This question already has answers here:
Java N-Dimensional Arrays
(3 answers)
Closed 5 years ago.
Is it possible to have an n dimensional array in Java without having to explicitly specify the number of dimensions?
I.e. if I wanted a 2D array of ints I'd do:
int[][] myArray = new int[a][b];
For the above I've had to specify that the myArray variable is of type int[][]. What I'm asking is whether there's the possibility to declare a variable that is an array of n dimensions without having to know n in advance.
I.e. If I had the variable test, test could be of type int[][] or int[][][] or int[][][][][][][][][][][] - you get the idea. I just want to define test without having to define the number of dimensions.
I'm sure the above kind of breaks the type system in Java so I'm open to any ideas as I think I'm approaching this the wrong way.
To give you a bit of context I've developed an algorithm to find an integer in a 2D array of integers that are sorted by both row and column in ascending order. I've noticed that it will work with any dimension array and would thus like to make it more generic. However, I don't fancy defining a function for every possible dimension of array to be passed as a parameter since the dimensions could (unlikely as it is) be anywhere from 1D to infinityD - hence the question.
This is also just for my own curiosity as to whether this can be done for any dimension array. I don't know whether this potentially can't be done using Java's built in facilities and I'd be better building my own class system to support multi-dimension arrays in this situation.
You can not define an array as unknown-dimensional. But you can make your own class like NDimensionalArray, that would wrap array of another NDimensionalArray instances, and implement getter like getValue(int indexes...), and dimension()
class NDimensionalArray {
NDimensionalArray[] arrays;
int value;
int getValue(int... indexes) {
if (indexes.length == 0) return value;
return arrays[indexes[0]].getValue(indexes[1],indexes[2],...,indexes[n-1]);
}
void setValue(int value, int... indexes) {
// implement simillary to getValue
}
int getDimension() {
if (arrays == 0 || arrays.length == 0) return 0;
return arrays[0].getDimension() + 1;
}
}
that's not a working class, but only an idea, creating the entire structure is on your own. You would need to implement all the index and null checks.
Related
An interview question was to write this method to remove duplicate element in an array.
public static Array removeDuplicates(Array a) {
...
return type is java.lang.reflect.Array and parameter is also java.lang.reflect.Array type.
How would this method be called for any array?
Also not sure about my implementation:
public static Array removeDuplicates(Array a)
{
int end=Array.getLength(a)-1;
for(int i=0;i<=end-1;i++)
{
for(int j=i+1;j<=end;j++)
{
if(Array.get(a, i)==Array.get(a, j))
{
Array.set(a, j, Array.get(a, end));
end--;
j--;
}
}
}
Array b=(Array) Array.newInstance(a.getClass(), end+1);
for(int i=0;i<=end;i++)
Array.set(a, i, Array.get(a, i));
return b;
}
You may want to consider using a different data structure such as a hashmap to detect the duplicate (O(1)) instead of looping with nested for loops (O(n^2)). It should give you much better time complexity.
There are various problem with this code. Starting here:
if(Array.get(a, i)==Array.get(a, j))
Keep in mind that those get() calls return Object. So, when you pass in an array of strings, comparing with == simply will most likely result in wrong results (because many objects that are in fact equal still have different references --- so your check returns false all the time!)
So, the first thing to change: use equals() instead of == !
The other problem is:
end--;
Seriously: you never ever change the variable that controls your for loop.
Instead: have another counter, like
int numberOfOutgoingItems = end;
and then decrease that counter!
For your final question - check the javadoc; for example for get(). That reads get(Object array, int index)
So you should be able to do something like:
int a[] = ...;
Object oneValue = Array.get(a, 0);
for example.
Disclaimer. I have to admit: I don't know if the Array implementation is smart enough to automatically turn the elements of an int[] into an Integer object.
It could well be that you have to write code first to detect the exact type of array (if it is an array of int for example); to instead call getInt() instead of getObject().
Beyond that, some further reading how to use reflection/Array can be found here
I have an array which contains values pawnArray. I need to find the highest value in pawnArray so using a custom class method getPawn() I retrieve the highest value but I do
public static Pawn getPawn(Array<Pawn> strollpawns) {
Array<Pawn> pawns = strollpawns;
pawns.sort();
Pawn best = pawns.get(0);
return best;
}
I hence need to copy the array since this method doesn't work. How can I make a copy of this array?
If your problem is with Java arrays (the syntax is Pawn[]) then you have methods in class java.util.Arrays for many different operations on them. What you are asking for could be accomplished with:
Pawn[] newArr = Arrays.copyOf(oldArr, oldArr.length);
Or, since array classes implement Cloneable, also with:
Pawn[] newArr = (Pawn[]) oldArr.clone(); // I don't remember if the cast is necessary
Note that both of these provide shallow copies, that is, the arrays are independent of each other (you can sort one and the indexes in the other are unaffected) but their contents are not.
EDIT: it has been kindly pointed out to me that your Array<T> is actually a class in libgdx. Looking at the documentation, then, you could simply use the constructor taking another instance of Array to create your shallow copy, since the doc says that the new instance will have the same type of backing array (not the same instance). For example:
Array<T> newArr = new Array<>(oldArr); // oldArr can be either Array<? extends T> or T[]
I'm adding a separate answer to this, since you want to copy your array and sort it in order to retrieve the highest value. My other answer deals with copying the array, while tjago's answer deals with sorting with a custom Comparator in order to customize what the "max value" is. However, it seems that the libgdx Array<T> class has a method to do just what you want, without having to make a sorted copy of the array.
This solution saves you code, memory and time if you only need one value from the sorted array: the minimum, maximum, whatever. If you need more than one, it is likely that sorting the array will be faster.
The method I'm talking about is Array.selectRanked, which returns the nth element according to the provided Comparator. There is another method selectRankedIndex which returns the index of that element instead of the object itself. You could use it like this:
// If Pawn implements Comparable<Pawn>:
Pawn minVal = arr.selectRanked(Comparator.naturalOrder(), 1);
Pawn maxVal = arr.selectRanked(Comparator.naturalOrder(), arr.size);
// If it does not implement Comparable, you need to provide a Comparator<Pawn>:
// Assuming Pawn has an "int getValue()" method that we want to compare:
Pawn minVal = arr.selectRanked(Comparator.comparingInt(Pawn::getValue), 1);
// You could also write your own implementation directly:
Comparator<Pawn> comp = (a,b) -> /* your int-returning logic here */;
Pawn minVal = arr.selectRanked(comp, 1);
It seems you have a java related problem. To help you with sorting In java object programming there exist concept of method overriding and interfaces.
Special interface for sorting is Comparator, you can either put him inline in method like this.
Collections.sort(pawns ,new Comparator<Student>(){
public int compare(Pawn1 p1,Pawn2 p2){
// Write your logic here.
//ie.:
return p1.score - p2.score;
//or for different order
return p2.score - p1.score;
}});
if this comparator return value == 0 means the value are equal;
if value < 0 means p1 is bigger than p2, therefore swap them.
Or put him inside your Object class like:
Class Pawn implements Comparator {
private String name;
private Position[][] posXY;
private int value;
....
Pawn() { ... }
...
public int compare(Pawn1 p1,Pawn2 p2){
return p1.value- p2.value;
}
}
then in your code you can call as you originally intended:
pawns.sort();
Pawn best = pawns.get(0);
and as expected you should get an maximum value Pawn from ArrayList.
The above code is just sample and requires tunning. But You should get an good overview now that Java has no idea how to sort Objects defined by a programmer unless he implements the Comparator logic for Collection sorting.
for external reference I suggest running a simple example on tutorialpoint
Answer to your question: How can I create copy of a libgdx array
Array<Pawn> pawns = new Array<Pawn>(strollpawns);
or if the pawns Array object already exists
pawns.clear();
pawns.addAll(strollpawns);
The first solution will create a new Array object that will be deleted on completion of the function, meaning time lost by garbage collector!
But I agree with Tenfour04: Duplicating an array and sorting it is a very expensive way to select the biggest value.
I know how to find minimum and maximum in an array. If a method lets say was called fMax():
public static double fMax(Object[] stuff)
The parameter is an array object how would I go about finding the max of this array? I cannot just do. Okay so how would I do this if I want the method to return a double and if the memory hasnt been allocated for the parameter named stuff then it will return the value NEGATIVE_INFINITY in the Double class, otherwise the return value will be the maximum value from the elements in the stuff array
Object max = stuff[0];
for (int i = 0; i < stuff.length; i++) {
if (data[i] > max) {
max = stuff[i];
}
}
To find the maximum of something, either
a) that something needs to implement the Comparable interface
b) you need to have some sort of explicit criteria for determining what maximum is, so you can put that in an instance of Comparator
Object itself isn't going to have anything useful for sorting. If you subclass object, you could sort based on the components of that object.
public class Example implements Comparable
{
int sortableValue = 0;
public Example (int value)
{
this.sortableValue = value;
}
public int compareTo(Example other)
{
return Integer.compare(this.sortableValue, other.sortableValue);
}
}
That's an object definition that has a natural sorting order. Java can look at that with any of the built in sorting algorithms and know the order they belong in.
If you don't provide java with a means of determining how an object has greater or lesser relative value compared to another object of the same type, it won't figure it out on its own.
Object is not comparable, you need a definite type if you want to compare values, sort or find something.
Streams are the most powerful, versatile tools for the job, this here will solve your problem if your want to find min/max of an array of Double :
Double[] arr = {1d, 2d, 3d, 4d};
Double min = Arrays.asList(arr).stream().parallel().min(Double::compare).get();
Double max = Arrays.asList(arr).stream().parallel().max(Double::compare).get();
String[] stringArray = Arrays.copyOf(objectArray, objectArray.length, String[].class);
Now, just compare the new primitive array that we made from the object. If you don't need the object after this, and you aren't planning on returning an array object, then make your original array null, to take up less memory.
Check this:
How to compare two object arrays in Java?
Earlier last week I was in an android/Java class, and our lecturer likes to throw little challenges at us every now and then, just as fun little programs for us to think about.
The topic I'm studying is OOP and OOD in c# and Java environments, so this really doesn't have any huge leverage on my actual final project, and I'd like to stress this was an optional task set for fun.
The Task was asking for the programmer to:
Create a program that could hold an "unlimited" array of integers (based on how many the user required) and find the max value in the array.
The issue wasn't the max method (easy), or the variables in the array (basic), but the array itself. we weren't allowed to use linked lists, it had to be an "Unlimited" 1D array that could take user input.
I've been playing around with the array for a while now, was going to make a circular array at first but that still doesn't solve many of the issues, and I can't really work out how to solve the problem in a way that this could be ported over and used in c#
any ideas as to how this could be achieved?
If you can't use only LinkedList you can use any other implementation of java.util.List.
If you can't use at all java.util.List you can use an array with enough values as you need and use a pointer to the last value.
Something like this
public class MyArray {
private int[] myArray = new int[10000];
private int index = -1;
public void add(int obj) {
index++;
myArray[index] = obj;
}
public Integer removeLast() {
if (index >= 0) {
return myArray[index--];
}
return null;
}
public Integer get(int i) {
if (i >= 0 && i < index) {
return myArray[i];
}
return null;
}
}
Note. This is very similar to the internal representation of ArrayList. Take a tour of source of ArrayList to know more, the biggest difference is that this implentation is blocked to a maximum of 10000 ints, instead the ArrayList can grows if necessary, but I think that the grows implementation is outside the scope of your exercise.
I want to have a array of integers where the length is variable. The obvious choice is to use ArrayList but can I do this for primitive types such as
ArrayList<int> myArray=new ArrayList<int>();
I dont want to use
ArrayList<Integer>
because the Integer class is clumsy in terms of coding.
EDIT: From the answers below I think the solution is to write my own Integer class.
To answer the question below about "clumsy" let me give a specific, and I would of thought common use for integers namely using the last member of the array in any place you would want the integer. If I just call the array "name" then to get the actual integer that can be operated on I need
name.get(name.size()-1).intValue();
To me this seems like an awfully unwieldy expression for a simple integer - particularly if it appears in an expression twice. It also seems that (most of the) methods available for the Integer class are absolutely redundant. Take two examples
static int compare(int a, int b)
Quite unbelievably, according to the documentation, this method returns a-b!!
static Integer valueOf(int a)
returns an Integer instance of the integer a. Can someone give me a single example where
new Integer(a)
does not achieve exactly the same result?
Method 1: (not recommended)
You can do something like this, but this doubles the code and is not efficient:
int[] a;
//get size (from command line maybe ow whatever method you want)
You can set size 0 initially, and for ex. you are transferring values from arraylist so you will have to write:
while(itr.hasNext()){
size++;} //itr is an object of Iterator
int i=0;
a=new int[size];
// then loop again to store values
while(itr.hasNext()){
a[i]=itr.next();
i++;}
Method 2:
Or you may use ArrayList without making it clumsy as follows:
ArrayList al=new ArrayList();
then you may declare Integer objects as volatile and perform operations on them just as you do with the primitive types.
Method 3: (not recommended)
Or simply write:
ArrayList al=new ArrayList();//ignore the warning about <E>
int x=2;
al.add(2);
Method 4: (recommended)
If I were you I would use ArrayList<Integer>.
UPDATE: Another thing that might work is that you may initially create an ArrayList<Integer> and store values there and later convert it to int[]
This SO answer tells about the conversion. Quoted the code form there:
public static int[] convertIntegers(List<Integer> integers)
{
int[] ret = new int[integers.size()];
for (int i=0; i < ret.length; i++)
{
ret[i] = integers.get(i).intValue();
}
return ret;
}
Hope this helps.
No it's not possible to use primitive types as generic type.
Well I would recommend you do use ArrayList and avoid primitive types in this case.
You can't change the size of an array once created. You have to allocate it bigger than you think you'll ever need
or
Accept the overhead of having to reallocate it to a new larger array and copy the data from the old to the new:
System.arraycopy(oldItems, 0, newItems, 0, 10);
But Much simpler to go with ArrayList.