For one array I can iterate like this:
for(String str:myStringArray){
}
How can I iterate over two arrays at once?
Because I am sure these two's length are equal.I want it like the following:
for(String attr,attrValue:attrs,attrsValue) {
}
But it's wrong.
Maybe a map is a good option in this condition, but how about 3 equal length arrays? I just hate to create index 'int i' which used in the following format:
for(int i=0;i<length;i++){
}
You can't do what you want with the foreach syntax, but you can use explicit indexing to achieve the same effect. It only makes sense if the arrays are the same length (or you use some other rule, such as iterating only to the end of the shorter array):
Here's the variant that checks the arrays are the same length:
assert(attrs.length == attrsValue.length);
for (int i=0; i<attrs.length; i++) {
String attr = attrs[i];
String attrValue = attrsValue[i];
...
}
You can do it old fashion way.
Assuming your arrays have same sizes:
for(int i = 0; i < array1.length; i++) {
int el1 = array1[i];
int el2 = array2[i];
}
In Scala there is an embedded zip function for Collections, so you could do something like
array1 zip array2
but it's not yet ported to Java8 Collections.
Foreach loop has many advantages but there are some restriction are also there.
1: You can iterate only one class(which implements Iterable i/f) at one time.
2: You don't have indexing control. (use explicit counter for that.)
For your problem use legacy for loop.
Related
I've got a task of writing a function that returns integers which are in both two arrays.
For example: nums1 [1,2,3] and nums2 [2,3,5] and answer should be [2,3].
I came with this solution:
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println(arraysIntersection(new int[] {1,2,3}, new int[] {2,3,5}));
}
public static List<Integer> arraysIntersection(int[] nums1, int[] nums2) {
List<Integer> answer = new ArrayList<>();
for (int i = 0; i < nums1.length; i++) {
if (Arrays.asList(nums2).contains(nums1[i])) {
answer.add(nums1[i]);
}
}
return answer;
}
however it seems this condition doesn't work as intended:
if (Arrays.asList(nums2).contains(nums1[i]))
It says it doesn't contain the value altough it clearly contains 2 and 3. Any ideas?
I know I could just iterate each i over the second array but I thought this solution would be faster. Does anyone knows why it's not working?
You can do it in O(NlogN) time complexity and O(n) memory. Just sort arrays and use two pointers technique.
List<Integer> answer = new ArrayList<>();
int j = 0;
Arrays.sort(nums1);
Arrays.sort(nums2);
for(int i = 0; i < nums1.length; i++) {
if(i > 0 && nums1[i] == nums1[i - 1]) //we have already processed this number
continue;
while(j < nums2.length && nums2[j] < nums1[i])
j++;
if(j < nums2.length && nums1[i] == nums2[j])
answer.add(nums1[i]);
}
return answer;
You can do it in O(N) time complexity and O(n) memory (but constant is higher). Just add all elements of nums1 in first HashSet and all elements of nums2 if another HashSet. Then you can for each element in first set check if another set contains this element using O(1)* time.
List<Integer> answer = new ArrayList<>();
Set<Integer> set1 = new HashSet<>(), set2 = new HashSet<>();
set1.addAll(nums1);
set2.addAll(nums2);
for(var el : set1) {
if(set2.contains(el)) {
answer.add(el);
}
}
return answer;
*O(1) is middle time of operations with hashset
If Arrays is a static object already initialized, or declared at global scope, it may be OK, I don't know for sure. Can't call asList() on an uninitialized object, it must be allocated first.
Now I know, Arrays is a member of the utils package, can be OK.
But not anything that looks fine in code, actually works also.
As a matter of fact, I don't like the way in which Java calls a function. But it would be more easier and handy like this.
I don't know, if you had included the util package in your code.
util, or utils ? Can be 2 different packages, this is important.
You can try another way:
import java.util.*;
public static List<Integer> arraysIntersection(int[] nums1, int[] nums2){
List<Integer> answer = new ArrayList<>();
for (int i = 0; i < nums1.length; i++) {
int u = nums1[i];
for (int j = 0; j < nums2.length; j++) {
if (u == nums2[j]) {
answer.add(u);
break;
}
}
}
return answer;
}
A break could be necessary, if the values must be added only once.
( a number can be found more times into an array )
The break was meant just for ending the inner loop.
The outer loop should continue up to the end of the search.
But the same number can be find more times in the first array.
Before returning the answer, the result should be checked for duplicate values. And this is another problem.
It would be more convenient to check before adding number to list.
Check if the answer list already contains the number value.
And then add the number to the list, if a match is not found.
So this can be done more easier:
if (!answer.contains(u)) answer.add(u);
Since you check this condition, the break is not anymore needed.
But searching the list so many times, can slow down your code.
From this reason, the u value is read only once, before starting to compare with the another array. So you don't have to read manytimes the same array item, just store it in a temporary variable, u.
In another point of view, when iterating over a collection object,
the current value for the current position index could change.
It also depends on the basic interface implementation for this object.
If this function would have been written in C, it would have been a very serious problem, to get the value of an item in array, because the current position of the pointer changes. And here is the same, the current read value changes, excepting that we can't see all the underlying mechanism. And if I am not wrong too much, the original Java first time was based also on the C code.
Best regards, Adrian Brinas.
Have a nice day.
I'm wondering for the simplest method for how to run a specific function for each object in an array (or other list type)
My goal is to be able create a list of objects, and have each object run a specific function as it passes through the iterator.
I've tried a for loop on an arraylist
for (int i = 0; i < testList.size(); i++)
{
this = textList.get(i);
this.exampleFunction();
}
But this gives me a 'Variable expected' error
Assuming you're using Java 8+, and you have a Collection<TypeInList> you could call Collection.stream() and do a forEach on that. Like,
testList.stream().forEach(TypeInList::function);
Your current approach is trying to do things with this that cannot be done. It could be fixed like,
for (int i = 0; i < testList.size(); i++)
{
TypeInList that = testList.get(i); // this is a reserved word.
that.function();
}
or
for (TypeInList x : testList) {
x.function();
}
There are multiple ways to iterate through a list, but the easiest I personally find is like this:
Assuming that your list contains String objects e.g.:
List<String> list = new ArrayList();
list.add("Hello");
list.add("World");
for(String current : list){
System.out.println(current);
}
The loop will iterate twice, and console will output the following:
Hello
World
This approach doesn't rely on indexes (as how you're using it in your question), as such I find it easy to use for iterating through a single list.
However the disadvantage is that if you have 2 separate lists that you would like to iterate through, the lack of indexes makes it a bit more complicated. The easier approach for iterating through multiple lists would be using the traditional approach, something like this:
for(int i=0; i<list.size(); i++){
int x = list1.get(i);
int y = list2.get(i);
}
As such your use-case really determines the ideal method you can adopt.
Consider a linked list of strings I got from somewhere
LinkedList<String> names = getNames();
Now, I want to remove the first k elements from the list. Currently, I'll do it this way:
for (int i = 0 ; i < k ; i++) {
names.removeFirst();
}
Is there some way to do it more efficiently and to instead call something like:
names.removeRange(0, k);
Note that I prefer not to construct a whole new list using sublist(), as for small k values, popping k times would be even more efficient than constructing the new list
Maybe Something like this :
names.subList(0, k).clear();
this is more efficient but doesn't release memory according to sublist it's just a view:
names.sublist(k, names.size());
If I want to create an "unlimited" array I know I can use a list (There is a lot of information on this and other forums)
But what if I don't want to make a list? Is there another way?
Because I want to use a float array in another function and it's kind of a hassle to use a list in this case.
This is what I wrote so far with the listing
List<Float> listfloat = new ArrayList();
listfloat.add((float)0.1); //example
listfloat.add((float)1.2);
float data[]= new float[listfloat.size()];
for(int i = 0; i < listfloat.size(); ++i)
{
data[i] = listfloat.get(i);
}
return data ;
But I would prefer something like this
float data[]; //unknown size
for(i=0 ; i< sizeiwant; i++)
{
data[i] = mydata;
}
return data ;
I know that it will work! I just want to optimise my coding =)
Thank you for reading =)
There are 2 ways you can do this:
You could convert a list to an Array using list.ToArray()
You could dynamically resize the array by changing the size of the array every time you add an element to the array. Here is how you would do that:
//initialize array of size 10.
int[] array=new int[10];
//make copy of array
int[] arrayCopy=array.clone();
//expand array size by 1
array=new int[array.length+1];
//give value to new array index
array[array.length-1]=0;
//copy values from 'arrayCopy' to array
for(int x=0;x<arrayCopy.length;x++){
array[x]=arrayCopy[x];
}
Hope this helped.
With the information you provided I would recommend to use an Array and create a method that is called when your array is full and returns a copy of the original array with more space in this way is you are kind of simulating dynamic size allocation.
Arrays in java are fixed-size, so your second piece of code is never going to work.
If you want a data type that can resize, you should use an ArrayList. On the other hand, there are times when using primitive array like a float[] is quicker and more convenient.
As a result, the need to convert between List<Float> and float[] in the way you do it in the first block of code is fairly common, and there is no way to do it in one line (unless you use an external library).
I advise writing a utility method to do the conversion
public static float[] listToArray(List<Float> list) {
int size = list.size();
float[] temp = new float[size];
for (int i = 0; i < size; i++)
temp[i] = list.get(i);
return temp;
}
(This method could be improved, as it has poor performance for a LinkedList where get is linear).
Annoyingly, you need 8 methods like this for the 8 primitive types, and 8 methods to do the conversions in the other direction. As things stand at the moment, there is no way to write generic code over primitive types, so code duplication like this is common.
Is there a way i could return in an array the common elements of 2 or more arrays? I know having some of the methods under lists could do it but is there a way to do it by only using arrays? I made my own get and length btw since i am creating a an array called OrderedIntList.
Example would be:
1,3,5
1,6,7,9,3
1,3,10,11
Result: 1,3
I tried this and it outputs the common elements between two arrays and not all.
I know there's something wrong but i do not how to make it work like it suppose to work :(
//returns the common elements of inputted arrays
public static OrderedIntList common(OrderedIntList ... lists){
int[] list = new int[10];
for(int x = 1; x <= lists.length -1; x++){
for(int q = 0; q < lists[0].length()-1; q++) {
for(int z = 0; z < lists[x].length(); z++) {
if (lists[0].get(q)==lists[x].get(z)){
list[q] = lists[0].get(q);
}
}
}
}
OrderedIntList newlist = new OrderedIntList(list);
return newlist;
}
This can be an easy algorithm to solve it...
1) Instantiate an instance variable of type array called
"commonElements" pointing to the elements of the first Array. At the
beginning these are your common elements.
2) Create a method call getCommonElements(int[] commonElements,
int[] newList). This method manipulates the commonElements array to leave
it with only the common elements between the two. (p.s Use a temporary
array to achieve this if you find it easier)
3) Iterate over all the arrays present in "lists" starting from the
second array.
4) call the method at point 2 for each array .
All the difficult part for you it's to implement a method that given 2 arrays finds the common elements!
You can use
org.apache.commons.collections.CollectionUtils.intersection(java.util.Collection a, java.util.Collection b)
to get the intersection of two lists (elements presents in both lists)
And to pass your array as a Collection: java.util.Arrays.asList(Object[] a);
But working on arrays is tedious, at best. You should consider why you don't want to use a Collection...
As a partial answer, you're probably doing too much work by fully reimplementing an OrderedIntList the way you're doing, since ArrayList and friends already come with sorting baked in via the Collections class.
import java.util.Collections;
public class OrderedIntList extends ArrayList<Integer> {
#override // to effect sorted inserts
public void add(Integer i) {
this.add(i);
Collections.sort(this);
// done.
}
}
Wanting to do this for pure arrays is a nice exercise, but then you'll be better of implementing sorting properly with a quick sort (you can't websearch for a java implementation of that without getting a million results) or an insert sort (equally websearchable), and follow the same recipe.
any time you push a number into the array:
guess where the number goes (although that's optional),
insert the number,
resort your array if you know your guess wasn't perfect.