Hello,
I would like to create an array of n empty arrays, i.e.
[ [], [], … n-3 []'s, [] ]
So that the inner arrays are different objects.
Array.new(n,[]) does not help since the created arrays are not different
objects.
Is there an idiomatic way to accomplish this?
some_func(
[1,2,3]
[4,5,6]
[7,8,9] )
=> [ [1,4,7], [2,5,8], [3,6,9] ]
Thanks,
Peter
http://www.rubyrailways.com
Peter S. wrote:
objects.
Is there an idiomatic way to accomplish this?
a = (0…3).collect{[]} # => [[], [], [], []]
a[0][0] = 1
a # => [[1], [], [], []]
- Is there an idiomatic way to do this (in a generic way, of course):
some_func(
[1,2,3]
[4,5,6]
[7,8,9] )=> [ [1,4,7], [2,5,8], [3,6,9] ]
[1,2,3].zip([4,5,6],[7,8,9]) # => [[1,4,7], [2,5,8], [3,6,9]]
a = (0…3).collect{[]} # => [[], [], [], []]
a[0][0] = 1
a # => [[1], [], [], []]
Thx!
- Is there an idiomatic way to do this (in a generic way, of course):
some_func(
[1,2,3]
[4,5,6]
[7,8,9] )=> [ [1,4,7], [2,5,8], [3,6,9] ]
[1,2,3].zip([4,5,6],[7,8,9]) # => [[1,4,7], [2,5,8], [3,6,9]]
Sorry, I did not describe the scenario properly.
The thing is that I am iterating over an array (of arrays)
and I don’t have the all the arrays at once (the inner arrays are
generated on the fly). Let me illustrate it:
input = [ [1,2,3], [4,5,6], [7,8,9] ]
result = []
input.each { |i| do_something_with(result, i) }
and the result should be
[ [1,4,7], [2,5,8], [3,6,9] ]
The question sounds: how is do_something_with implemented?
I have already implemented it but I don’t think so it’s a state-of-the
art solution 
Thanks,
Peter
http://www.rubyrailways.com
Peter S. wrote:
[4,5,6]
input = [ [1,2,3], [4,5,6], [7,8,9] ]
art solution
Right… In that case, how about this:
input.each{|i| i.each_with_index{|x,j| (result[j] ||= []) << x}}
Not sure if it’ll play the way you want with variable-length arrays, but
it puts the right contents in result.
On 10/17/06, Peter S. [email protected] wrote:
Hello,
I would like to create an array of n empty arrays, i.e.
[ [], [], … n-3 []'s, [] ]
Nicely answered
- Is there an idiomatic way to do this (in a generic way, of course):
some_func(
[1,2,3]
[4,5,6]
[7,8,9] )=> [ [1,4,7], [2,5,8], [3,6,9] ]
I suppose you forgot the “,” if you forgot the enclosing “[”, “]” just
remove the splash operator (*) below:
some_func( *[0…n-1].map{|line| [nline+1…nline+n] } )
It is quit ugly maybe you should seek for less concentrated code though
The parser is doing a great job here, I am really abusing it 
HTH
Robert
Thanks,
–
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress
depends on the unreasonable man.
I have already implemented it but I don’t think so it’s a state-of-the
art solution
Not so state-of-the-art but succint:
def do_something_with_result(a, i)
i.each_with_index { |e, j|
a[j] ? a[j] << e : a << [e]
}
end
On Tue, 2006-10-17 at 18:08 +0900, Alex Y. wrote:
Array.new(n,[]) does not help since the created arrays are not different
objects.Is there an idiomatic way to accomplish this?
a = (0…3).collect{[]} # => [[], [], [], []]
a[0][0] = 1
a # => [[1], [], [], []]
I think this will do the same thing, too:
a = Array.new(4) { [] }
a[0][0] = 1
a
Alex,
Right… In that case, how about this:
input.each{|i| i.each_with_index{|x,j| (result[j] ||= []) << x}}
Not sure if it’ll play the way you want with variable-length arrays, but
it puts the right contents in result.
Thx for the solution! Mine was totally the same (for the first time in
history since I am using Ruby 
as someone proposed on this list
On 10/17/06, Peter S. [email protected] wrote:
Thx for the solution! Mine was totally the same (for the first time in
history since I am using Ruby
You are simply brilliant
Peter
–
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress
depends on the unreasonable man.
Peter S. schrieb:
Robert D. wrote:
On 10/17/06, Peter S. [email protected] wrote:
You are simply brilliant
I am certainly very far from that… I was just happy that (still being
a noob) I have solved something on my own for the first time. What’s
wrong with that?
Certainly nothing,
but i would like to add my own version:
input.each{|i| result << i}
result = result.transpose
cheers
Simon
Robert D. wrote:
On 10/17/06, Peter S. [email protected] wrote:
You are simply brilliant
I am certainly very far from that… I was just happy that (still being
a noob) I have solved something on my own for the first time. What’s
wrong with that?
On 10/17/06, Peter S. [email protected] wrote:
Robert D. wrote:
On 10/17/06, Peter S. [email protected] wrote:
You are simply brilliant
I am certainly very far from that… I was just happy that (still being
a noob) I have solved something on my own for the first time. What’s
wrong with that?
Did you see the smiley Peter? I meant that somebody coming up with the
same
thingy than me will be brilliant because we all think that we are
brilliant,
but only in the joke.
So there is definitely nothing wrong at all and it is quite impressive
for
someone new to ruby.
However it is quite a headache to maintain, I did not add any more
readable
forms, using e.g. #inject because I thaught that this will be perfectly
at
your fingertips.
Simon has added a version I think is most readable, it is probably a
very
good thing to use.
Here is an alternative using #inject - I do not like inject - but I am a
pro, I will not let getting feelings in my way <—N.B. Smiley
n.inject([]){
|a,k| a << [kn+1…(k+1)*n]
}
Furthermore that leaves a little challange for yourself, unless you
dislike
the magic dot notation.
Cheers
Robert
–
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress
depends on the unreasonable man.
This forum is not affiliated to the Ruby language, Ruby on Rails framework, nor any Ruby applications discussed here.
Sponsor our Newsletter | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Remote Ruby Jobs