I want to increment a property value, but initialize it to 0 if it doesn't exist.
This works, but is a little clunky:
x = { };
let i = 0;
x[i] = (x[i]||0) + 1; // Increment by one. (If not present, init to zero.)
Perhaps it could be ++x[i] ??= 0. But that is fiction, and would be limited to increment by 1.
Get the value V of property P of X.
If value is undefined or null, assign new value to P.
Increment P by amount N.
You seem to be looking for1
x[p] ??= 0;
x[p] += n;
You cannot combine the two assignments into a single expression. What you can do is similar to what you've already written:
x[p] = (x[p] ?? 0) + n;
Nothing clunky about this.
1: ??= is part of the accepted logical assignment proposal and will be part of ES2021.
Related
I am working through Cracking the Coding Interview, and I am unsure of an example on time-complexity. They provide this code to determine if a number is prime:
boolean isPrime(int n) {
for (int x = 2; x * x <= n; x++) {
if (n % x == 0) {
return false;
}
}
return true;
}
Later they say "The work inside the for loop is constant". Why is run-time for modulus operator constant? Why does it not depend on n?
The key part of the statement there is inside the for loop. All that's happening is a a modulo operation. Inside the function itself the time complexity depends on n
I'm trying to find the least common multiple of an array of integers, e.g. if there are 2 numbers given (7, 3) then my task is to find the LCM of the numbers 3 through 7 (3,4,5,6,7 in that case).
My solution would be to add the maximum number to a new variable (var common) until the remainders of all of the numbers in the array (common % numBetween[i]) equal 0. There are more efficient ways of doing this, for example applying the Euclidean Algorithm, but I wanted to solve this my way.
The code:
function smallestCommons(arr) {
var numBetween = [];
var max = Math.max.apply(Math, arr);
var min = Math.min.apply(Math, arr);
while (max - min !== -1) {
numBetween.push(min);
min += 1;
} //this loop creates the array of integers, 1 through 13 in this case
var common = max;
var modulus = [1]; //I start with 1, so that the first loop could begin
var modSum = modulus.reduce(function (a, b) {
return a + b;
}, 0);
while (modSum !== 0) {
modulus = [];
for (var i = 0; i < numBetween.length; i++) {
modulus.push(common % numBetween[i]);
}
if (modSum !== 0) {
common += max;
break; //without this, the loop is infinite
}
}
return common;
}
smallestCommons([1,13]);
Now, the loop is either infinite (without break in the if statement) so I guess the modSum never equals 0, because the modulus variable always contains integers other than 0. I wanted to solve this by "resetting" the modulus to an empty array right after the loop starts, with
modulus = [];
and if I include the break, the loop stops after 1 iteration (common = 26). I can't quite grasp why my code isn't working. All comments are appreciated.
Thanks in advance!
I may be false, but do you actually never change modSum within the while-loop? If so, this is your problem. You wanted to do this by using the function .reduce(), but this does not bind the given function, so you have to call the function each time again in the loop.
So i've tried interpreting this pseudocode a friend made and i wasn't exactly sure that my method returns the right result. Anyone who's able to help me out?
I've done some test cases where e.g. an array of [2,0,7] or [0,1,4] or [0, 8, 0] would return true, but not cases like: [1,7,7] or [2,6,0].
Array(list, d)
for j = 0 to d−1 do
for i = 0 to d−1 do
for k = 0 to d−1 do
if list[j] + list[ i] + list[k] = 0 then
return true
end if
end for
end for
end for
return false
And i've made this in java:
public class One{
public static boolean method1(ArrayList<String> A, int a){
for(int i = 0; i < a-1; i++){
for(int j = 0; j < a-1; j++){
for(int k = 0; k < a-1; k++){
if(Integer.parseInt(A.get(i)+A.get(j)+A.get(k)) == 0){
return true;
}
}
}
}
return false;
}
}
Thanks in advance
For a fix to your concrete problem, see my comment. A nicer way to write that code would be to actually use a list of Integer instead of String, because you will then want to convert the strings back to integers. So, your method looks better like this:
public static boolean method(List<Integer> A) {
for (Integer i : A)
for (Integer j : A)
for (Integer k : A)
if (i + j + k == 0)
return true;
return false;
}
See that you don't even need the size as parameter, since any List in Java embeds its own size.
Somehow offtopic
You're probably trying to solve the following problem: "Find if a list of integers contains 3 different ones that sum up to 0". The solution to this problem doesn't have to be O(n^3), like yours, it can be solved in O(n^2). See this post.
Ok, so here is what I believe the pseudo code is trying to do. It returns true if there is a zero in your list or if there are three numbers that add up to zero in your list. So it should return true for following test cases. (0,1,2,3,4,5), (1,2,3,4,-3). It will return false for (1,2,3,4,5). I just used d=5 as a random example. Your code is good for the most part - you just need to add the ith, jth and kth elements in the list to check if their sum equals zero for the true condition.
I want to make a cave explorer game in game maker 8.0.
I've made a block object and an generator But I'm stuck. Here is my code for the generator
var r;
r = random_range(0, 1);
repeat(room_width/16) {
repeat(room_height/16) {
if (r == 1) {
instance_create(x, y, obj_block)
}
y += 16;
}
x += 16;
}
now i always get a blank frame
You need to use irandom(1) so you get an integer. You also should put it inside the loop so it generates a new value each time.
In the second statement, you are generating a random real value and storing it in r. What you actually require is choosing one of the two values. I recommend that you use the function choose(...) for this. Here goes the corrected statement:
r = choose(0,1); //Choose either 0 or 1 and store it in r
Also, move the above statement to the inner loop. (Because you want to decide whether you want to place a block at the said (x,y) location at every spot, right?)
Also, I recommend that you substitute sprite_width and sprite_height instead of using the value 16 directly, so that any changes you make to the sprite will adjust the resulting layout of the blocks accordingly.
Here is the code with corrections:
var r;
repeat(room_width/sprite_width) {
repeat(room_height/sprite_height) {
r = choose(0, 1);
if (r == 1)
instance_create(x, y, obj_block);
y += sprite_height;
}
x += sprite_width;
}
That should work. I hope that helps!
Looks like you are only creating a instance if r==1. Shouldn't you create a instance every time?
Variable assignment r = random_range(0, 1); is outside the loop. Therefore performed only once before starting the loop.
random_range(0, 1) returns a random real number between 0 and 1 (not integer!). But you have if (r == 1) - the probability of getting 1 is a very small.
as example:
repeat(room_width/16) {
repeat(room_height/16) {
if (irandom(1)) {
instance_create(x, y, obj_block)
}
y += 16;
}
x += 16;
}
Here's a possible, maybe even better solution:
length = room_width/16;
height = room_height/16;
for(xx = 0; xx < length; xx+=1)
{
for(yy = 0; yy < height; yy+=1)
{
if choose(0, 1) = 1 {
instance_create(xx*16, yy*16, obj_block); }
}
}
if you want random caves, you should probably delete random sections of those blocks,
not just single ones.
For bonus points, you could use a seed value for the random cave generation. You can also have a pathway random generation that will have a guaranteed path to the finish with random openings and fake paths that generate randomly from that path. Then you can fill in the extra spaces with other random pieces.
But in regards to your code, you must redefine the random number each time you are placing a block, which is why all of them are the same. It should be called inside of the loops, and should be an integer instead of a decimal value.
Problem is on the first line, you need to put r = something in the for cycle
In Objective-C, is there any difference between n++ and ++n (eg. used in a for loop)?
++n; increments the value of n before the expression is evaluated.
n++; increments the value of n after the expression is evaluated.
So compare the results of this
int n = 41;
int o = ++n; //n = 42, o = 42
with the results of this:
int n = 41;
int o = n++; //n = 42, o = 41
In the case of loops:
for (int i = 0; i < j; i++) {/*...*/}
however it doesn't make any difference, unless you had something like this:
for (int i = 0; i < j; x = i++) {/*...*/}
or this:
for (int i = 0; i < j; x = ++i) {/*...*/}
One could say:
It doesn't matter whether to use n++ or ++n as long as no second (related) variable is modified (based on n) within the same expression.
The same rules apply to --n; and n--;, obviously.
++n increments the value before it's used (pre-increment) and n++ increments after (post-increment).
In the context of a for loop, there is no observable difference, as the increment is applied after the code in the loop has been executed.
++n and n++ differ in what the expression evaluates to. An example:
int n = 0;
NSLog(#"%d", n); // 0
NSLog(#"%d", n++); // still 0, increments afterwards
NSLog(#"%d", n); // 1
NSLog(#"%d", ++n); // 2, because it increments first
NSLog(#"%d", n); // 2
In a loop it wont make a difference. Some people say ++n is faster though
In Scott Meyers "More Effective C++" Book he makes a very rational case for preferring prefix increment to postfix increment. In a nutshell, in that language due to operator overloading facilities prefix increment is almost always faster. Objective C doesn't support overloaded operators but if you have or ever will do any C++ or Objective-C++ programming then preferring prefix increment is a good habit to get into.
Remember that most of the time ++n looks like:
n = n + 1
[do something with n]
Whereas n++ looks like (if used as intended):
register A = n; // copy n
[do something with n]
n = A + 1;
As you can see the postfix case has more instructions. In simple for loops most compilers are smart enough to avoid the copy if it's obvious that the pre-increment n isn't going to be used but that case devolves to the prefix case.
I Hope this makes sense. In summary you should use prefix unless you really want the "side-effect" behavior of evaluate then increment that you get from the postfix version.
As stated above,
--n decrements the value of n before the expression is evaluated.
n--; decrements the value of n after the expression is evaluated.
The thing here to note is when using while loops
For example:
n = 5
while(n--) #Runs the loop 5 times
while(--n) #Runs the loop 4 times
As in n-- the loop runs extra time while n = 1
But in --n 1 is first decremented to 0, and then evaluated. This causes the while loop to break.