eg.
var filteredItems = items.filter(function(item)
{
return ...some condition...;
});
[Edit: Of course you could always do sourceArray.filter(...).map(...) to both filter and mutate]
Inspired by writing this answer, I ended up later expanding and writing a blog post going over this in careful detail. I recommend checking that out if you want to develop a deeper understanding of how to think about this problem--I try to explain it piece by piece, and also give a JSperf comparison at the end, going over speed considerations.
That said, **The tl;dr is this:
To accomplish what you're asking for (filtering and mapping within one function call), you would use Array.reduce()**.
However, the more readable and (less importantly) usually significantly faster2 approach is to just use filter and map chained together:
[1,2,3].filter(num => num > 2).map(num => num * 2)
What follows is a description of how Array.reduce() works, and how it can be used to accomplish filter and map in one iteration. Again, if this is too condensed, I highly recommend seeing the blog post linked above, which is a much more friendly intro with clear examples and progression.
You give reduce an argument that is a (usually anonymous) function.
That anonymous function takes two parameters--one (like the anonymous functions passed in to map/filter/forEach) is the iteratee to be operated on. There is another argument for the anonymous function passed to reduce, however, that those functions do not accept, and that is the value that will be passed along between function calls, often referred to as the memo.
Note that while Array.filter() takes only one argument (a function), Array.reduce() also takes an important (though optional) second argument: an initial value for 'memo' that will be passed into that anonymous function as its first argument, and subsequently can be mutated and passed along between function calls. (If it is not supplied, then 'memo' in the first anonymous function call will by default be the first iteratee, and the 'iteratee' argument will actually be the second value in the array)
In our case, we'll pass in an empty array to start, and then choose whether to inject our iteratee into our array or not based on our function--this is the filtering process.
Finally, we'll return our 'array in progress' on each anonymous function call, and reduce will take that return value and pass it as an argument (called memo) to its next function call.
This allows filter and map to happen in one iteration, cutting down our number of required iterations in half--just doing twice as much work each iteration, though, so nothing is really saved other than function calls, which are not so expensive in javascript.
For a more complete explanation, refer to MDN docs (or to my post referenced at the beginning of this answer).
Basic example of a Reduce call:
let array = [1,2,3];
const initialMemo = [];
array = array.reduce((memo, iteratee) => {
// if condition is our filter
if (iteratee > 1) {
// what happens inside the filter is the map
memo.push(iteratee * 2);
}
// this return value will be passed in as the 'memo' argument
// to the next call of this function, and this function will have
// every element passed into it at some point.
return memo;
}, initialMemo)
console.log(array) // [4,6], equivalent to [(2 * 2), (3 * 2)]
more succinct version:
[1,2,3].reduce((memo, value) => value > 1 ? memo.concat(value * 2) : memo, [])
Notice that the first iteratee was not greater than one, and so was filtered. Also note the initialMemo, named just to make its existence clear and draw attention to it. Once again, it is passed in as 'memo' to the first anonymous function call, and then the returned value of the anonymous function is passed in as the 'memo' argument to the next function.
Another example of the classic use case for memo would be returning the smallest or largest number in an array. Example:
[7,4,1,99,57,2,1,100].reduce((memo, val) => memo > val ? memo : val)
// ^this would return the largest number in the list.
An example of how to write your own reduce function (this often helps understanding functions like these, I find):
test_arr = [];
// we accept an anonymous function, and an optional 'initial memo' value.
test_arr.my_reducer = function(reduceFunc, initialMemo) {
// if we did not pass in a second argument, then our first memo value
// will be whatever is in index zero. (Otherwise, it will
// be that second argument.)
const initialMemoIsIndexZero = arguments.length < 2;
// here we use that logic to set the memo value accordingly.
let memo = initialMemoIsIndexZero ? this[0] : initialMemo;
// here we use that same boolean to decide whether the first
// value we pass in as iteratee is either the first or second
// element
const initialIteratee = initialMemoIsIndexZero ? 1 : 0;
for (var i = initialIteratee; i < this.length; i++) {
// memo is either the argument passed in above, or the
// first item in the list. initialIteratee is either the
// first item in the list, or the second item in the list.
memo = reduceFunc(memo, this[i]);
// or, more technically complete, give access to base array
// and index to the reducer as well:
// memo = reduceFunc(memo, this[i], i, this);
}
// after we've compressed the array into a single value,
// we return it.
return memo;
}
The real implementation allows access to things like the index, for example, but I hope this helps you get an uncomplicated feel for the gist of it.
That's not what map does. You really want Array.filter. Or if you really want to remove the elements from the original list, you're going to need to do it imperatively with a for loop.
Array Filter method
var arr = [1, 2, 3]
// ES5 syntax
arr = arr.filter(function(item){ return item != 3 })
// ES2015 syntax
arr = arr.filter(item => item != 3)
console.log( arr )
You must note however that the Array.filter is not supported in all browser so, you must to prototyped:
//This prototype is provided by the Mozilla foundation and
//is distributed under the MIT license.
//http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/Linux/LICENSES/mit.license
if (!Array.prototype.filter)
{
Array.prototype.filter = function(fun /*, thisp*/)
{
var len = this.length;
if (typeof fun != "function")
throw new TypeError();
var res = new Array();
var thisp = arguments[1];
for (var i = 0; i < len; i++)
{
if (i in this)
{
var val = this[i]; // in case fun mutates this
if (fun.call(thisp, val, i, this))
res.push(val);
}
}
return res;
};
}
And doing so, you can prototype any method you may need.
TLDR: Use map (returning undefined when needed) and then filter.
First, I believe that a map + filter function is useful since you don't want to repeat a computation in both. Swift originally called this function flatMap but then renamed it to compactMap.
For example, if we don't have a compactMap function, we might end up with computation defined twice:
let array = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8];
let mapped = array
.filter(x => {
let computation = x / 2 + 1;
let isIncluded = computation % 2 === 0;
return isIncluded;
})
.map(x => {
let computation = x / 2 + 1;
return `${x} is included because ${computation} is even`
})
// Output: [2 is included because 2 is even, 6 is included because 4 is even]
Thus compactMap would be useful to reduce duplicate code.
A really simple way to do something similar to compactMap is to:
Map on real values or undefined.
Filter out all the undefined values.
This of course relies on you never needing to return undefined values as part of your original map function.
Example:
let array = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8];
let mapped = array
.map(x => {
let computation = x / 2 + 1;
let isIncluded = computation % 2 === 0;
if (isIncluded) {
return `${x} is included because ${computation} is even`
} else {
return undefined
}
})
.filter(x => typeof x !== "undefined")
I just wrote array intersection that correctly handles also duplicates
https://gist.github.com/gkucmierz/8ee04544fa842411f7553ef66ac2fcf0
// array intersection that correctly handles also duplicates
const intersection = (a1, a2) => {
const cnt = new Map();
a2.map(el => cnt[el] = el in cnt ? cnt[el] + 1 : 1);
return a1.filter(el => el in cnt && 0 < cnt[el]--);
};
const l = console.log;
l(intersection('1234'.split``, '3456'.split``)); // [ '3', '4' ]
l(intersection('12344'.split``, '3456'.split``)); // [ '3', '4' ]
l(intersection('1234'.split``, '33456'.split``)); // [ '3', '4' ]
l(intersection('12334'.split``, '33456'.split``)); // [ '3', '3', '4' ]
First you can use map and with chaining you can use filter
state.map(item => {
if(item.id === action.item.id){
return {
id : action.item.id,
name : item.name,
price: item.price,
quantity : item.quantity-1
}
}else{
return item;
}
}).filter(item => {
if(item.quantity <= 0){
return false;
}else{
return true;
}
});
following statement cleans object using map function.
var arraytoclean = [{v:65, toberemoved:"gronf"}, {v:12, toberemoved:null}, {v:4}];
arraytoclean.map((x,i)=>x.toberemoved=undefined);
console.dir(arraytoclean);
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)
function twoSum(numbers, target) {
var result = [];
numbers.forEach(function(value, index) {
return numbers.forEach(function(value2, index2) {
if (value + value2 === target) {
result.push(index, index2);
return result;
}
})
})
return result;
}
twoSum([1, 2, 3], 4);
//Output - [ 0, 2, 1, 1, 2, 0 ]
Hi - I'm working on a particular codewars problem and I seem to be misunderstanding the usage of return for callback functions. In this particular problem I just want to find the first two sums of numbers that equal the target and push those index values into result. I don't want to keep iterating through my function after that - meaning I only want the first pair that's found. My current output gives me all the index values for the target sum. Not just the first 2. It seems I am not using my return commands correctly. My current line of thought is that return result returns a value to my nested callback of parameters (value2, index2). That result is then returned to my outside function of (value,index). Why does my loop not cease after that return?
It doesn't end because .forEach cannot be terminated early. forEach is not paying any attention to the values you return. If you want to terminate early you'll need to use a different approach.
If you want to stick with array methods, there are .some and .every. The former continues until a run of your function returns true, and the latter continues until a run of your function returns false. These are meant for doing compound OR's and compound AND's with every element of the array, but they can kinda be used for your case too.
numbers.some(function(value, index) {
return numbers.some(function(value2, index2) {
if (value + value2 === target) {
result.push(index, index2);
return true;
}
return false;
})
})
Or you could use a standard for loop, with the break keyword when you want to stop the loop.
Beside the not working return statement for a outer function, you need to take a different approach which uses only a single loop and an object for storing the index of the found value.
function twoSum(numbers, target) {
var indices = {};
for (let i = 0; i < numbers.length; i++) {
const number = numbers[i];
if (number in indices) return [indices[number], i];
indices[target - number] = i;
}
}
console.log(twoSum([1, 2, 3], 4));
I currently have a function that allows me to test if something a piece (for connect 4) is in an array, as well as 1, 2, and less respectively. If all 4 numbers are in the array are present, then it returns true. This works.
What I am trying to do is make it so I can use .some, so I can test if the array contains any cases of having a number, and again 3, 2, and 1 less than the number tested.
Right now it will test an individual piece, but I don't know how to get it to grab onto the array to check the index of the individual element it is testing.
Thank you for any responses/Ideas.
const testPieces = [1, 2, 3, 4]
const fourInARow = function(piece, array) {
for (var i = piece; i >= piece - 3; i--) {
if (array.indexOf(i) === -1) {
return false
}
}
return true
}
testPieces.some(fourInARow) // The piece that I don't know how to make work
Calling .some on your testPieces array will pass in each element of the array to the fourInARow function as the piece argument. It will not pass in your second array argument.
You need to provide a function to the .some call that already knows about the array for testing. You can do this by returning a function from the function e.g.
const fourInARow = function(array) {
return function(piece) {
for (var i = piece; i >= piece - 3; i--) {
if (array.indexOf(i) === -1) {
return false
}
}
return true
};
}
The array you are testing can now be passed to the .some call like this;
testPieces.some(fourInARow([1,2]));
The returned function has created a closure which retains a reference to the test array [1,2] which is then compared to the piece argument supplied by the call to .some.
Just wondering why not flip the logic to start from the other side and use instead of some every with includes?
const testPieces = [1, 2, 3, 4]
const inARow = (arr, base) => arr.every((x) => base.includes(x))
console.log(inARow([4,3,1,2], testPieces))
console.log(inARow([5,2,1], testPieces))
It becomes one line, it does not care about the order etc. Let me know if I am missing something ...
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)
Array.reduce() takes an array and combines elements from the array with an accumulator until all the elements are consumed.
Is there a function (often called "unfold" in other languages) that starts with a value and keeps generating elements until a complete array is produced (the accumulator is depleted)?
I am trying to do this as part of converting between arbitrary bases. The code as I have it is as follows, but I would like to eliminate the raw loop.
var dstAlphabet = "0123456789ABCDEFGH";
var dstBase = dstAlphabet.length;
var wet = BigInteger(100308923948716816384684613592839);
var digits_reversed = [];
while (wet.isPositive())
{
// var digitVal = wet % dstBase
var divRem = wet.divRem(dstBase); // [result of division, remainder]
wet = divRem[0];
digits_reversed.push(dstAlphabet.charAt(divRem[1].toJSValue()));
}
return digits_reversed.reverse().join("");
// These days you can do it in one line:
const unfold = (accumulator, length) => length <= 0 ? accumulator : unfold([length, ...accumulator], length -1)
// invoke it like this:
const results = unfold([], 5)
// expected results: 1,2,3,4,5
console.log(results.join(','))
Since we're looking for a concise way to generate a given number of elements as an array, this "unfold" function does it with recursion.
The first argument is the accumulator array. This needs to be passed along, and eventually is returned when it holds the entire collection. The second argument is the limiter. This is what you use to dimension your resulting array.
In each call, we first test if the base case is reached. If so, the answer is easy: just return the given array. For the general case, we are again unfolding, but with a smaller value, so we prepend one value to accumulator, and decrement length.
Since we're using the spread operator and a 'computed-if' the function is concise. Using the arrow style also lets us avoid the 'function' and 'return' keywords, as well as curly-braces. So the whole thing is a one-liner.
I basically use this technique as a for-loop substitute for React JSX, where everything needs to be an expression (Array.map()).
The opposite of Array#reduce in Javascript is Array.from (or alternatively spread syntax). You can use it with any iterable object to generate an array:
array = Array.from(iterator); // same as array = [...iterator];
You can create an iterator by calling a generator function:
iterator = generate(params);
Generator functions use the special keyword yield to return their results (or yield* to return all results from another iterable). And they are depleted once they return:
function* convertBase(wet, alphabet) {
const base = BigInt(alphabet.length);
wet = BigInt(wet);
while (wet > 0) {
const digitVal = Number(wet % base);
wet = wet / base;
yield alphabet.charAt(digitVal);
}
}
console.log(Array.from(convertBase(100308923948716816384684613592839, "0123456789ABCDEFGH")).reverse().join(""));
Alternatively you can implement the iterator yourself without a generator function:
console.log(Array.from({
wet: BigInt(100308923948716816384684613592839),
base: BigInt(18),
alphabet: "0123456789ABCDEFGH",
[Symbol.iterator]: function() {
return this;
},
next: function() {
if (this.wet > 0) {
const digitVal = Number(this.wet % this.base);
this.wet = this.wet / this.base;
return {value: this.alphabet.charAt(digitVal)};
} else {
return {done: true};
}
}
}).reverse().join(""));
tewathia's comment seems like the idiomatic way to do it, but I guess if you want to do it the hard way, you could just write your own recursive primitive, like:
function unreduce(accumulator, operation, stopPredicate, ret) {
return helper([accumulator, ret])[1]
function helper(vals) {
if (stopPredicate(vals[0])) return vals[1];
return helper(operation(vals[0], vals[1]));
}
}
Which you might want to modify a bit to preserve this for the callbacks.
I'm not sure how great that is. It's kind of awkward with the operation callback needing to update both the accumulator and return values. The outer function can't save operation from having to return a length-2 array.
array.map((..) => { return [ .. ]; }).flat(1);