Is there any way to add parameters in tuple after initialisation?
Like :
var tupleX = ("Hi", "Rachit")
Now I want to add a parameter to tuple after which tupleX will have 3 or more parameters
Is it possible?
No. A tuple has a set number of elements. You may want to use an Array or some other class instead.
The difference between a tuple and a list (or other collections) is precisely the fixed amount of elements it contains.
From a type system perspective (1, 2) and (1, 2, 3) are of two distinct types, so of course you cannot alter the number of elements since you would be changing the type.
It's probably also important to notice that, as explained here,
Tuples are useful for temporary groups of related values. They are not suited to the creation of complex data structures. If your data structure is likely to persist beyond a temporary scope, model it as a class or structure, rather than as a tuple.
So if you need to alter a tuple overtime, you probably don't want to use a tuple, but rather a class, a struct or even a dictionary.
Related
I'm having problem understanding why do we* use node as data-type?
*(I'm doing CS50 and while solving problem sets it's givel like this)
node *hashtable[50];
(here node refers to linked list node)
as we are just storing an pointer for a linked list in it, wouldn't it be better to define it as just an array of char*
char *hashtable[50];
Hashing functions have collisions. When a key hashes to an index where the table is already occupied, one strategy to resolve the collisions have a linked list there and you simply append to it.
There are other collision resolution strategies, but the separate chaining strategy is probably the simplest.
In order to be able to treat the hash table items as linked lists, they need to have at least a next pointer in addition to their payload. Hence the items need to be some kind of struct node* rather than the payload type directly.
So, a table constructor has two components, list-like and record-like. Do list-like entries always take precedence over record-like ones? I mean, consider the following scenario:
a = {[1]=1, [2]=2, 3}
print(a[1]) -- 3
a = {1, [2]=2, [1]=3}
print(a[1]) -- 1
Is the index 1 always associated with the first list-like entry, 2 with the second, and so on? Or is there something else?
There are two types of tables in Lua, arrays and dictionaries, these are what you call "lists" and "records". An array, contains values in an order, this gives you a few advantages, like faster iteration or inserting/removing values. Dictionaries work like a giant lookup table, it has no order, it's advantages are how you can use any value as a key, and you are not as restricted.
When you construct a table, you have 2 syntaxes, you can seperate the values with commas, e.g. {2,4,6,8} thereby creating an array with keys 1 through n, or you can define key-value pairs, e.g. {[1]=2,[58]=4,[368]=6,[48983]=8} creating a dictionary, you can often mix these syntaxes and you won't run into any problems, but this is not the case in your scenario.
What you are doing is defining the same key twice during the table's initial construction. This is most generally impractical and as such hasn't really had any serious thought put into it during the language's development. This means that what happens is essentially unspecified behaviour. It is not completely understood what effect this will have, and may be inconsistent across different platforms or implementations.
As such, you should not use this in any commercial projects, or any code you'll be sharing with other people. When in doubt, construct an empty table and define the key-value pairs afterward.
I need a delphi key/value collection that will allow me to iterate over the collection in the same order the key/value pairs were inserted/added.
TList<T> guarantees order but TDictionary<T1, T2> does not.
I guess I could always define a TList<TPair<Key, Value>> but it would be more cumbersome to work with.
Is there a built-in collection type that would meet my requirements or would wrapping TList<TPair<Key, Value>> be my best option? Or perhaps it would be better to have a TList<Key> and a TDictionary<Key, Value> and iterate through the list.
If your key type is string and your value type is some descendant of TObject, use a TStringList. Store your values in the Objects array property.
SL.AddObject('foo', obj1);
SL.Add('bar');
i := SL.IndexOf('bar');
SL.Objects[i] := obj2;
Set the OwnsObjects property if you need to.
the DeHL collections library contains a lot of "Ordered Dictionary"-like classes. The ordered ones use trees (which have order) instead of hash maps which are unordered.
I believe the TSortedDistinctMultiMap might be what you need, if you want to enforce uniqueness, and if you don't want to enforce Key value uniqueness, then there are other choices (without Distinct in the class name) that will be close to what you need.
Update 2017: The DeHL library is no longer maintained.
The Spring4D library provides dictionaries that are ordered. At the time of writing these are only available on the develop branch.
I'm simply curious as lately I have been seeing the use of Hashmaps in Java and wonder if Delphi's Sorted String list is similar at all.
Does the TStringList object generate a Hash to use as an index for each item? And how does the search string get checked against the list of strings via the Find function?
I make use of Sorted TStringLists very often and I would just like to understand what is going on a little bit more.
Please assume I don't know how a hash map works, because I don't :)
Thanks
I'm interpreting this question, quite generally, as a request for an overview of lists and dictionaries.
A list, as almost everyone knows, is a container that is indexed by contiguous integers.
A hash map, dictionary or associative array is a container whose index can be of any type. Very commonly, a dictionary is indexed with strings.
For sake of argument let us call our lists L and our dictionaries D.
Lists have true random access. An item can be looked-up in constant time if you know its index. This is not the case for dictionaries and they usually resort to hash-based algorithms to achieve efficient random access.
A sorted list can perform binary search when you attempt to find a value. Finding a value, V, is the act of obtaining the index, I, such that L[I]=V. Binary search is very efficient. If the list is not sorted then it must perform linear search which is much less efficient. A sorted list can use insertion sort to maintain the order of the list – when a new item is added, it is inserted at the correct location.
You can think of a dictionary as a list of <Key,Value> pairs. You can iterate over all pairs, but more commonly you use index notation to look-up a value for a given key: D[Key]. Note that this is not the same operation as finding a value in a list – it is the analogue of reading L[I] when you know the index I.
In older versions of Delphi it was common to coax dictionary behaviour out of string lists. The performance was terrible. There was little flexibility in the contents.
With modern Delphi, there is TDictionary, a generic class that can hold anything. The implementation uses a hash and although I have not personally tested its performance I understand it to be respectable.
There are commonly used algorithms that optimally use all of these containers: unsorted lists, sorted lists, dictionaries. You just need to use the right one for the problem at hand.
TStringList holds the strings in an array.
If you call Sort on an otherwise unsorted (Sorted property = false) string list then a QuickSort is performed to sort the items.
The same happens if you set Sorted to true.
If you call Find (or IndexOf which calls find) on an unsorted string list (Sorted property = false, even if you explicitly called Sort the list is considered unsorted if the Sorted property isn't true) then a linear search is performed comparing all strings from the start till a match is found.
If you call Find on a sorted string list (Sorted property = true) then a binary search is performed (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_search for details).
If you add a string to a sorted string list, a binary search is performed to determine the correct insertion position, all following elements in the array are shifted by one and the new string is inserted.
Because of this insertion performance gets a lot worse the larger the string list is. If you want to insert a large number of entries into a sorted string list, it's usually better to turn sorting off, insert the strings, then set Sorted back to true which performs a quick sort.
The disadvantage of that approach is that you will not be able to prevent the insertion of duplicates.
EDIT: If you want a hash map, use TDictionary from unit Generics.Collections
You could look at the source code, since that comes with Delphi. Ctrl-Click on the "sort" call in your code.
It's a simple alphabetical sort in non-Unicode Delphi, and a slightly more complex Unicode one in later versions. You can supply your own comparison for custom sort orders. Unfortunately I don't have a recent version of Delphi so can't confirm, but I expect that under the hood there's a proper Unicode-aware and locale-aware string comparison routine. Unicode sorting/string comparison is not trivial and a little web searching will point out some of the pitfalls.
Supplying your own comparison routine is often done when you have delimited text in the strings or objects attached to them (the Objects property). In those cases you often wat to sort by a property of the object or something other than the first field in the string. Or it might be as simple as wanting a numerical sort on the strings (so "2" comes after "1" rather than after "19")
There is also a THashedStringList, which could be an option (especially in older Delphi versions).
BTW, the Unicode sort routines for TStringList are quite slow. If you override the TStringList.CompareStrings method then if the strings only contain Ansi characters (which if you use English exclusively they will), you can use customised Ansi string comparisons. I use my own customised TStringList class that does this and it is 4 times faster than the TStringList class for a sorted list for both reading and writing strings from/to the list.
Delphi's dictionary type (in generics-enabled versions of Delphi) is the closest thing to a hashmap, that ships with Delphi. THashedStringList makes lookups faster than they would be in a sorted string list. you can do lookups using a binary search in a sorted stringlist, so it's faster than brute force searches, but not as fast as a hash.
The general theory of a hash is that it is unordered, but very fast on lookup and insertion. A sorted list is reasonably fast on insertion until the size of the list gets large, although it's not as efficient as a dictionary for insertion.
The big benefit of a list is that it is ordered but a hash-lookup dictionary is not.
Is the best way to sort an array in Delphi is "alphanumeric".
I found this comment in an old code of my application
" The elements of this array must be in ascending, alphanumeric
sort order."
If so ,what copuld be the reason?
-Vas
There's no "best" way as to how to sort the elements of an array (or any collection for that fact). Sort is a humanized characteristic (things are not usually sorted) so I'm guessing the comment has more to do with what your program is expecting.
More concretely, there's probably other section of code elsewhere that expect the array elements to be sorted alphanumerically. It can be something so simple as displaying it into a TreeView already ordered so that the calling code doesn't have to sort the array first.
Arrays are represented as a contiguous memory assignment so that access is fast. Internally the compiler just does a call to GetMem asking for SizeOf(Type) * array size. There's nothing in the way the elements are sorted that affects the performance or memory size of the arrays in general. It MUST be in the program logic.
Most often an array is sorted to provide faster search times. Given a list of length L, I can compare with the midpoint (L DIV 2) and quickly determine if I need to look at the greater half, or the lesser half, and recursively continue using this pattern until I either have nothing to divide by or have found my match. This is what is called a Binary search. If the list is NOT sorted, then this type of operation is not available and instead I must inspect every item in the list until I reach the end.
No, there is no "best way" of sorting. And that's one of the reasons why you have multiple sorting techniques out there.
With QuickSort, you even provide the comparison function where you determine what order you ultimately want.
Sorting an array in some way is useful when you're trying to do a binary search on the array. A binary search can be extremely fast, compared to other methods. But if the sort error is wrong, the search will be unable to find the record.
Other reasons to keep arrays sorted are almost always for cosmetic reasons, to decide how the array is sent to some output.
The best way to re-order an array depends of the length of the array and the type of data it contains. A QuickSort algorithm would give a fast result in most cases. Delphi uses it internally when you're working with string-lists and some other lists. Question is, do you really need to sort it? Does it really need to stay an array even?
But the best way to keep an array sorted is by keeping it sorted from the first element that you add to it! In general, I write a wrapper around my array types, which will take care of keeping the array ordered. The 'Add' method will search for the biggest value in the array that's less or equal to the value that I want to add. I then insert the new item right after that position. To me, that would be the best solution. (With big arrays you could use the binary search method again to find the location where you need to insert the new record. It's slower than appending records to the end but you never have to wonder if it's sorted or not, since it is...