I was working on a project and wanted to check if a list element was null. Example
List<int> i = [1, 2, 3];
print(i[1]); // this prints 2
But what if I want to print out a list element and if it does not exist print out a default number using dart null-aware. Example
List<int> i = [1, 2, 3];
print(i[10] ?? 15);
// Also tried
print(i?.elementAt(10) ?? 15);
I want it to print out 15 since the element at index 10 does not exist. Unfortunately, the above code gives me an error.
How can I check if a list element does not exist and return a default value
There's no elegant way of doing it, as you are trying to. You will have to check the list length first, because in the moment that the program evaluates i.elementAt(10) it inmediately throws the RangeError exception.
Example solution 1:
if (i.length > 9) {
print(i?.elementAt(10));
} else {
print(15);
}
Example solution 2 (a more elegant way):
print(i.length > 9 ? i?.elementAt(10) : 15);
One solution to have this kind of functionality is to wrap your list with a custom class that catches the inner exception and returns null instead.
I wrote this wrapper bellow and called it XList:
class XList<E> {
List<E> list;
XList(this.list);
E operator [](int position) {
try {
return list[position];
} catch(IndexOutOfBoundException) {
return null;
}
}
}
Now your code works like this:
final list = [1, 2, 3];
final a = XList(list);
print(a[10] ?? 15);
// prints 15
You can create an extension on Iterable to easily have a method that returns null if the provided index is out of bounds:
extension SafeAccess<T> on Iterable<T> {
T? safeElementAt(int index) => this.length <= index ? null : this.elementAt(index);
}
you can put this in a general-purpose file like lib/extensions/iterable_extensions.dart in your codebase and then import it whenever you need it.
Related
I'm studying recursion and I wrote this method to calculate the N° number of the Fibonacci series:
fibonacci(int n, Map memo) {
if (memo.containsKey(n)) return memo[n]; // Memo check
if (n <= 2) return 1; // base case
// calculation
memo[n] = fibonacci(n - 1, memo) + fibonacci((n - 2), memo);
return memo[n];
}
I think it doesn't need to be explained, my problem is just how to call this function from the main, avoiding providing an empty Map.
this is how I call the function now:
fibonacci(n, {});
But I would rather prefer to call it just like this:
fibonacci(n);
The canonical approach is to make memo optional, and use a fresh map if the memo argument is omitted. Because you want to change and update the map, you can't use a default value for the parameter, because default values must be constant, and constant maps are not mutable.
So, written very concisely:
int fibonacci(int n, [Map<int, int>? memo]) {
if (n <= 2) return 1;
return (memo ??= {})[n] ??= fibonacci(n - 1, memo) + fibonacci(n - 2, memo);
}
The ??= operator assigns to the right-hand side if the value is null.
It's used both to initialize memo to a new map if the argument was omitted,
and to update the map if a cached value wasn't present.
I'd actually reconsider using a map. We know that the Fibonacci computation will compute a value for every prior number down to 1, so I'd just use a list instead:
int fibonacci(int n, [List<int?>? memo]) {
if (n <= 2) return 1;
return (memo ??= List<int?>.filled(n - 2))[n - 3] ??=
fibonacci(n - 1, memo) + fibonacci(n - 2, memo);
}
That should work just like the map.
(I subtract 3 from n when doing the lookup because no value below 3 needs the list - it's handled by the prior if).
There are multiple ways to do it. This is my personal favorite, because it also limits the function that is only used for internal means and it doesn't have the need to check every recursion, as you already know there is a map provided:
int fibonacci(int n) {
return _fibonacci(n, {});
}
int _fibonacci(int n, Map<int, int> memo) {
if (n <= 2) return 1; // base case
final previouslyCalculated = memo[n]; // Memo check
if(previouslyCalculated != null) {
return previouslyCalculated;
}
// calculation
final next = _fibonacci(n - 1, memo) + _fibonacci((n - 2), memo);
memo[n] = next;
return next;
}
void main() {
print(fibonacci(4));
}
As Dart does not support overloading, if you actually need both versions to be publicly available (or want both private) you would have to pick different names.
Please note that I added proper types to your methods and cleaned them up a bit for everything that would not compile once proper types are used. Make sure you always use proper types and don't rely on dynamic to somehow works it's magic. The compiler can only help you, if you are explicit about what you want to do. Otherwise they can only nod and let you run into any mistake you may have made. Be smart, let your compiler help, it will catch a lot of errors for you at compile time that you would otherwise have to spent countless hours on debugging.
This is the solution I've found so far but looks very verbose and inelegant:
fibonacci(int n, [Map<int, int>? memo]) {
memo == null ? memo = {} : null; // null check
if (memo.containsKey(n)) return memo[n];
if (n <= 2) return 1;
memo[n] = fibonacci(n - 1, memo) + fibonacci((n - 2), memo);
return memo[n];
}
In this way I can call just:
fibonacci(n);
I am using fold on an array which hasn't been assign to a variable and want to check whether the element is the last value. With a conventional for loop I can do this:
List<int> ints = [1, 2, 3];
int sum = 0;
for (int num in ints]) {
if (num != ints.last) {
sum = sum + num;
}
}
print(sum);
Is it possible to do this with fold instead?
int foldSum = [1, 2, 3].fold(0, (int prev, element) => prev + element);
print(foldSum);
I can't find any way of check when fold is at the last value. Note: this is a simplified example of my problem and the reason the list isn't assigned to a variable (allowing me to use .last) is because it is the result of a call to .map().
For completeness, below is the actual code (which won't obviously won't be runnable in isolation but will help illustrate my problem) I am trying to convert to use .map and .fold:
String get fieldsToSqlInsert {
String val = "";
for (Column column in columns) {
if (data.containsKey(column.name)) {
val = '$val "${data[column.name]}"';
} else {
val = "$val NULL";
}
if (column != columns.last) {
val = "$val,";
}
}
return val;
}
But it doesn't work because I don't know how to check when fold is at the final element:
String get fieldsToSqlInsert => columns
.map((column) =>
data.containsKey(column.name) ? data[column.name] : "NULL")
.fold("", (val, column) => column != columns.last ? "$val," : val);
If you simply want to exclude the last element from further calculation, you can just use take to do so:
String get fieldsToSqlInsert => columns.take(columns.length - 1)...
Let's say I want to process a variadic function which alternately gets passed start and end values of 1 or more intervals and it should return a range of random values in those intervals. You can imagine the input to be a flattened sequence of tuples, all tuple elements spread over one single range.
import std.meta; //variadic template predicates
import std.traits : isFloatingPoint;
import std.range;
auto randomIntervals(T = U[0], U...)(U intervals)
if (U.length/2 > 0 && isFloatingPoint!T && NoDuplicates!U.length == 1) {
import std.random : uniform01;
T[U.length/2] randomValues;
// split and iterate over subranges of size 2
foreach(i, T start, T end; intervals.chunks(2)) { //= intervals.slide(2,2)
randomValues[i] = uniform01 * (end - start) + start,
}
return randomValues.dup;
}
The example is not important, I only use it for explanation. The chunk size could be any finite positive size_t, not only 2 and changing the chunk size should only require changing the number of loop-variables in the foreach loop.
In this form above it will not compile since it would only expect one argument (a range) to the foreach loop. What I would like is something which rather automatically uses or infers a sliding-window as a tuple, derived from the number of given loop-variables, and fills the additional variables with next elements of the range/array + allows for an additional index, optionally. According to the documentation a range of tuples allows destructuring of the tuple elements in place into foreach-loop-variables so the first thing, I thought about, is turning a range into a sequence of tuples but didn't find a convenience function for this.
Is there a simple way to loop over destructured subranges (with such a simplicity as shown in my example code) together with the index? Or is there a (standard library) function which does this job of splitting a range into enumerated tuples of equal size? How to easily turn the range of subranges into a range of tuples?
Is it possible with std.algorithm.iteration.map in this case (EDIT: with a simple function argument to map and without accessing tuple elements)?
EDIT: I want to ignore the last chunk which doesn't fit into the entire tuple. It just is not iterated over.
EDIT: It's not, that I couldn't program this myself, I only hope for a simple notation because this use case of looping over multiple elements is quite useful. If there is something like a "spread" or "rest" operator in D like in JavaScript, please let me know!
Thank you.
(Added as a separate answer because it's significantly different from my previous answer, and wouldn't fit in a comment)
After reading your comments and the discussion on the answers thus far, it seems to me what you seek is something like the below staticChunks function:
unittest {
import std.range : enumerate;
size_t index = 0;
foreach (i, a, b, c; [1,2,3,1,2,3].staticChunks!3.enumerate) {
assert(a == 1);
assert(b == 2);
assert(c == 3);
assert(i == index);
++index;
}
}
import std.range : isInputRange;
auto staticChunks(size_t n, R)(R r) if (isInputRange!R) {
import std.range : chunks;
import std.algorithm : map, filter;
return r.chunks(n).filter!(a => a.length == n).map!(a => a.tuplify!n);
}
auto tuplify(size_t n, R)(R r) if (isInputRange!R) {
import std.meta : Repeat;
import std.range : ElementType;
import std.typecons : Tuple;
import std.array : front, popFront, empty;
Tuple!(Repeat!(n, ElementType!R)) result;
static foreach (i; 0..n) {
result[i] = r.front;
r.popFront();
}
assert(r.empty);
return result;
}
Note that this also deals with the last chunk being a different size, if only by silently throwing it away. If this behavior is undesirable, remove the filter, and deal with it inside tuplify (or don't, and watch the exceptions roll in).
chunks and slide return Ranges, not tuples. Their last element can contain less than the specified size, whereas tuples have a fixed compile time size.
If you need destructuring, you have to implement your own chunks/slide that return tuples. To explicitly add an index to the tuple, use enumerate. Here is an example:
import std.typecons, std.stdio, std.range;
Tuple!(int, int)[] pairs(){
return [
tuple(1, 3),
tuple(2, 4),
tuple(3, 5)
];
}
void main(){
foreach(size_t i, int start, int end; pairs.enumerate){
writeln(i, ' ', start, ' ', end);
}
}
Edit:
As BioTronic said using map is also possible:
foreach(i, start, end; intervals
.chunks(2)
.map!(a => tuple(a[0], a[1]))
.enumerate){
Your question has me a little confused, so I'm sorry if I've misunderstood. What you're basically asking is if foreach(a, b; [1,2,3,4].chunks(2)) could work, right?
The simple solution here is to, as you say, map from chunk to tuple:
import std.typecons : tuple;
import std.algorithm : map;
import std.range : chunks;
import std.stdio : writeln;
unittest {
pragma(msg, typeof([1,2].chunks(2).front));
foreach(a, b; [1,2,3,4].chunks(2).map!(a => tuple(a[0], a[1]))) {
writeln(a, ", ", b);
}
}
At the same time with BioTronic, I tried to code some own solution to this problem (tested on DMD). My solution works for slices (BUT NOT fixed-size arrays) and avoids a call to filter:
import std.range : chunks, isInputRange, enumerate;
import std.range : isRandomAccessRange; //changed from "hasSlicing" to "isRandomAccessRange" thanks to BioTronics
import std.traits : isIterable;
/** turns chunks into tuples */
template byTuples(size_t N, M)
if (isRandomAccessRange!M) { //EDITED
import std.meta : Repeat;
import std.typecons : Tuple;
import std.traits : ForeachType;
alias VariableGroup = Tuple!(Repeat!(N, ForeachType!M)); //Tuple of N repititions of M's Foreach-iterated Type
/** turns N consecutive array elements into a Variable Group */
auto toTuple (Chunk)(Chunk subArray) #nogc #safe pure nothrow
if (isInputRange!Chunk) { //Chunk must be indexable
VariableGroup nextLoopVariables; //fill the tuple with static foreach loop
static foreach(index; 0 .. N) {
static if ( isRandomAccessRange!Chunk ) { // add cases for other ranges here
nextLoopVariables[index] = subArray[index];
} else {
nextLoopVariables[index] = subArray.popFront();
}
}
return nextLoopVariables;
}
/** returns a range of VariableGroups */
auto byTuples(M array) #safe pure nothrow {
import std.algorithm.iteration : map;
static if(!isInputRange!M) {
static assert(0, "Cannot call map() on fixed-size array.");
// auto varGroups = array[].chunks(N); //fixed-size arrays aren't slices by default and cannot be treated like ranges
//WARNING! invoking "map" on a chunk range from fixed-size array will fail and access wrong memory with no warning or exception despite #safe!
} else {
auto varGroups = array.chunks(N);
}
//remove last group if incomplete
if (varGroups.back.length < N) varGroups.popBack();
//NOTE! I don't know why but `map!toTuple` DOES NOT COMPILE! And will cause a template compilation mess.
return varGroups.map!(chunk => toTuple(chunk)); //don't know if it uses GC
}
}
void main() {
testArrayToTuples([1, 3, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9]);
}
// Order of template parameters is relevant.
// You must define parameters implicitly at first to be associated with a template specialization
void testArrayToTuples(U : V[], V)(U arr) {
double[] randomNumbers = new double[arr.length / 2];
// generate random numbers
foreach(i, double x, double y; byTuples!2(arr).enumerate ) { //cannot use UFCS with "byTuples"
import std.random : uniform01;
randomNumbers[i] = (uniform01 * (y - x) + x);
}
foreach(n; randomNumbers) { //'n' apparently works despite shadowing a template parameter
import std.stdio : writeln;
writeln(n);
}
}
Using elementwise operations with the slice operator would not work here because uniform01 in uniform01 * (ends[] - starts[]) + starts[] would only be called once and not multiple times.
EDIT: I also tested some online compilers for D for this code and it's weird that they behave differently for the same code. For compilation of D I can recommend
https://run.dlang.io/ (I would be very surprised if this one wouldn't work)
https://www.mycompiler.io/new/d (but a bit slow)
https://ideone.com (it works but it makes your code public! Don't use with protected code.)
but those didn't work for me:
https://tio.run/#d2 (didn't finish compilation in one case, otherwise wrong results on execution even when using dynamic array for the test)
https://www.tutorialspoint.com/compile_d_online.php (doesn't compile the static foreach)
I would like to get the second to last item in a List, similarly than with getter last.
I tried the following :
final list = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5];
final secondToLast = (list..removeLast()).last; // Mutates the List
However it mutates the List.
There is many options available (however you should make sure that list is not null and has at least 2 elements) :
final list = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5];
// Works only for Lists
final secondToLast = list[list.length - 2];
final secondToLast = list.reversed.elementAt(1);
final secondToLast = list.reversed.skip(1).first;
// Works for any Iterable
final secondToLast = list.elementAt(list.length - 2);
To get something similar to last, you can write an extension on Iterable :
extension CustomIterable<T> on Iterable<T> {
T? get secondToLast {
return this == null || length < 2 ? null : elementAt(length - 2);
}
}
Is it possible to break from a Groovy .each{Closure}, or should I be using a classic loop instead?
Nope, you can't abort an "each" without throwing an exception. You likely want a classic loop if you want the break to abort under a particular condition.
Alternatively, you could use a "find" closure instead of an each and return true when you would have done a break.
This example will abort before processing the whole list:
def a = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]
a.find {
if (it > 5) return true // break
println it // do the stuff that you wanted to before break
return false // keep looping
}
Prints
1
2
3
4
5
but doesn't print 6 or 7.
It's also really easy to write your own iterator methods with custom break behavior that accept closures:
List.metaClass.eachUntilGreaterThanFive = { closure ->
for ( value in delegate ) {
if ( value > 5 ) break
closure(value)
}
}
def a = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]
a.eachUntilGreaterThanFive {
println it
}
Also prints:
1
2
3
4
5
Replace each loop with any closure.
def list = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
list.any { element ->
if (element == 2)
return // continue
println element
if (element == 3)
return true // break
}
Output
1
3
No, you can't break from a closure in Groovy without throwing an exception. Also, you shouldn't use exceptions for control flow.
If you find yourself wanting to break out of a closure you should probably first think about why you want to do this and not how to do it. The first thing to consider could be the substitution of the closure in question with one of Groovy's (conceptual) higher order functions. The following example:
for ( i in 1..10) { if (i < 5) println i; else return}
becomes
(1..10).each{if (it < 5) println it}
becomes
(1..10).findAll{it < 5}.each{println it}
which also helps clarity. It states the intent of your code much better.
The potential drawback in the shown examples is that iteration only stops early in the first example. If you have performance considerations you might want to stop it right then and there.
However, for most use cases that involve iterations you can usually resort to one of Groovy's find, grep, collect, inject, etc. methods. They usually take some "configuration" and then "know" how to do the iteration for you, so that you can actually avoid imperative looping wherever possible.
Just using special Closure
// declare and implement:
def eachWithBreak = { list, Closure c ->
boolean bBreak = false
list.each() { it ->
if (bBreak) return
bBreak = c(it)
}
}
def list = [1,2,3,4,5,6]
eachWithBreak list, { it ->
if (it > 3) return true // break 'eachWithBreak'
println it
return false // next it
}
You can't break from a Groovy each loop, but you can break from a java "enhanced" for loop.
def a = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]
for (def i : a) {
if (i < 2)
continue
if (i > 5)
break
println i
}
Output:
2
3
4
5
This might not fit for absolutely every situation but it's helped for me :)
I agree with other answers not to use an exception to break an each. I also do not prefer to create an extra closure eachWithBreak, instead of this I prefer a modern approach: let's use the each to iterate over the collection, as requested, but refine the collection to contain only those elements to be iterated, for example with findAll:
collection.findAll { !endCondition }.each { doSomething() }
For example, if we what to break when the counter == 3 we can write this code (already suggested):
(0..5)
.findAll { it < 3 }
.each { println it }
This will output
0
1
2
So far so good, but you will notice a small discrepancy though. Our end condition, negation of counter == 3 is not quite correct because !(counter==3) is not equivalent with it < 3. This is necessary to make the code work since findAll does not actually break the loop but continues until the end.
To emulate a real situation, let's say we have this code:
for (n in 0..5) {
if (n == 3)
break
println n
}
but we want to use each, so let's rewrite it using a function to simulate a break condition:
def breakWhen(nr) { nr == 3 }
(0..5)
.findAll { !breakWhen(it) }
.each { println it }
with the output:
0
1
2
4
5
now you see the problem with findAll. This does not stop, but ignores that element where the condition is not met.
To solve this issues, we need an extra variable to remember when the breaking condition become true. After this moment, findAll must ignore all remaining elements.
This is how it should look like:
def breakWhen(nr) { nr == 3 }
def loop = true
(0..5)
.findAll {
if (breakWhen(it))
loop = false
!breakWhen(it) && loop
} .each {
println it
}
with the output:
0
1
2
That's what we want!
(1..10).each{
if (it < 5)
println it
else
return false
You could break by RETURN. For example
def a = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]
def ret = 0
a.each {def n ->
if (n > 5) {
ret = n
return ret
}
}
It works for me!