I'm trying to take the last three chracters of any string and save it as another String variable. I'm having some tough time with my thought process.
String word = "onetwotwoone"
int length = word.length();
String new_word = id.getChars(length-3, length, buffer, index);
I don't know how to use the getChars method when it comes to buffer or index. Eclipse is making me have those in there. Any suggestions?
Why not just String substr = word.substring(word.length() - 3)?
Update
Please make sure you check that the String is at least 3 characters long before calling substring():
if (word.length() == 3) {
return word;
} else if (word.length() > 3) {
return word.substring(word.length() - 3);
} else {
// whatever is appropriate in this case
throw new IllegalArgumentException("word has fewer than 3 characters!");
}
I would consider right method from StringUtils class from Apache Commons Lang:
http://commons.apache.org/proper/commons-lang/apidocs/org/apache/commons/lang3/StringUtils.html#right(java.lang.String,%20int)
It is safe. You will not get NullPointerException or StringIndexOutOfBoundsException.
Example usage:
StringUtils.right("abcdef", 3)
You can find more examples under the above link.
Here's some terse code that does the job using regex:
String last3 = str.replaceAll(".*?(.?.?.?)?$", "$1");
This code returns up to 3; if there are less than 3 it just returns the string.
This is how to do it safely without regex in one line:
String last3 = str == null || str.length() < 3 ?
str : str.substring(str.length() - 3);
By "safely", I mean without throwing an exception if the string is nulls or shorter than 3 characters (all the other answers are not "safe").
The above code is identical in effect to this code, if you prefer a more verbose, but potentially easier-to-read form:
String last3;
if (str == null || str.length() < 3) {
last3 = str;
} else {
last3 = str.substring(str.length() - 3);
}
String newString = originalString.substring(originalString.length()-3);
public String getLastThree(String myString) {
if(myString.length() > 3)
return myString.substring(myString.length()-3);
else
return myString;
}
If you want the String composed of the last three characters, you can use substring(int):
String new_word = word.substring(word.length() - 3);
If you actually want them as a character array, you should write
char[] buffer = new char[3];
int length = word.length();
word.getChars(length - 3, length, buffer, 0);
The first two arguments to getChars denote the portion of the string you want to extract. The third argument is the array into which that portion will be put. And the last argument gives the position in the buffer where the operation starts.
If the string has less than three characters, you'll get an exception in either of the above cases, so you might want to check for that.
Here is a method I use to get the last xx of a string:
public static String takeLast(String value, int count) {
if (value == null || value.trim().length() == 0 || count < 1) {
return "";
}
if (value.length() > count) {
return value.substring(value.length() - count);
} else {
return value;
}
}
Then use it like so:
String testStr = "this is a test string";
String last1 = takeLast(testStr, 1); //Output: g
String last4 = takeLast(testStr, 4); //Output: ring
This method would be helpful :
String rightPart(String text,int length)
{
if (text.length()<length) return text;
String raw = "";
for (int i = 1; i <= length; i++) {
raw += text.toCharArray()[text.length()-i];
}
return new StringBuilder(raw).reverse().toString();
}
The getChars string method does not return a value, instead it dumps its result into your buffer (or destination) array. The index parameter describes the start offset in your destination array.
Try this link for a more verbose description of the getChars method.
I agree with the others on this, I think substring would be a better way to handle what you're trying to accomplish.
You can use a substring
String word = "onetwotwoone"
int lenght = word.length(); //Note this should be function.
String numbers = word.substring(word.length() - 3);
Alternative way for "insufficient string length or null" save:
String numbers = defaultValue();
try{
numbers = word.substring(word.length() - 3);
} catch(Exception e) {
System.out.println("Insufficient String length");
}
This method will return the x amount of characters from the end.
public static String lastXChars(String v, int x) {
return v.length() <= x ? v : v.substring(v.length() - x);
}
//usage
System.out.println(lastXChars("stackoverflow", 4)); // flow
I've written a function to find whether a given string (stripped of spaces) is a palindrome. Unfortunately, it takes too long to run. Any ideas how I can make the below code run faster? (I'm timing out on LeetCode's Online Judge):
public class Solution {
public boolean checkIfPalindrome(String s) {
if (s.length() == 0 || s.length() == 1) {
return true;
}
//if first letter == last letter
char first = s.charAt(0);
char second = s.charAt(s.length() - 1);
if (first == second) {
String shorterString = s.substring(1, s.length() - 1);
return isPalindrome(shorterString);
} else {
return false;
}
}
public String onlyCharacters(String s) {
String toReturn = "";
for (Character c : s.toCharArray()) {
if (Character.isLetter(c)) {
toReturn += c;
}
}
return toReturn;
}
public boolean isPalindrome(String s) {
s = onlyCharacters(s);
return checkIfPalindrome(s);
}
}
This isn't the most optimal way of finding if a string is palindrome or not.
Just loop through n/2 iterations (where n is length of string) and check if character at position i is equal to character at position n-i
If the length of the string s is n then s will be a palindrome if
s[i]=s[n-1-i] for i in range [0,ceil(n/2)] // 0 based index
Code:
public static boolean checkIfPalindrome(String s) {
for(int i=0;i<s.length()/2;i++) {
if(s.charAt(i)!=s.charAt(s.length()-i-1)) {
return false;
}
}
return true;
}
It's an algorithm method called "divide and conquer". But in this case is just to make it n/2 instead of n.
Here is a suitable algorithm that might just help :
1.For i = 1 to n/2
2.If string[i] = string[n-1] then continue in the loop
3.Else break and return false
4.return true
If n is the length of the input string, your code takes O(n^2) operations. This may surprise you because there are no nested loops in your code, but both the substring method and the += operator for Strings require the creation of a new String, which requires copying its contents.
To see this in action, I have inserted
System.out.println(s);
into the isPalindrome() and checkIfPalindrome() methods, and invoked
isPalindrome("doc, note: i dissent. a fast never prevents a fatness. i diet on cod");
This produces the following output:
docnoteidissentafastneverpreventsafatnessidietoncod
ocnoteidissentafastneverpreventsafatnessidietonco
ocnoteidissentafastneverpreventsafatnessidietonco
cnoteidissentafastneverpreventsafatnessidietonc
cnoteidissentafastneverpreventsafatnessidietonc
noteidissentafastneverpreventsafatnessidieton
noteidissentafastneverpreventsafatnessidieton
oteidissentafastneverpreventsafatnessidieto
oteidissentafastneverpreventsafatnessidieto
teidissentafastneverpreventsafatnessidiet
teidissentafastneverpreventsafatnessidiet
eidissentafastneverpreventsafatnessidie
eidissentafastneverpreventsafatnessidie
idissentafastneverpreventsafatnessidi
idissentafastneverpreventsafatnessidi
dissentafastneverpreventsafatnessid
dissentafastneverpreventsafatnessid
issentafastneverpreventsafatnessi
issentafastneverpreventsafatnessi
ssentafastneverpreventsafatness
ssentafastneverpreventsafatness
sentafastneverpreventsafatnes
sentafastneverpreventsafatnes
entafastneverpreventsafatne
entafastneverpreventsafatne
ntafastneverpreventsafatn
ntafastneverpreventsafatn
tafastneverpreventsafat
tafastneverpreventsafat
afastneverpreventsafa
afastneverpreventsafa
fastneverpreventsaf
fastneverpreventsaf
astneverpreventsa
astneverpreventsa
stneverprevents
stneverprevents
tneverprevent
tneverprevent
neverpreven
neverpreven
everpreve
everpreve
verprev
verprev
erpre
erpre
rpr
rpr
p
p
That's quite a wall of text we are asking the computer to compute! We also see that every String is created twice. That's because you needlessly invoke onlyCharacters() in every iteration.
To avoid creating intermediary String instances, you can use a String Builder:
String onlyCharacters(String s) {
StringBuilder toReturn = new StringBuilder();
for (Character c : s.toCharArray()) {
if (Character.isLetter(c)) {
toReturn.append(c);
}
}
return toReturn.toString();
}
Also, it turns out a StringBuilder has a cool method called reverse(), so we can simplify your program to:
boolean isPalindrome(String s) {
StringBuilder letters = new StringBuilder();
for (Character c : s.toCharArray()) {
if (Character.isLetter(c)) {
letters.append(c);
}
}
StringBuilder reversedLetters = new StringBuilder(letters).reverse();
return onlyLetters.equals(reversedLetters);
}
This code only creates 2 StringBuilder objects rather than n Strings, and is therefore about n/2 times faster than your code.
I found this to be faster than any other answer so far:
public class Solution {
public boolean isPalindrome(String s) {
for (int low = 0, high = s.length() - 1;; low++, high--) {
char cLow = 0, cHigh = 0;
// Find the next acceptable character for the increasing index.
while (low < high && !Character.isLetterOrDigit(cLow = s.charAt(low))) {
low++;
}
// Find the previous acceptable character for the decreasing index.
while (low < high && !Character.isLetterOrDigit(cHigh = s.charAt(high))) {
high--;
}
if (low >= high) {
// All previous character comparisons succeeded and we have a palindrome.
return true;
}
if (Character.toUpperCase(cLow) != Character.toUpperCase(cHigh)) {
// This is not a palindrome.
return false;
}
}
}
}
You have only one object: your original String. Every character is tested until we get acceptable characters (Character.isLetter). Then only those are compared.
No temporary object, no superflous checks. Straight to the goal: it does one thing but does it well.
Note: this answers the actual Leetcode OJ answer by checking alphanumerics instead of only letters and by not caring about the case.
You may use this StringBuilder.reverse() to check Palindrome:
private boolean isPalindrome(String str) {
StringBuilder strBuilder = new StringBuilder(str);
return str.equals(strBuilder.reverse().toString());
}
How would you check if a String was a number before parsing it?
This is generally done with a simple user-defined function (i.e. Roll-your-own "isNumeric" function).
Something like:
public static boolean isNumeric(String str) {
try {
Double.parseDouble(str);
return true;
} catch(NumberFormatException e){
return false;
}
}
However, if you're calling this function a lot, and you expect many of the checks to fail due to not being a number then performance of this mechanism will not be great, since you're relying upon exceptions being thrown for each failure, which is a fairly expensive operation.
An alternative approach may be to use a regular expression to check for validity of being a number:
public static boolean isNumeric(String str) {
return str.matches("-?\\d+(\\.\\d+)?"); //match a number with optional '-' and decimal.
}
Be careful with the above RegEx mechanism, though, as it will fail if you're using non-Arabic digits (i.e. numerals other than 0 through to 9). This is because the "\d" part of the RegEx will only match [0-9] and effectively isn't internationally numerically aware. (Thanks to OregonGhost for pointing this out!)
Or even another alternative is to use Java's built-in java.text.NumberFormat object to see if, after parsing the string the parser position is at the end of the string. If it is, we can assume the entire string is numeric:
public static boolean isNumeric(String str) {
ParsePosition pos = new ParsePosition(0);
NumberFormat.getInstance().parse(str, pos);
return str.length() == pos.getIndex();
}
With Apache Commons Lang 3.5 and above: NumberUtils.isCreatable or StringUtils.isNumeric.
With Apache Commons Lang 3.4 and below: NumberUtils.isNumber or StringUtils.isNumeric.
You can also use StringUtils.isNumericSpace which returns true for empty strings and ignores internal spaces in the string. Another way is to use NumberUtils.isParsable which basically checks the number is parsable according to Java. (The linked javadocs contain detailed examples for each method.)
Java 8 lambda expressions.
String someString = "123123";
boolean isNumeric = someString.chars().allMatch( Character::isDigit );
if you are on android, then you should use:
android.text.TextUtils.isDigitsOnly(CharSequence str)
documentation can be found here
keep it simple. mostly everybody can "re-program" (the same thing).
As #CraigTP had mentioned in his excellent answer, I also have similar performance concerns on using Exceptions to test whether the string is numerical or not. So I end up splitting the string and use java.lang.Character.isDigit().
public static boolean isNumeric(String str)
{
for (char c : str.toCharArray())
{
if (!Character.isDigit(c)) return false;
}
return true;
}
According to the Javadoc, Character.isDigit(char) will correctly recognizes non-Latin digits. Performance-wise, I think a simple N number of comparisons where N is the number of characters in the string would be more computationally efficient than doing a regex matching.
UPDATE: As pointed by Jean-François Corbett in the comment, the above code would only validate positive integers, which covers the majority of my use case. Below is the updated code that correctly validates decimal numbers according to the default locale used in your system, with the assumption that decimal separator only occur once in the string.
public static boolean isStringNumeric( String str )
{
DecimalFormatSymbols currentLocaleSymbols = DecimalFormatSymbols.getInstance();
char localeMinusSign = currentLocaleSymbols.getMinusSign();
if ( !Character.isDigit( str.charAt( 0 ) ) && str.charAt( 0 ) != localeMinusSign ) return false;
boolean isDecimalSeparatorFound = false;
char localeDecimalSeparator = currentLocaleSymbols.getDecimalSeparator();
for ( char c : str.substring( 1 ).toCharArray() )
{
if ( !Character.isDigit( c ) )
{
if ( c == localeDecimalSeparator && !isDecimalSeparatorFound )
{
isDecimalSeparatorFound = true;
continue;
}
return false;
}
}
return true;
}
Google's Guava library provides a nice helper method to do this: Ints.tryParse. You use it like Integer.parseInt but it returns null rather than throw an Exception if the string does not parse to a valid integer. Note that it returns Integer, not int, so you have to convert/autobox it back to int.
Example:
String s1 = "22";
String s2 = "22.2";
Integer oInt1 = Ints.tryParse(s1);
Integer oInt2 = Ints.tryParse(s2);
int i1 = -1;
if (oInt1 != null) {
i1 = oInt1.intValue();
}
int i2 = -1;
if (oInt2 != null) {
i2 = oInt2.intValue();
}
System.out.println(i1); // prints 22
System.out.println(i2); // prints -1
However, as of the current release -- Guava r11 -- it is still marked #Beta.
I haven't benchmarked it. Looking at the source code there is some overhead from a lot of sanity checking but in the end they use Character.digit(string.charAt(idx)), similar, but slightly different from, the answer from #Ibrahim above. There is no exception handling overhead under the covers in their implementation.
Do not use Exceptions to validate your values.
Use Util libs instead like apache NumberUtils:
NumberUtils.isNumber(myStringValue);
Edit:
Please notice that, if your string starts with an 0, NumberUtils will interpret your value as hexadecimal.
NumberUtils.isNumber("07") //true
NumberUtils.isNumber("08") //false
Why is everyone pushing for exception/regex solutions?
While I can understand most people are fine with using try/catch, if you want to do it frequently... it can be extremely taxing.
What I did here was take the regex, the parseNumber() methods, and the array searching method to see which was the most efficient. This time, I only looked at integer numbers.
public static boolean isNumericRegex(String str) {
if (str == null)
return false;
return str.matches("-?\\d+");
}
public static boolean isNumericArray(String str) {
if (str == null)
return false;
char[] data = str.toCharArray();
if (data.length <= 0)
return false;
int index = 0;
if (data[0] == '-' && data.length > 1)
index = 1;
for (; index < data.length; index++) {
if (data[index] < '0' || data[index] > '9') // Character.isDigit() can go here too.
return false;
}
return true;
}
public static boolean isNumericException(String str) {
if (str == null)
return false;
try {
/* int i = */ Integer.parseInt(str);
} catch (NumberFormatException nfe) {
return false;
}
return true;
}
The results in speed I got were:
Done with: for (int i = 0; i < 10000000; i++)...
With only valid numbers ("59815833" and "-59815833"):
Array numeric took 395.808192 ms [39.5808192 ns each]
Regex took 2609.262595 ms [260.9262595 ns each]
Exception numeric took 428.050207 ms [42.8050207 ns each]
// Negative sign
Array numeric took 355.788273 ms [35.5788273 ns each]
Regex took 2746.278466 ms [274.6278466 ns each]
Exception numeric took 518.989902 ms [51.8989902 ns each]
// Single value ("1")
Array numeric took 317.861267 ms [31.7861267 ns each]
Regex took 2505.313201 ms [250.5313201 ns each]
Exception numeric took 239.956955 ms [23.9956955 ns each]
// With Character.isDigit()
Array numeric took 400.734616 ms [40.0734616 ns each]
Regex took 2663.052417 ms [266.3052417 ns each]
Exception numeric took 401.235906 ms [40.1235906 ns each]
With invalid characters ("5981a5833" and "a"):
Array numeric took 343.205793 ms [34.3205793 ns each]
Regex took 2608.739933 ms [260.8739933 ns each]
Exception numeric took 7317.201775 ms [731.7201775 ns each]
// With a single character ("a")
Array numeric took 291.695519 ms [29.1695519 ns each]
Regex took 2287.25378 ms [228.725378 ns each]
Exception numeric took 7095.969481 ms [709.5969481 ns each]
With null:
Array numeric took 214.663834 ms [21.4663834 ns each]
Regex took 201.395992 ms [20.1395992 ns each]
Exception numeric took 233.049327 ms [23.3049327 ns each]
Exception numeric took 6603.669427 ms [660.3669427 ns each] if there is no if/null check
Disclaimer: I'm not claiming these methods are 100% optimized, they're just for demonstration of the data
Exceptions won if and only if the number is 4 characters or less, and every string is always a number... in which case, why even have a check?
In short, it is extremely painful if you run into invalid numbers frequently with the try/catch, which makes sense. An important rule I always follow is NEVER use try/catch for program flow. This is an example why.
Interestingly, the simple if char <0 || >9 was extremely simple to write, easy to remember (and should work in multiple languages) and wins almost all the test scenarios.
The only downside is that I'm guessing Integer.parseInt() might handle non ASCII numbers, whereas the array searching method does not.
For those wondering why I said it's easy to remember the character array one, if you know there's no negative signs, you can easily get away with something condensed as this:
public static boolean isNumericArray(String str) {
if (str == null)
return false;
for (char c : str.toCharArray())
if (c < '0' || c > '9')
return false;
return true;
Lastly as a final note, I was curious about the assigment operator in the accepted example with all the votes up. Adding in the assignment of
double d = Double.parseDouble(...)
is not only useless since you don't even use the value, but it wastes processing time and increased the runtime by a few nanoseconds (which led to a 100-200 ms increase in the tests). I can't see why anyone would do that since it actually is extra work to reduce performance.
You'd think that would be optimized out... though maybe I should check the bytecode and see what the compiler is doing. That doesn't explain why it always showed up as lengthier for me though if it somehow is optimized out... therefore I wonder what's going on. As a note: By lengthier, I mean running the test for 10000000 iterations, and running that program multiple times (10x+) always showed it to be slower.
EDIT: Updated a test for Character.isDigit()
public static boolean isNumeric(String str)
{
return str.matches("-?\\d+(.\\d+)?");
}
CraigTP's regular expression (shown above) produces some false positives. E.g. "23y4" will be counted as a number because '.' matches any character not the decimal point.
Also it will reject any number with a leading '+'
An alternative which avoids these two minor problems is
public static boolean isNumeric(String str)
{
return str.matches("[+-]?\\d*(\\.\\d+)?");
}
We can try replacing all the numbers from the given string with ("") ie blank space and if after that the length of the string is zero then we can say that given string contains only numbers.
Example:
boolean isNumber(String str){
if(str.length() == 0)
return false; //To check if string is empty
if(str.charAt(0) == '-')
str = str.replaceFirst("-","");// for handling -ve numbers
System.out.println(str);
str = str.replaceFirst("\\.",""); //to check if it contains more than one decimal points
if(str.length() == 0)
return false; // to check if it is empty string after removing -ve sign and decimal point
System.out.println(str);
return str.replaceAll("[0-9]","").length() == 0;
}
You can use NumberFormat#parse:
try
{
NumberFormat.getInstance().parse(value);
}
catch(ParseException e)
{
// Not a number.
}
If you using java to develop Android app, you could using TextUtils.isDigitsOnly function.
Here was my answer to the problem.
A catch all convenience method which you can use to parse any String with any type of parser: isParsable(Object parser, String str). The parser can be a Class or an object. This will also allows you to use custom parsers you've written and should work for ever scenario, eg:
isParsable(Integer.class, "11");
isParsable(Double.class, "11.11");
Object dateFormater = new java.text.SimpleDateFormat("yyyy.MM.dd G 'at' HH:mm:ss z");
isParsable(dateFormater, "2001.07.04 AD at 12:08:56 PDT");
Here's my code complete with method descriptions.
import java.lang.reflect.*;
/**
* METHOD: isParsable<p><p>
*
* This method will look through the methods of the specified <code>from</code> parameter
* looking for a public method name starting with "parse" which has only one String
* parameter.<p>
*
* The <code>parser</code> parameter can be a class or an instantiated object, eg:
* <code>Integer.class</code> or <code>new Integer(1)</code>. If you use a
* <code>Class</code> type then only static methods are considered.<p>
*
* When looping through potential methods, it first looks at the <code>Class</code> associated
* with the <code>parser</code> parameter, then looks through the methods of the parent's class
* followed by subsequent ancestors, using the first method that matches the criteria specified
* above.<p>
*
* This method will hide any normal parse exceptions, but throws any exceptions due to
* programmatic errors, eg: NullPointerExceptions, etc. If you specify a <code>parser</code>
* parameter which has no matching parse methods, a NoSuchMethodException will be thrown
* embedded within a RuntimeException.<p><p>
*
* Example:<br>
* <code>isParsable(Boolean.class, "true");<br>
* isParsable(Integer.class, "11");<br>
* isParsable(Double.class, "11.11");<br>
* Object dateFormater = new java.text.SimpleDateFormat("yyyy.MM.dd G 'at' HH:mm:ss z");<br>
* isParsable(dateFormater, "2001.07.04 AD at 12:08:56 PDT");<br></code>
* <p>
*
* #param parser The Class type or instantiated Object to find a parse method in.
* #param str The String you want to parse
*
* #return true if a parse method was found and completed without exception
* #throws java.lang.NoSuchMethodException If no such method is accessible
*/
public static boolean isParsable(Object parser, String str) {
Class theClass = (parser instanceof Class? (Class)parser: parser.getClass());
boolean staticOnly = (parser == theClass), foundAtLeastOne = false;
Method[] methods = theClass.getMethods();
// Loop over methods
for (int index = 0; index < methods.length; index++) {
Method method = methods[index];
// If method starts with parse, is public and has one String parameter.
// If the parser parameter was a Class, then also ensure the method is static.
if(method.getName().startsWith("parse") &&
(!staticOnly || Modifier.isStatic(method.getModifiers())) &&
Modifier.isPublic(method.getModifiers()) &&
method.getGenericParameterTypes().length == 1 &&
method.getGenericParameterTypes()[0] == String.class)
{
try {
foundAtLeastOne = true;
method.invoke(parser, str);
return true; // Successfully parsed without exception
} catch (Exception exception) {
// If invoke problem, try a different method
/*if(!(exception instanceof IllegalArgumentException) &&
!(exception instanceof IllegalAccessException) &&
!(exception instanceof InvocationTargetException))
continue; // Look for other parse methods*/
// Parse method refuses to parse, look for another different method
continue; // Look for other parse methods
}
}
}
// No more accessible parse method could be found.
if(foundAtLeastOne) return false;
else throw new RuntimeException(new NoSuchMethodException());
}
/**
* METHOD: willParse<p><p>
*
* A convienence method which calls the isParseable method, but does not throw any exceptions
* which could be thrown through programatic errors.<p>
*
* Use of {#link #isParseable(Object, String) isParseable} is recommended for use so programatic
* errors can be caught in development, unless the value of the <code>parser</code> parameter is
* unpredictable, or normal programtic exceptions should be ignored.<p>
*
* See {#link #isParseable(Object, String) isParseable} for full description of method
* usability.<p>
*
* #param parser The Class type or instantiated Object to find a parse method in.
* #param str The String you want to parse
*
* #return true if a parse method was found and completed without exception
* #see #isParseable(Object, String) for full description of method usability
*/
public static boolean willParse(Object parser, String str) {
try {
return isParsable(parser, str);
} catch(Throwable exception) {
return false;
}
}
To match only positive base-ten integers, that contains only ASCII digits, use:
public static boolean isNumeric(String maybeNumeric) {
return maybeNumeric != null && maybeNumeric.matches("[0-9]+");
}
A well-performing approach avoiding try-catch and handling negative numbers and scientific notation.
Pattern PATTERN = Pattern.compile( "^(-?0|-?[1-9]\\d*)(\\.\\d+)?(E\\d+)?$" );
public static boolean isNumeric( String value )
{
return value != null && PATTERN.matcher( value ).matches();
}
Regex Matching
Here is another example upgraded "CraigTP" regex matching with more validations.
public static boolean isNumeric(String str)
{
return str.matches("^(?:(?:\\-{1})?\\d+(?:\\.{1}\\d+)?)$");
}
Only one negative sign - allowed and must be in beginning.
After negative sign there must be digit.
Only one decimal sign . allowed.
After decimal sign there must be digit.
Regex Test
1 -- **VALID**
1. -- INVALID
1.. -- INVALID
1.1 -- **VALID**
1.1.1 -- INVALID
-1 -- **VALID**
--1 -- INVALID
-1. -- INVALID
-1.1 -- **VALID**
-1.1.1 -- INVALID
Here is my class for checking if a string is numeric. It also fixes numerical strings:
Features:
Removes unnecessary zeros ["12.0000000" -> "12"]
Removes unnecessary zeros ["12.0580000" -> "12.058"]
Removes non numerical characters ["12.00sdfsdf00" -> "12"]
Handles negative string values ["-12,020000" -> "-12.02"]
Removes multiple dots ["-12.0.20.000" -> "-12.02"]
No extra libraries, just standard Java
Here you go...
public class NumUtils {
/**
* Transforms a string to an integer. If no numerical chars returns a String "0".
*
* #param str
* #return retStr
*/
static String makeToInteger(String str) {
String s = str;
double d;
d = Double.parseDouble(makeToDouble(s));
int i = (int) (d + 0.5D);
String retStr = String.valueOf(i);
System.out.printf(retStr + " ");
return retStr;
}
/**
* Transforms a string to an double. If no numerical chars returns a String "0".
*
* #param str
* #return retStr
*/
static String makeToDouble(String str) {
Boolean dotWasFound = false;
String orgStr = str;
String retStr;
int firstDotPos = 0;
Boolean negative = false;
//check if str is null
if(str.length()==0){
str="0";
}
//check if first sign is "-"
if (str.charAt(0) == '-') {
negative = true;
}
//check if str containg any number or else set the string to '0'
if (!str.matches(".*\\d+.*")) {
str = "0";
}
//Replace ',' with '.' (for some european users who use the ',' as decimal separator)
str = str.replaceAll(",", ".");
str = str.replaceAll("[^\\d.]", "");
//Removes the any second dots
for (int i_char = 0; i_char < str.length(); i_char++) {
if (str.charAt(i_char) == '.') {
dotWasFound = true;
firstDotPos = i_char;
break;
}
}
if (dotWasFound) {
String befDot = str.substring(0, firstDotPos + 1);
String aftDot = str.substring(firstDotPos + 1, str.length());
aftDot = aftDot.replaceAll("\\.", "");
str = befDot + aftDot;
}
//Removes zeros from the begining
double uglyMethod = Double.parseDouble(str);
str = String.valueOf(uglyMethod);
//Removes the .0
str = str.replaceAll("([0-9])\\.0+([^0-9]|$)", "$1$2");
retStr = str;
if (negative) {
retStr = "-"+retStr;
}
return retStr;
}
static boolean isNumeric(String str) {
try {
double d = Double.parseDouble(str);
} catch (NumberFormatException nfe) {
return false;
}
return true;
}
}
Exceptions are expensive, but in this case the RegEx takes much longer. The code below shows a simple test of two functions -- one using exceptions and one using regex. On my machine the RegEx version is 10 times slower than the exception.
import java.util.Date;
public class IsNumeric {
public static boolean isNumericOne(String s) {
return s.matches("-?\\d+(\\.\\d+)?"); //match a number with optional '-' and decimal.
}
public static boolean isNumericTwo(String s) {
try {
Double.parseDouble(s);
return true;
} catch (Exception e) {
return false;
}
}
public static void main(String [] args) {
String test = "12345.F";
long before = new Date().getTime();
for(int x=0;x<1000000;++x) {
//isNumericTwo(test);
isNumericOne(test);
}
long after = new Date().getTime();
System.out.println(after-before);
}
}
// please check below code
public static boolean isDigitsOnly(CharSequence str) {
final int len = str.length();
for (int i = 0; i < len; i++) {
if (!Character.isDigit(str.charAt(i))) {
return false;
}
}
return true;
}
You can use the java.util.Scanner object.
public static boolean isNumeric(String inputData) {
Scanner sc = new Scanner(inputData);
return sc.hasNextInt();
}
// only int
public static boolean isNumber(int num)
{
return (num >= 48 && c <= 57); // 0 - 9
}
// is type of number including . - e E
public static boolean isNumber(String s)
{
boolean isNumber = true;
for(int i = 0; i < s.length() && isNumber; i++)
{
char c = s.charAt(i);
isNumber = isNumber & (
(c >= '0' && c <= '9') || (c == '.') || (c == 'e') || (c == 'E') || (c == '')
);
}
return isInteger;
}
// is type of number
public static boolean isInteger(String s)
{
boolean isInteger = true;
for(int i = 0; i < s.length() && isInteger; i++)
{
char c = s.charAt(i);
isInteger = isInteger & ((c >= '0' && c <= '9'));
}
return isInteger;
}
public static boolean isNumeric(String s)
{
try
{
Double.parseDouble(s);
return true;
}
catch (Exception e)
{
return false;
}
}
This a simple example for this check:
public static boolean isNumericString(String input) {
boolean result = false;
if(input != null && input.length() > 0) {
char[] charArray = input.toCharArray();
for(char c : charArray) {
if(c >= '0' && c <= '9') {
// it is a digit
result = true;
} else {
result = false;
break;
}
}
}
return result;
}
I have illustrated some conditions to check numbers and decimals without using any API,
Check Fix Length 1 digit number
Character.isDigit(char)
Check Fix Length number (Assume length is 6)
String number = "132452";
if(number.matches("([0-9]{6})"))
System.out.println("6 digits number identified");
Check Varying Length number between (Assume 4 to 6 length)
// {n,m} n <= length <= m
String number = "132452";
if(number.matches("([0-9]{4,6})"))
System.out.println("Number Identified between 4 to 6 length");
String number = "132";
if(!number.matches("([0-9]{4,6})"))
System.out.println("Number not in length range or different format");
Check Varying Length decimal number between (Assume 4 to 7 length)
// It will not count the '.' (Period) in length
String decimal = "132.45";
if(decimal.matches("(-?[0-9]+(\.)?[0-9]*){4,6}"))
System.out.println("Numbers Identified between 4 to 7");
String decimal = "1.12";
if(decimal.matches("(-?[0-9]+(\.)?[0-9]*){4,6}"))
System.out.println("Numbers Identified between 4 to 7");
String decimal = "1234";
if(decimal.matches("(-?[0-9]+(\.)?[0-9]*){4,6}"))
System.out.println("Numbers Identified between 4 to 7");
String decimal = "-10.123";
if(decimal.matches("(-?[0-9]+(\.)?[0-9]*){4,6}"))
System.out.println("Numbers Identified between 4 to 7");
String decimal = "123..4";
if(!decimal.matches("(-?[0-9]+(\.)?[0-9]*){4,6}"))
System.out.println("Decimal not in range or different format");
String decimal = "132";
if(!decimal.matches("(-?[0-9]+(\.)?[0-9]*){4,6}"))
System.out.println("Decimal not in range or different format");
String decimal = "1.1";
if(!decimal.matches("(-?[0-9]+(\.)?[0-9]*){4,6}"))
System.out.println("Decimal not in range or different format");
Hope it will help manyone.
Based off of other answers I wrote my own and it doesn't use patterns or parsing with exception checking.
It checks for a maximum of one minus sign and checks for a maximum of one decimal point.
Here are some examples and their results:
"1", "-1", "-1.5" and "-1.556" return true
"1..5", "1A.5", "1.5D", "-" and "--1" return false
Note: If needed you can modify this to accept a Locale parameter and pass that into the DecimalFormatSymbols.getInstance() calls to use a specific Locale instead of the current one.
public static boolean isNumeric(final String input) {
//Check for null or blank string
if(input == null || input.isBlank()) return false;
//Retrieve the minus sign and decimal separator characters from the current Locale
final var localeMinusSign = DecimalFormatSymbols.getInstance().getMinusSign();
final var localeDecimalSeparator = DecimalFormatSymbols.getInstance().getDecimalSeparator();
//Check if first character is a minus sign
final var isNegative = input.charAt(0) == localeMinusSign;
//Check if string is not just a minus sign
if (isNegative && input.length() == 1) return false;
var isDecimalSeparatorFound = false;
//If the string has a minus sign ignore the first character
final var startCharIndex = isNegative ? 1 : 0;
//Check if each character is a number or a decimal separator
//and make sure string only has a maximum of one decimal separator
for (var i = startCharIndex; i < input.length(); i++) {
if(!Character.isDigit(input.charAt(i))) {
if(input.charAt(i) == localeDecimalSeparator && !isDecimalSeparatorFound) {
isDecimalSeparatorFound = true;
} else return false;
}
}
return true;
}
For non-negative number use this
public boolean isNonNegativeNumber(String str) {
return str.matches("\\d+");
}
For any number use this
public boolean isNumber(String str) {
return str.matches("-?\\d+");
}
I modified CraigTP's solution to accept scientific notation and both dot and comma as decimal separators as well
^-?\d+([,\.]\d+)?([eE]-?\d+)?$
example
var re = new RegExp("^-?\d+([,\.]\d+)?([eE]-?\d+)?$");
re.test("-6546"); // true
re.test("-6546355e-4456"); // true
re.test("-6546.355e-4456"); // true, though debatable
re.test("-6546.35.5e-4456"); // false
re.test("-6546.35.5e-4456.6"); // false
That's why I like the Try* approach in .NET. In addition to the traditional Parse method that's like the Java one, you also have a TryParse method. I'm not good in Java syntax (out parameters?), so please treat the following as some kind of pseudo-code. It should make the concept clear though.
boolean parseInteger(String s, out int number)
{
try {
number = Integer.parseInt(myString);
return true;
} catch(NumberFormatException e) {
return false;
}
}
Usage:
int num;
if (parseInteger("23", out num)) {
// Do something with num.
}
Parse it (i.e. with Integer#parseInt ) and simply catch the exception. =)
To clarify: The parseInt function checks if it can parse the number in any case (obviously) and if you want to parse it anyway, you are not going to take any performance hit by actually doing the parsing.
If you would not want to parse it (or parse it very, very rarely) you might wish to do it differently of course.
You can use NumberUtils.isCreatable() from Apache Commons Lang.
Since NumberUtils.isNumber will be deprecated in 4.0, so use NumberUtils.isCreatable() instead.
Java 8 Stream, lambda expression, functional interface
All cases handled (string null, string empty etc)
String someString = null; // something="", something="123abc", something="123123"
boolean isNumeric = Stream.of(someString)
.filter(s -> s != null && !s.isEmpty())
.filter(Pattern.compile("\\D").asPredicate().negate())
.mapToLong(Long::valueOf)
.boxed()
.findAny()
.isPresent();
I am going through the Java CodeBat exercises. Here is the one I am stuck on:
Look for patterns like "zip" and "zap" in the string -- length-3, starting with 'z' and ending with 'p'. Return a string where for all such words, the middle letter is gone, so "zipXzap" yields "zpXzp".
Here is my code:
public String zipZap(String str){
String s = ""; //Initialising return string
String diff = " " + str + " "; //Ensuring no out of bounds exceptions occur
for (int i = 1; i < diff.length()-1; i++) {
if (diff.charAt(i-1) != 'z' &&
diff.charAt(i+1) != 'p') {
s += diff.charAt(i);
}
}
return s;
}
This is successful for a few of them but not for others. It seems like the && operator is acting like a || for some of the example strings; that is to say, many of the characters I want to keep are not being kept. I'm not sure how I would go about fixing it.
A nudge in the right direction if you please! I just need a hint!
Actually it is the other way around. You should do:
if (diff.charAt(i-1) != 'z' || diff.charAt(i+1) != 'p') {
s += diff.charAt(i);
}
Which is equivalent to:
if (!(diff.charAt(i-1) == 'z' && diff.charAt(i+1) == 'p')) {
s += diff.charAt(i);
}
This sounds like the perfect use of a regular expression.
The regex "z.p" will match any three letter token starting with a z, having any character in the middle, and ending in p. If you require it to be a letter you could use "z[a-zA-Z]p" instead.
So you end up with
public String zipZap(String str) {
return str.replaceAll("z[a-zA-Z]p", "zp");
}
This passes all the tests, by the way.
You could make the argument that this question is about raw string manipulation, but I would argue that that makes this an even better lesson: applying regexes appropriately is a massively useful skill to have!
public String zipZap(String str) {
//If bigger than 3, because obviously without 3 variables we just return the string.
if (str.length() >= 3)
{
//Create a variable to return at the end.
String ret = "";
//This is a cheat I worked on to get the ending to work easier.
//I noticed that it wouldn't add at the end, so I fixed it using this cheat.
int minusAmt = 2;
//The minus amount starts with 2, but can be changed to 0 when there is no instance of z-p.
for (int i = 0; i < str.length() - minusAmt; i++)
{
//I thought this was a genius solution, so I suprised myself.
if (str.charAt(i) == 'z' && str.charAt(i+2) == 'p')
{
//Add "zp" to the return string
ret = ret + "zp";
//As long as z-p occurs, we keep the minus amount at 2.
minusAmt = 2;
//Increment to skip over z-p.
i += 2;
}
//If it isn't z-p, we do this.
else
{
//Add the character
ret = ret + str.charAt(i);
//Make the minus amount 0, so that we can get the rest of the chars.
minusAmt = 0;
}
}
//return the string.
return ret;
}
//If it was less than 3 chars, we return the string.
else
{
return str;
}
}