Kotlin: iterate through array in reversed order - kotlin

Is there a convenient way in Kotlin to iterate through an array, let's say IntArray, in reversed order with these 2 conditions:
do not create an additional reversed copy of the array.
I need a handle to an element like in Java's enhanced for.
The best I could get is adding an extension function, but this needs to be done for each type of array if I need it not only for IntArrays:
fun IntArray.forEachReversed(action: (Int) -> Unit): Unit {
for (i in indices.reversed()) action(this[i])
}
Is there a better way in Kotlin class library?

this needs to be done for each type of array if I need it not only for IntArrays:
I think this is unavoidable because of the way the JVM works. There are separate classes to represent each primitive type on the JVM. However, there are only 8 of them, so it shouldn't be too bad ;-)
For Collections, there is the asReversed() function, but it's not available for arrays:
val original = mutableListOf('a', 'b', 'c', 'd', 'e')
val originalReadOnly = original as List<Char>
val reversed = originalReadOnly.asReversed()
println(original) // [a, b, c, d, e]
println(reversed) // [e, d, c, b, a]
// changing the original list affects its reversed view
original.add('f')
println(original) // [a, b, c, d, e, f]
println(reversed) // [f, e, d, c, b, a]

To answer you question, you solution looks fine but if your are targeting primitive IntArray, LongArray, FloatArray etc you cannot come with a generic solution, as this classes are independent and only thing common is Iterator, but you cannot traverse the iterator in reverse order without making a copy(ListIterator supports reverse iteration though), but the closest you can get is to use Array<T> instead specific Array like below
fun <T> Array<T>.forEachReversed(action: (T) -> Unit){
for(i in indices.reversed()){ action(this[i]) }
}
val intArray = Array(2){ 0 }
val longArray = Array<Long>(2){ 0 }
intArray.forEachReversed { }
longArray.forEachReversed { }

As pointed out by #ajan.kali if you need primitive arrays there is not much you can do. I suppose you have to deal with arrays but, if this is not the case, you should prefer other data structures (more info here)
Returning to your question, if your are fine using generic arrays you could probably declare your iterator to iterate in reverse order:
class ReverseIterator<T>(val it: Iterable<T>) : Iterator<T> {
private var index = it.count() - 1
override fun hasNext() = index >= 0
override fun next(): T = try { it.elementAt(index--) } catch (e:
IndexOutOfBoundsException) { index -= 1; throw
NoSuchElementException(e.message) }
}
then your extension function will become:
fun <T> Iterable<T>.forEachReversed(action: (T) -> Unit) {
for(elem in ReverseIterator(this)) {
action(elem)
}
}
and then given an array you can invoke it this way:
intArrayOf(1, 2, 3).asIterable().forEachReversed {
println(it)
}
Not particularly happy with this, but with arrays there is not much you can do other to try avoiding them.

Related

Generic transpose (or anything else really!) in Kotlin

Working on an Advent of Code puzzle I had found myself defining a function to transpose matrices of integers:
fun transpose(xs: Array<Array<Int>>): Array<Array<Int>> {
val cols = xs[0].size // 3
val rows = xs.size // 2
var ys = Array(cols) { Array(rows) { 0 } }
for (i in 0..rows - 1) {
for (j in 0..cols - 1)
ys[j][i] = xs[i][j]
}
return ys
}
Turns out that in the following puzzle I also needed to transpose a matrix, but it wasn't a matrix of Ints, so i tried to generalize. In Haskell I would have had something of type
transpose :: [[a]] -> [[a]]
and to replicate that in Kotlin I tried the following:
fun transpose(xs: Array<Array<Any>>): Array<Array<Any>> {
val cols = xs[0].size
val rows = xs.size
var ys = Array(cols) { Array(rows) { Any() } } // maybe this is the problem?
for (i in 0..rows - 1) {
for (j in 0..cols - 1)
ys[j][i] = xs[i][j]
}
return ys
}
This seems ok but it isn't. In fact, when I try calling it on the original matrix of integers I get Type mismatch: inferred type is Array<Array<Int>> but Array<Array<Any>> was expected.
The thing is, I don't really understand this error message: I thought Any was a supertype of anything else?
Googling around I thought I understood that I should use some sort of type constraint syntax (sorry, not sure it's called like that in Kotlin), thus changing the type to fun <T: Any> transpose(xs: Array<Array<T>>): Array<Array<T>>, but then at the return line I get Type mismatch: inferred type is Array<Array<Any>> but Array<Array<T>> was expected
So my question is, how do I write a transpose matrix that works on any 2-dimensional array?
As you pointed out yourself, the line Array(cols) { Array(rows) { Any() } } creates an Array<Array<Any>>, so if you use it in your generic function, you won't be able to return it when Array<Array<T>> is expected.
Instead, you should make use of this lambda to directly provide the correct value for the correct index (instead of initializing to arbitrary values and replacing all of them):
inline fun <reified T> transpose(xs: Array<Array<T>>): Array<Array<T>> {
val cols = xs[0].size
val rows = xs.size
return Array(cols) { j ->
Array(rows) { i ->
xs[i][j]
}
}
}
I don't really understand this error message: I thought Any was a supertype of anything else?
This is because arrays in Kotlin are invariant in their element type. If you don't know about generic variance, it's about describing how the hierarchy of a generic type compares to the hierarchy of their type arguments.
For example, assume you have a type Foo<T>. Now, the fact that Int is a subtype of Any doesn't necessarily imply that Foo<Int> is a subtype of Foo<Any>. You can look up the jargon, but essentially you have 3 possibilities here:
We say that Foo is covariant in its type argument T if Foo<Int> is a subtype of Foo<Any> (Foo types "vary the same way" as T)
We say that Foo is contravariant in its type argument T if Foo<Int> is a supertype of Foo<Any> (Foo types "vary the opposite way" compared to T)
We say that Foo is invariant in its type argument T if none of the above can be said
Arrays in Kotlin are invariant. Kotlin's read-only List, however, is covariant in the type of its elements. This is why it's ok to assign a List<Int> to a variable of type List<Any> in Kotlin.

Kotlin `with` with multiple params

I really like how with behaves. Is it possible to extend with so it works with multiple params.
I want to use with like this.
with(foo, bar){
fooFunction()
barFunction()
}
First, I strongly against it.
One can come close to what you want:
data class A(val a: Int)
data class B(val b: Int)
fun<S, T> withPair(a: S, b: T, f: S.() -> T.() -> Unit) {
val g = a.f()
b.g()
}
fun main() {
withPair(A(1), B(2)) {{
print(a)
print(b)
}}
}
So you can have a block function which return a block function. You need nested lambdas though.
I don't think it's possible to write a function which behaves like this, but with the standard with you can write
with(foo) {
with(bar) {
fooFunction()
barFunction()
}
}
(note that if a method is available on both foo and bar, this way the bar method will be called).
Another possibility is to use a Pair, something like:
with( Pair("abc" , listOf(1,2,3)) ) {
println(first.plus("d"))
println(second.reversed())
}
Prints:
abcd
[3, 2, 1]
It's impossible to do this with the standard with function because it cannot have two receiver types of the lambda (accessed by this).
with(foo, bar){
fooFunction() //`this` would have to mean `foo`
barFunction() //`this` would have to mean `bar`
}
Nesting two withs is nasty. It can cause all sort of issues, with this ambiguity...
That said, you can create your own with function that will work similarly to the standard one, but will not use passed extension fun (so no receiver type "hidden" behind this), but a regular lambda with two arguments:
inline fun <T1, T2, R> with(t1: T1, t2: T2, block: (T1, T2) -> R): R {
return block.invoke(t1, t2)
}
//then:
with(foo, bar) { f, b ->
f.fooFunction()
b.barFunction()
}

Idiomatic way to convert a List to a Pair in Kotlin

There is an idiomatic approach to converting a Pair into a List:
Pair(a, b).toList()
No I am searching for the opposite process. My best approach looks like this:
Pair(list[0], list[1])
My problem with this is that I need to make a List value in code first for this to work. I would love something like this:
listOf(a, b).toPair()
For a more general solution you could use the extension function zipWithNext* which
Returns a list of pairs of each two adjacent elements in this collection.
The example in the documentation explains it better:
val letters = ('a'..'f').toList()
val pairs = letters.zipWithNext()
println(letters) // [a, b, c, d, e, f]
println(pairs) // [(a, b), (b, c), (c, d), (d, e), (e, f)]
*note that this function is available since v1.2 of Kotlin.
You can make this extension for yourself:
fun <T> List<T>.toPair(): Pair<T, T> {
if (this.size != 2) {
throw IllegalArgumentException("List is not of length 2!")
}
return Pair(this[0], this[1])
}
The error handling is up to you, you could also return a Pair<T, T>? with null being returned in the case where the List is not the correct length. You could also only check that it has at least 2 elements, and not require it to have exactly 2.
Usage is as you've described:
listOf(a, b).toPair()
Here's a variation on #zsmb13's solution that avoids creating the exception explicitly and dereferencing the list by index:
fun <T> List<T>.toPair(): Pair<T, T> {
require (this.size == 2) { "List is not of length 2!" }
val (a, b) = this
return Pair(a, b)
}
If you're looking for an option that is chainable (for example I came across this when mapping a list of strings that I turned into a pair by splitting), I find this pattern useful:
yourList.let{ it[0] to it[1] } // this assumes yourList always has at least 2 values
Here it is in context:
val pairs: List<Pair<String,String>> = lines.map{ it.split(",").let{ it[0] to it[1] } }

What's the point of destructuring declarations in Kotlin?

I have come across the concept called destructuring declarations - when you can return multiple values from a function at once. It seems very convenient, but at the same time it looks like a tricky workaround. Each time when I think about that feature in Java, I understand that it's a hole in my architecture - there should probably be a class then, not just a couple of variables.
What do you think?
The concept allows having classes that clearly identify a few of their primary properties, the components.
Then you can access these components by using a destructuring declaration, without syntactic noise of accessing the properties.
Compare:
val point = clickEvent.getPointOnScreen()
val x = point.xCoordinate
val y = point.yCoordinate
// Use `x` and `y` in some calculations
and, assuming that the type has component1 and component2, just:
val (x, y) = clickEvent.getPointOnScreen()
Basically, it is not necessary to use this sort of syntactic sugar, and the concept itself does not harm any of the abstractions, it only provides a convenient way to access properties of a class instance in some cases when you don't need the instance itself.
Another example is working with map entries, e.g:
for ((key, value) in myMap) { /* ... */ }
There's still a Map.Entry<K, V> behind the (key, value) destructuring, and you can replace it by for (entry in myMap) ..., but usually it's the two properties that you need. This is where destructuring saves you from a little syntactic noise.
You can also define componentN function as extension for non data classes like this:
operator fun Location.component1() = latitude
operator fun Location.component2() = longitude
and when you want to process on list of locations, you can write this:
for ((lat, lon) in locations) {
......
}
What's the point of destructuring declarations in Kotlin?
Structuring, or construction, is creating an object from values in different variables. Destructuring is the opposite, to extract values into variables from within an existing object.
Part of the Kotlin philosophy is to be concise since the simpler and more concise the code is, the faster you’ll understand what’s going on. Destructuring improves readability which is part of being concise. Compare the following two snippets (let's consider the class Triple)
Without using destructuring
fun getFullName() = Triple("Thomas", "Alva", "Edison")
val result = getFullName()
val first = result.first
val middle = result.second
val last = result.third
Using destructuring
fun getFullName() = Triple("Thomas", "Alva", "Edison")
val (first, middle, last) = getFullName()
It is also possible to take advantage of destructuring to extract key and value from Map's entries.
for ((key, value) in aMap) {
/* ... */
}
Destructuring is the most useful when dealing with built-in data structures. Their fields have names making sense in the context of a data structure (handy when you're writing your own hashmap), but completely cryptic when you're dealing with the data contained there (which is 100% of the time, nobody writes their own hashmaps). Eg. Pair with it's first and second or Map.Entry with key and value.
Consider transforming Map values:
val myMap = mapOf("apples" to 0, "oranges" to 1, "bananas" to 2)
myMap
.asIterable()
.filter { it.value > 0 }
.sortedBy { it.key.length }
.joinToString(prefix = "We have ", postfix = " in the warehouse") {
"{$it.value} of ${it.key}"
}
To make it readable, you'd have to define intermediate variables:
myMap
.asIterable()
.filter {
val count = it.value
count > 0
}
.sortedBy {
val fruit = it.key
fruit.length
}
.joinToString(prefix = "We have ", postfix = " in the warehouse") {
val count = it.value
val fruit = it.key
"$count of $fruit"
}
Now it's readable, but at what cost?!?
Destructuring makes this cost more beareable:
myMap
.asIterable()
.filter { (fruit, count) -> count > 0 }
.sortedBy { (fruit, count) -> fruit.length }
.joinToString(prefix = "We have ", postfix = " in the warehouse") { (fruit, count) ->
"$count of $fruit"
}
That's the point.

Return double index of collection's element while iterating

In Kotlin documentation I found the following example:
for ((index, value) in array.withIndex()) {
println("the element at $index is $value")
}
Is it possible (and how) to do the similar with 2D matrix:
for ((i, j, value) in matrix2D.withIndex()) {
// but iterate iver double index: i - row, j - column
if (otherMatrix2D[i, j] > value) doSomething()
}
How to make support this functionality in Kotlin class?
While the solutions proposed by miensol and hotkey are correct it would be the least efficient way to iterate a matrix. For instance, the solution of hotkey makes M * N allocations of Cell<T> plus M allocations of List<Cell<T>> and IntRange plus one allocation of List<List<Cell<T>>> and IntRange. Moreover lists resize when new cells are added so even more allocations happen. That's too much allocations for just iterating a matrix.
Iteration using an inline function
I would recommend you to implement a very similar and very effective at the same time extension function that will be similar to Array<T>.forEachIndexed. This solution doesn't do any allocations at all and as efficient as writing nested for cycles.
inline fun <T> Matrix<T>.forEachIndexed(callback: (Int, Int, T) -> Unit) {
for (i in 0..cols - 1) {
for (j in 0..rows - 1) {
callback(i, j, this[i, j])
}
}
}
You can call this function in the following way:
matrix.forEachIndexed { i, j, value ->
if (otherMatrix[i, j] > value) doSomething()
}
Iteration using a destructive declaration
If you want to use a traditional for-loop with destructive declaration for some reason there exist a way more efficient but hacky solution. It uses a sequence instead of allocating multiple lists and creates only a single instance of Cell, but the Cell itself is mutable.
data class Cell<T>(var i: Int, var j: Int, var value: T)
fun <T> Matrix<T>.withIndex(): Sequence<Cell<T>> {
val cell = Cell(0, 0, this[0, 0])
return generateSequence(cell) { cell ->
cell.j += 1
if (cell.j >= rows) {
cell.j = 0
cell.i += 1
if (cell.i >= cols) {
return#generateSequence null
}
}
cell.value = this[cell.i, cell.j]
cell
}
}
And you can use this function to iterate a matrix in a for-loop:
for ((i, j, item) in matrix.withIndex()) {
if (otherMatrix[i, j] > value) doSomething()
}
This solution is lightly less efficient than the first one and not so robust because of a mutable Cell, so I would really recommend you to use the first one.
These two language features are used for implementing the behaviour that you want:
For-loops can be used with any class that has a method that provides an iterator.
for (item in myItems) { ... }
This code will compile if myItems has function iterator() returning something with functions hasNext(): Boolean and next().
Usually it is an Iterable<SomeType> implementation (some collection), but you can add iterator() method to an existing class as an extension, and you will be able to use that class in for-loops as well.
For destructuring declaration, the item type should have componentN() functions.
val (x, y, z) = item
Here the compiler expects item to have component1(), component2() and component3() functions. You can also use data classes, they have these functions generated.
Destructuring in for-loop works in a similar way: the type that the iterator's next() returns must have componentN() functions.
Example implementation (not pretending to be best at performance, see below):
Class with destructuring support:
class Cell<T>(val i: Int, val j: Int, val item: T) {
operator fun component1() = i
operator fun component2() = j
operator fun component3() = item
}
Or using data class:
data class Cell<T>(val i: Int, val j: Int, val item: T)
Function that returns List<Cell<T>> (written as an extension, but can also be a member function):
fun <T> Matrix<T>.withIndex() =
(0 .. height - 1).flatMap { i ->
(0 .. width - 1). map { j ->
Cell(i, j, this[i, j])
}
}
The usage:
for ((i, j, item) in matrix2d.withIndex()) { ... }
UPD Solution offered by Michael actually performs better (run this test, the difference is about 2x to 3x), so it's more suitable for performance critical code.
The following method:
data class Matrix2DValue<T>(val x: Int, val y: Int, val value: T)
fun withIndex(): Iterable<Matrix2DValue<T>> {
//build the list of values
}
Would allow you to write for as:
for ((x, y, value) in matrix2d.withIndex()) {
println("value: $value, x: $x, y: $y")
}
Bear in mind though that the order in which you declare data class properties defines the values of (x, y, value) - as opposed to for variable names. You can find more information about destructuring in the Kotlin documentation.