I heve a static collection. And I want to check for any match by value each time, the value is changed.
Now I have:
var isOk = R.any(item => item.test(value), items);
What I want:
To store a function in other place and to call it like:
var isOk = checkMatch(value);
Any ideas? Thx.
UPDATE
I'm looking for solution in Ramda way. Something with changind call order of R.__
Wrap it in a closure that takes value.
var isOk = (value) => R.any(item => item.test(value), items);
var isOk_foobar = isOk('foobar');
I don't know for sure that your test items are regular expressions to use on
Strings, but if they are, you might try something like this:
const anyMatch = curry((regexes, val) => any(regex => test(regex, val), regexes))
const testFiles = anyMatch([/test\/(.)+\.js/i, /\.spec\.js/i])
testFiles('foo.js') //=> false
testFiles('test/foo.js') //=> true
testFiles('foo.spec.js') //=> true
And this looks clean to me, and very much in the spirit of Ramda. If you wanted to make it point-free, you could do this:
const anyMatch = useWith(flip(any), [identity, flip(test)])
But I find that much less readable. To me, point-free is a tool worth using when it improves readability, and to avoid when it doesn't.
You can see this in action on the Ramda REPL.
There is a method that receives "someObj" and its purpose is to check the var ASet of type Set<>, iterate through it and replace its objects with the database object. For that I written the following code:
if(!CollectionUtils.isEmpty(someObj.getASet())){
someObj.setASet(
someObj.getASet()
.stream()
.map( c -> AService.getExistingA(c.getId()))
.collect(Collectors.toSet())
);
}
It does the purpose but I'm really not happy with it's readability.
Optional.ofNullable(someObj.getASet())
.ifPresent( ASet-> someObj.setASet(
ASet.stream()
.map( c -> AService.getExistingA(c.getId()))
.collect(Collectors.toSet())
));
Now it looks even less readable, can you recommend a better way? I think the worst problem is that someObj.setASet, it simply looks weird, is ther any functional way to replace that object after the collect?
Try using Optional.map:
Optional.ofNullable(someObj.getASet())
.map(set -> set.stream()
.map(c -> AService.getExistingA(c.getId()))
.collect(Collectors.toSet()))
.ifPresent(set -> someObj.setASet(set));
Now, the transform logic and the conditional imperative "set the result" are separate.
Or, the old standby works too -- no shame in using it:
Set set = someObj.getASet();
if (set != null) {
Set newSet = set.stream()
.map(c -> AService.getExistingA(c.getId()))
.collect(Collectors.toSet());
someObj.setASet(newSet);
}
In Scalding, suppose you have a TypedPipe[Long] or ValuePipe[Long]. How would you go about checking whether they are empty in the most elegant/efficient way?
Currently testing the following:
val isTPEmpty: Boolean = typePipe.equals(TypedPipe.empty)
val isVPEmpty: Boolean = valuePipe.equals(EmptyValue)
Or, to make it more generic:
def isTypedPipeEmpty[A](typedPipe: TypedPipe[A]): Boolean = {
val emptyTP: TypedPipe[A] = TypedPipe.empty
typedPipe.equals(emptyTP)
}
UPDATE: this doesn't work (will return false for an empty TypedPipe). Appreciate any inputs.
After speaking to several people on this, there is no straight solution simply because a TypedPipe is distributed, and checking whether it is empty is "expensive", therefore one should avoid this as much as possible.
If you absolutely have no choice, what worked for me was something "ugly" as creating a temporary empty TypedPipe, then calling mapWithValue on my ValuePipe, and if it is empty do X, otherwise do Y. Something like:
TypedPipe.from(List()).mapWithValue(valuePipe) { case (temp, valuePipe) => if (valuePipe.isEmpty) doX else doY }
But again, cumbersome.
I have several semantic triples. Some examples:
Porky,species,pig // Porky's species is "pig"
Bob,sister,May // Bob's sister is May
May,brother,Sam // May's borther is Sam
Sam,wife,Jane // Sam's wife is Jane
... and so on ...
I store each triple in 6 different hashes. Example:
$ijk{Porky}{species}{pig} = 1;
$ikj{Porky}{pig}{species} = 1;
$jik{species}{Porky}{pig} = 1;
$jki{species}{pig}{Porky} = 1;
$kij{pig}{Porky}{species} = 1;
$kji{pig}{species}{Porky} = 1;
This lets me efficiently ask questions like:
What species is Porky (keys %{$ijk{Porky}{species}})
List all pigs (keys %{$jki{species}{pig}})
What information do I have on Porky? (keys %{$ijk{Porky}})
List all species (keys %{$jik{species}})
and so on. Note that none of the examples above go through a list one element at a time. They all take me "instantly" to my answer. In other words, each answer is a hash value. Of course, the answer itself may be a list, but I don't traverse any lists to get to that answer.
However, defining 6 separate hashes seems really inefficient. Is there
an easier way to do this without using an external database engine
(for this question, SQLite3 counts as an external database engine)?
Or have I just replicated a small subset of SQL into Perl?
EDIT: I guess what I'm trying to say: I love associative arrays, but they seem to be the wrong data structure for this job. What's the right data structure here, and what Perl module implements it?
Have you looked at using RDF::Trine? It has DBI-backed stores, but it also has in-memory stores, and can parse/serialize in RDF/XML, Turtle, N-Triples, etc if you need persistence.
Example:
use strict;
use warnings;
use RDF::Trine qw(statement literal);
my $ns = RDF::Trine::Namespace->new("http://example.com/");
my $data = RDF::Trine::Model->new;
$data->add_statement(statement $ns->Peppa, $ns->species, $ns->Pig);
$data->add_statement(statement $ns->Peppa, $ns->name, literal 'Peppa');
$data->add_statement(statement $ns->George, $ns->species, $ns->Pig);
$data->add_statement(statement $ns->George, $ns->name, literal 'George');
$data->add_statement(statement $ns->Suzy, $ns->species, $ns->Sheep);
$data->add_statement(statement $ns->Suzy, $ns->name, literal 'Suzy');
print "Here are the pigs...\n";
for my $pig ($data->subjects($ns->species, $ns->Pig)) {
my ($name) = $data->objects($pig, $ns->name);
print $name->literal_value, "\n";
}
print "Let's dump all the data...\n";
my $ser = RDF::Trine::Serializer::Turtle->new;
print $ser->serialize_model_to_string($data), "\n";
RDF::Trine is quite a big framework, so has a bit of a compile-time penalty. At run-time it's relatively fast though.
RDF::Trine can be combined with RDF::Query if you wish to query your data using SPARQL.
use RDF::Query;
my $q = RDF::Query->new('
PREFIX : <http://example.com/>
SELECT ?name
WHERE {
?thing :species :Pig ;
:name ?name .
}
');
my $r = $q->execute($data);
print "Here are the pigs...\n";
while (my $row = $r->next) {
print $row->{name}->literal_value, "\n";
}
RDF::Query supports both SPARQL 1.0 and SPARQL 1.1. RDF::Trine and RDF::Query are both written by Gregory Williams who was a member of the SPARQL 1.1 Working Group. RDF::Query was one of the first implementations to achieve 100% on the SPARQL 1.1 Query test suite. (It may have even been the first?)
"Efficient" is not really the right word here since you're worried about improving speed in exchange for memory, which is generally how it works.
Only real alternative is to store the triplets as distinct values, and then just have three "indexes" into them:
$row = [ "Porky", "species", "pig" ];
push #{$subject_index{Porky}}, $row;
push #{$relation_index{species}}, $row;
push #{$target_index{pig}}, $row;
To do something like "list all pigs", you'd have to find the intersection of $relation_index{species} and $target_index{pig}. Which you can do manually, or with your favorite set implementation.
Then wrap it all up in a nice object interface, and you've basically implemented INNER JOIN. :)
A single hash of hash should be sufficient:
use strict;
use warnings;
use List::MoreUtils qw(uniq);
use Data::Dump qw(dump);
my %data;
while (<DATA>) {
chomp;
my ($name, $type, $value) = split ',';
$data{$name}{$type} = $value;
}
# What species is Porky?
print "Porky's species is: $data{Porky}{species}\n";
# List all pigs
print "All pigs: " . join(',', grep {defined $data{$_}{species} && $data{$_}{species} eq 'pig'} keys %data) . "\n";
# What information do I have on Porky?
print "Info on Porky: " . dump($data{Porky}) . "\n";
# List all species
print "All species: " . join(',', uniq grep defined, map $_->{species}, values %data) . "\n";
__DATA__
Porky,species,pig
Bob,sister,May
May,brother,Sam
Sam,wife,Jane
Outputs:
Porky's species is: pig
All pigs: Porky
Info on Porky: { species => "pig" }
All species: pig
I think you are mixing categories and values, such as name=Porky, and species=pig.
Given your example, I'd go with something like this:
my %hash;
$hash{name}{Porky}{species}{pig} = 1;
$hash{species}{pig}{name}{Porky} = 1;
$hash{name}{Bob}{sister}{May} = 1;
$hash{sister}{May}{name}{Bob} = 1;
$hash{name}{May}{brother}{Sam} = 1;
$hash{brother}{Sam}{name}{May} = 1;
$hash{name}{Sam}{wife}{Jane} = 1;
$hash{wife}{Jane}{name}{Sam} = 1;
Yes, this has some apparent redundancy, since we can easily distinguish most names from other values. But the 3rd-level hash key is also a top level hash key, which can be used to get more information on some element.
Or have I just replicated a small subset of SQL into Perl?
It's pretty easy to start using actual SQL, using an SQLite in memory database.
#!/usr/bin/perl
use warnings; use strict;
use DBI;
my $dbh = DBI->connect("dbi:SQLite::memory:", "", "", {
sqlite_use_immediate_transaction => 0,
RaiseError => 1,
});
$dbh->do("CREATE TABLE triple(subject,predicate,object)");
$dbh->do("CREATE INDEX 'triple(subject)' ON triple(subject)");
$dbh->do("CREATE INDEX 'triple(predicate)' ON triple(predicate)");
$dbh->do("CREATE INDEX 'triple(object)' ON triple(object)");
for ([qw<Porky species pig>],
[qw<Porky color pink>],
[qw<Sylvester species cat>]) {
$dbh->do("INSERT INTO triple(subject,predicate,object) VALUES (?, ?, ?)", {}, #$_);
}
use JSON;
print to_json( $dbh->selectall_arrayref('SELECT * from triple WHERE predicate="species"', {Slice => {}}) );
Gives:
[{"object":"pig","predicate":"species","subject":"Porky"},
{"object":"cat","predicate":"species","subject":"Sylvester"}]
You can then query and index the data in a familiar manner. Very scalable as well.
In perl you can write
$string =~ tr/[a,e,i,o,u,y]/[A,E,I,O,U,Y]/;
for example.
Is it possible to achieve the same "translation" effects with VB.Net regexes?
Thanks you!
PS: I'm not searching for a way to port this very example, it's more of a curiosity question :)
There is no standard method for this. You can do it by iterating over each character in your input string and using a dictionary to map it to another character (or leave it unchanged if the character is not found in the dictionary). The result can be built using a StringBuilder for performance reasons.
If performance is not an issue then you might be able to use a few replace operations instead:
s = s.Replace("a", "A")
.Replace("e", "E")
...
.Replace("y", "Y");
Here's one way to do this:
public string fakeTR(string theString, char[] org, char[] rep)
{
for(int i=0;i<org.lenght;i++)
{
theString = theString.Replace(org[i], rep[i]);
}
return theString;
}
You would be able to call it with somewhat clunky but shorter:
string v = "Black in South Dakota";
v = fakeTR(v, new char[]{'B','l','a','c','k'}, new char[]{'W','h','i','t','e'});
H/T http://discuss.joelonsoftware.com/default.asp?dotnet.12.306220.6