| Thread overview | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
May 09, 2011 Is there a better way to write this split functionality? | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
import std.stdio;
import std.array;
import std.range;
import std.algorithm;
void main()
{
auto arr = [64, 64, 64, 32, 31, 16, 32, 33, 64];
auto newarr = arr[];
bool state = true;
while (arr.length)
{
newarr = state ? array(until!("a < 32")(arr))
: array(until!("a >= 32")(arr));
arr = arr[newarr.length .. $];
state ^= 1;
writeln(newarr);
}
}
The idea is to find as many elements in a sequence that conform to some predicate, followed by as many elements that conform to another predicate. The two predicates are switched on each run.
The above code will print:
[64, 64, 64, 32]
[31, 16]
[32, 33, 64]
Is there a better way to do this, some std.range/algorithm function I don't know of?
| ||||
May 09, 2011 Re: Is there a better way to write this split functionality? | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Andrej Mitrovic | Andrej Mitrovic: > Is there a better way to do this, some std.range/algorithm function I don't know of? Maybe this does what you want, but it's not very good: import std.stdio, std.algorithm; void main() { auto arr = [64, 64, 64, 32, 31, 16, 32, 33, 64]; int last = 0; foreach (g; group!q{ (a < 32) == (b < 32) }(arr)) { writeln(arr[last .. last+g[1]]); last += g[1]; } } With the change to group() Andrei talks about the code becomes a little better (untested code): import std.stdio, std.algorithm; void main() { auto arr = [64, 64, 64, 32, 31, 16, 32, 33, 64]; foreach (g; group!q{ (a < 32) == (b < 32) }(arr)) writeln(g[1]); } In Python groupby uses a key mapping function, like D schwartzSort(): >>> from itertools import groupby >>> arr = [64, 64, 64, 32, 31, 16, 32, 33, 64] >>> [list(g) for h,g in groupby(arr, key = lambda x: x < 32)] [[64, 64, 64, 32], [31, 16], [32, 33, 64]] If group uses a key mapping function as schwartzSort() the code improves (untested): import std.stdio, std.algorithm; void main() { auto arr = [64, 64, 64, 32, 31, 16, 32, 33, 64]; foreach (g; group!q{ a < 32 }(arr)) writeln(g[1]); } Bye, bearophile | |||
May 10, 2011 Re: Is there a better way to write this split functionality? | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to bearophile | Those could be nice solutions, thanks.
My first code needlessly resizes the original array though. I could simply track the lower index instead:
void main()
{
dchar[] arr = [64, 64, 64, 32, 31, 16, 32, 33, 64];
dchar[] newarr;
size_t index;
bool state = true;
while (index < arr.length)
{
newarr = state ? array(until!("a < 32")(arr[index..$]))
: array(until!("a >= 32")(arr[index..$]));
index += newarr.length;
state ^= 1;
writeln(cast(int[])newarr);
}
}
You know what sucks? I can't assign a range with different predicates
to the same variable. E.g. this won't compile:
auto newarr = state ? (until!("a < 32")(arr[index..$]))
: (until!("a >= 32")(arr[index..$]));
Error: incompatible types for
((until(arr[index..__dollar],cast(OpenRight)1)) ?
(until(arr[index..__dollar],cast(OpenRight)1))):
'Until!(pred,dchar[],void)' and 'Until!(pred,dchar[],void)'
I mean they are basically the same range type, with only a different predicate. Why every template instantiation has to be its own unique type, I'll never understand.
| |||
Copyright © 1999-2021 by the D Language Foundation
Permalink
Reply