I am working on a function that will split a sequence of dates (or anything else) into a number of sequences contained within a vector based on a given number x.
(date1 date2 date3 date4 date5 date6 date7)
So given the list of dates above and passing in the variable 2 it will produce the vector below.
[(date1 date2) (date3 date4) (date5 date6) (date7)]
The code I have so far is below but all it returns is a vector containing nil.
(defn date-splitter [date-count dates x]
(loop [i date-count, current-split dates, split-dates (vector)]
(if (<= i x)
(conj split-dates (get current-split 1))
(let [s (split-at x current-split)]
(recur (int (- i x)) (get s 1) (conj split-dates (get s 0)))))))
I have also had a look at the split-with function, thinking that I could use it to split the sequence when the modulus of the index divided by x is zero, but I haven't had any luck with this.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
David.
Take a look at split's cousin partition
=> (partition-all 2 '(1 2 3 4 5 6 7))
((1 2) (3 4) (5 6) (7))
If you want to do index based operations, you can use map-indexed and keep-indexed.
=> (map-indexed (fn [idx itm] [(Math/floor (/ idx 2)) itm]) [1 2 3 4 5 6 7])
([0.0 1] [0.0 2] [1.0 3] [1.0 4] [2.0 5] [2.0 6] [3.0 7])
In FP, non-index based operations are usually the better option though.
Index based solutions can be considered code smell.
There's several ways of doing partition the FP way without index. Ankur's is a great example of how to solve this if partition-all wouldn't have been in core clojure.
(defn date-splitter [n v]
(if (not (seq v))
[]
(lazy-cat [(take n v)] (date-splitter n (drop n v)))))
user=> (date-splitter 3 [1,2,3,4])
((1 2 3) (4))
Related
Given a list of integers from 1 do 10 with size of 5, how do I check if there are only 2 same integers in the list?
For example
(check '(2 2 4 5 7))
yields yes, while
(check '(2 1 4 4 4))
or
(check '(1 2 3 4 5))
yields no
Here is a solution using frequencies to count occurrences and filter to count the number of values that occur only twice:
(defn only-one-pair? [coll]
(->> coll
frequencies ; map with counts of each value in coll
(filter #(= (second %) 2)) ; Keep values that have 2 occurrences
count ; number of unique values with only 2 occurrences
(= 1))) ; true if only one unique val in coll with 2 occurrences
Which gives:
user=> (only-one-pair? '(2 1 4 4 4))
false
user=> (only-one-pair? '(2 2 4 5 7))
true
user=> (only-one-pair? '(1 2 3 4 5))
false
Intermediate steps in the function to get a sense of how it works:
user=> (->> '(2 2 4 5 7) frequencies)
{2 2, 4 1, 5 1, 7 1}
user=> (->> '(2 2 4 5 7) frequencies (filter #(= (second %) 2)))
([2 2])
user=> (->> '(2 2 4 5 7) frequencies (filter #(= (second %) 2)) count)
1
Per a suggestion, the function could use a more descriptive name and it's also best practice to give predicate functions a ? at the end of it in Clojure. So maybe something like only-one-pair? is better than just check.
Christian Gonzalez's answer is elegant, and great if you are sure you are operating on a small input. However, it is eager: it forces the entire input list even when itcould in principle tell sooner that the result will be false. This is a problem if the list is very large, or if it is a lazy list whose elements are expensive to compute - try it on (list* 1 1 1 (range 1e9))! I therefore present below an alternative that short-circuits as soon as it finds a second duplicate:
(defn exactly-one-duplicate? [coll]
(loop [seen #{}
xs (seq coll)
seen-dupe false]
(if-not xs
seen-dupe
(let [x (first xs)]
(if (contains? seen x)
(and (not seen-dupe)
(recur seen (next xs) true))
(recur (conj seen x) (next xs) seen-dupe))))))
Naturally it is rather more cumbersome than the carefree approach, but I couldn't see a way to get this short-circuiting behavior without doing everything by hand. I would love to see an improvement that achieves the same result by combining higher-level functions.
(letfn [(check [xs] (->> xs distinct count (= (dec (count xs)))))]
(clojure.test/are [input output]
(= (check input) output)
[1 2 3 4 5] false
[1 2 1 4 5] true
[1 2 1 2 1] false))
but I like a shorter (but limited to exactly 5 item lists):
(check [xs] (->> xs distinct count (= 4)))
In answer to Alan Malloy's plea, here is a somewhat combinatory solution:
(defn check [coll]
(let [accums (reductions conj #{} coll)]
(->> (map contains? accums coll)
(filter identity)
(= (list true)))))
This
creates a lazy sequence of the accumulating set;
tests it against each corresponding new element;
filters for the true cases - those where the element is already present;
tests whether there is exactly one of them.
It is lazy, but does duplicate the business of scanning the given collection. I tried it on Alan Malloy's example:
=> (check (list* 1 1 1 (range 1e9)))
false
This returns instantly. Extending the range makes no difference:
=> (check (list* 1 1 1 (range 1e20)))
false
... also returns instantly.
Edited to accept Alan Malloy's suggested simplification, which I have had to modify to avoid what appears to be a bug in Clojure 1.10.0.
you can do something like this
(defn check [my-list]
(not (empty? (filter (fn[[k v]] (= v 2)) (frequencies my-list)))))
(check '(2 4 5 7))
(check '(2 2 4 5 7))
Similar to others using frequencies - just apply twice
(-> coll
frequencies
vals
frequencies
(get 2)
(= 1))
Positive case:
(def coll '(2 2 4 5 7))
frequencies=> {2 2, 4 1, 5 1, 7 1}
vals=> (2 1 1 1)
frequencies=> {2 1, 1 3}
(get (frequencies #) 2)=> 1
Negative case:
(def coll '(2 1 4 4 4))
frequencies=> {2 1, 1 1, 4 3}
vals=> (1 1 3)
frequencies=> {1 2, 3 1}
(get (frequencies #) 2)=> nil
I've tried this for so many nights that I've finally given up on myself. Seems like an extremely simple problem, but I guess I'm just not fully understanding Clojure as well as I should be (I partially attribute that to my almost sole experience with imperative languages). The problem is from hackerrank.com
Here is the problem:
Problem Statement
Given a list repeat each element of the list n times. The input and output
portions will be handled automatically by the grader.
Input Format
First line has integer S where S is the number of times you need to repeat
elements. After this there are X lines, each containing an integer. These are the
X elements of the array.
Output Format
Repeat each element of the original list S times. So you have to return
list/vector/array of S*X integers. The relative positions of the values should be
same as the original list provided as input.
Constraints
0<=X<=10
1<=S<=100
So, given:
2
1
2
3
Output:
1
1
2
2
3
3
I've tried:
(fn list-replicate [num list]
(println (reduce
(fn [element seq] (dotimes [n num] (conj seq element)))
[]
list))
)
But that just gives me an exception. I've tried so many other solutions, and this probably isn't one of my better ones, but it was the quickest one I could come up with to post something here.
(defn list-replicate [num list]
(mapcat (partial repeat num) list))
(doseq [x (list-replicate 2 [1 2 3])]
(println x))
;; output:
1
1
2
2
3
3
The previous answer is short and it works, but it is very "compressed" and is not easy for new people to learn. I would do it in a simpler and more obvious way.
First, look at the repeat function:
user=> (doc repeat)
-------------------------
clojure.core/repeat
([x] [n x])
Returns a lazy (infinite!, or length n if supplied) sequence of xs.
user=> (repeat 3 5)
(5 5 5)
So we see how to easily repeat something N times.
What if we run (repeat n ...) on each element of the list?
(def N 2)
(def xvals [1 2 3] )
(for [curr-x xvals]
(repeat N curr-x))
;=> ((1 1) (2 2) (3 3))
So we are getting close, but we have a list-of-lists for output. How to fix? The simplest way is to just use the flatten function:
(flatten
(for [curr-x xvals]
(repeat N curr-x)))
;=> (1 1 2 2 3 3)
Note that both repeat and for are lazy functions, which I prefer to avoid unless I really need them. Also, I usually prefer to store my linear collections in a concrete vector, instead of a generic "seq" type. For these reasons, I include an extra step of forcing the results into a single (eagar) vector for the final product:
(defn list-replicate [num-rep orig-list]
(into []
(flatten
(for [curr-elem xvals]
(repeat N curr-elem)))))
(list-replicate N xvals)
;=> [1 1 2 2 3 3]
I would suggest building onto Alan's solution and instead of flatten use concat as this will preserve the structure of the data in case you have input sth like this [[1 2] [3 4]].
((fn [coll] (apply concat (for [x coll] (repeat 2 x)))) [[1 2] [3 4]])
output: => ([1 2] [1 2] [3 4] [3 4])
unlike with flatten, which does the following
((fn [coll] (flatten (for [x coll] (repeat 2 x)))) [[1 2] [3 4]])
output: => (1 2 1 2 3 4 3 4)
as for simple lists e.g. '(1 2 3), it works the same:
((fn [coll] (apply concat (for [x coll] (repeat 2 x)))) '(1 2 3))
output => (1 1 2 2 3 3)
(reduce #(count (map println (repeat %1 %2))) num list)
I want to map over a sequence in order but want to carry an accumulator value forward, like in a reduce.
Example use case: Take a vector and return a running total, each value multiplied by two.
(defn map-with-accumulator
"Map over input but with an accumulator. func accepts [value accumulator] and returns [new-value new-accumulator]."
[func accumulator collection]
(if (empty? collection)
nil
(let [[this-value new-accumulator] (func (first collection) accumulator)]
(cons this-value (map-with-accumulator func new-accumulator (rest collection))))))
(defn double-running-sum
[value accumulator]
[(* 2 (+ value accumulator)) (+ value accumulator)])
Which gives
(prn (pr-str (map-with-accumulator double-running-sum 0 [1 2 3 4 5])))
>>> (2 6 12 20 30)
Another example to illustrate the generality, print running sum as stars and the original number. A slightly convoluted example, but demonstrates that I need to keep the running accumulator in the map function:
(defn stars [n] (apply str (take n (repeat \*))))
(defn stars-sum [value accumulator]
[[(stars (+ value accumulator)) value] (+ value accumulator)])
(prn (pr-str (map-with-accumulator stars-sum 0 [1 2 3 4 5])))
>>> (["*" 1] ["***" 2] ["******" 3] ["**********" 4] ["***************" 5])
This works fine, but I would expect this to be a common pattern, and for some kind of map-with-accumulator to exist in core. Does it?
You should look into reductions. For this specific case:
(reductions #(+ % (* 2 %2)) 2 (range 2 6))
produces
(2 6 12 20 30)
The general solution
The common pattern of a mapping that can depend on both an item and the accumulating sum of a sequence is captured by the function
(defn map-sigma [f s] (map f s (sigma s)))
where
(def sigma (partial reductions +))
... returns the sequence of accumulating sums of a sequence:
(sigma (repeat 12 1))
; (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12)
(sigma [1 2 3 4 5])
; (1 3 6 10 15)
In the definition of map-sigma, f is a function of two arguments, the item followed by the accumulator.
The examples
In these terms, the first example can be expressed
(map-sigma (fn [_ x] (* 2 x)) [1 2 3 4 5])
; (2 6 12 20 30)
In this case, the mapping function ignores the item and depends only on the accumulator.
The second can be expressed
(map-sigma #(vector (stars %2) %1) [1 2 3 4 5])
; (["*" 1] ["***" 2] ["******" 3] ["**********" 4] ["***************" 5])
... where the mapping function depends on both the item and the accumulator.
There is no standard function like map-sigma.
General conclusions
Just because a pattern of computation is common does not imply that
it merits or requires its own standard function.
Lazy sequences and the sequence library are powerful enough to tease
apart many problems into clear function compositions.
Rewritten to be specific to the question posed.
Edited to accommodate the changed second example.
Reductions is the way to go as Diego mentioned however to your specific problem the following works
(map #(* % (inc %)) [1 2 3 4 5])
As mentioned you could use reductions:
(defn map-with-accumulator [f init-value collection]
(map first (reductions (fn [[_ accumulator] next-elem]
(f next-elem accumulator))
(f (first collection) init-value)
(rest collection))))
=> (map-with-accumulator double-running-sum 0 [1 2 3 4 5])
(2 6 12 20 30)
=> (map-with-accumulator stars-sum 0 [1 2 3 4 5])
("*" "***" "******" "**********" "***************")
It's only in case you want to keep the original requirements. Otherwise I'd prefer to decompose f into two separate functions and use Thumbnail's approach.
The comprehension:
(for [i (range 5])] i)
... yields: (0 1 2 3 4)
Is there an idiomatic way to get (0 0 1 1 2 4 3 9 4 16) (i.e. the numbers and their squares) using mostly the for comprehension?
The only way I've found so far is doing a:
(apply concat (for [i (range 5)] (list i (* i i))))
Actually, using only for is pretty simple if you consider applying each function (identity and square) for each value.
(for [i (range 5), ; for every value
f [identity #(* % %)]] ; for every function
(f i)) ; apply the function to the value
; => (0 0 1 1 2 4 3 9 4 16)
Since for loops x times, it will return a collection of x values. Multiple nested loops (unless limited by while or when) will give x * y * z * ... results. That is why external concatenation will always be necessary.
A similar correlation between input and output exists with map. However, if multiple collections are given in map, the number of values in the returned collection is the size of the smallest collection parameter.
=> (map (juxt identity #(* % %)) (range 5))
([0 0] [1 1] [2 4] [3 9] [4 16])
Concatenating the results of map is so common mapcat was created. Because of that, one might argue mapcat is a more idiomatic way over for loops.
=> (mapcat (juxt identity #(* % %)) (range 5))
(0 0 1 1 2 4 3 9 4 16)
Although this is just shorthand for apply concat (map, and a forcat function or macro could be created just as easily.
However, if an accumulation over a collection is needed, reduce is usually considered the most idiomatic.
=> (reduce (fn [acc i] (conj acc i (* i i))) [] (range 5))
[0 0 1 1 2 4 3 9 4 16]
Both the for and map options would mean traversing a collection twice, once for the range, and once for concatenating the resulting collection. The reduce option only traverses the range.
Care to share why "using mostly the for comprehension" is a requirement ?
I think you are doing it right.
A slightly compressed way maybe achieved using flatten
(flatten (for [i (range 5)] [ i (* i i) ] ))
But I would get rid of the for comprehension and just use interleave
(let [x (range 5)
y (map #(* % %) x)]
(interleave x y))
Disclaimer: I am just an amateur clojurist ;)
I have this deeply nested list (list of lists) and I want to replace a single arbitrary element in the list. How can I do this ? (The built-in replace might replace many occurrences while I need to replace only one element.)
As everyone else already said, using lists is really not a good idea if you need to do this kind of thing. Random access is what vectors are made for. assoc-in does this efficiently. With lists you can't get away from recursing down into the sublists and replacing most of them with altered versions of themselves all the way back up to the top.
This code will do it though, albeit inefficiently and clumsily. Borrowing from dermatthias:
(defn replace-in-list [coll n x]
(concat (take n coll) (list x) (nthnext coll (inc n))))
(defn replace-in-sublist [coll ns x]
(if (seq ns)
(let [sublist (nth coll (first ns))]
(replace-in-list coll
(first ns)
(replace-in-sublist sublist (rest ns) x)))
x))
Usage:
user> (def x '(0 1 2 (0 1 (0 1 2) 3 4 (0 1 2))))
#'user/x
user> (replace-in-sublist x [3 2 0] :foo)
(0 1 2 (0 1 (:foo 1 2) 3 4 (0 1 2)))
user> (replace-in-sublist x [3 2] :foo)
(0 1 2 (0 1 :foo 3 4 (0 1 2)))
user> (replace-in-sublist x [3 5 1] '(:foo :bar))
(0 1 2 (0 1 (0 1 2) 3 4 (0 (:foo :bar) 2)))
You'll get IndexOutOfBoundsException if you give any n greater than the length of a sublist. It's also not tail-recursive. It's also not idiomatic because good Clojure code shies away from using lists for everything. It's horrible. I'd probably use mutable Java arrays before I used this. I think you get the idea.
Edit
Reasons why lists are worse than vectors in this case:
user> (time
(let [x '(0 1 2 (0 1 (0 1 2) 3 4 (0 1 2)))] ;'
(dotimes [_ 1e6] (replace-in-sublist x [3 2 0] :foo))))
"Elapsed time: 5201.110134 msecs"
nil
user> (time
(let [x [0 1 2 [0 1 [0 1 2] 3 4 [0 1 2]]]]
(dotimes [_ 1e6] (assoc-in x [3 2 0] :foo))))
"Elapsed time: 2925.318122 msecs"
nil
You also don't have to write assoc-in yourself, it already exists. Look at the implementation for assoc-in sometime; it's simple and straightforward (compared to the list version) thanks to vectors giving efficient and easy random access by index, via get.
You also don't have to quote vectors like you have to quote lists. Lists in Clojure strongly imply "I'm calling a function or macro here".
Vectors (and maps, sets etc.) can be traversed via seqs. You can transparently use vectors in list-like ways, so why not use vectors and have the best of both worlds?
Vectors also stand out visually. Clojure code is less of a huge blob of parens than other Lisps thanks to widespread use of [] and {}. Some people find this annoying, I find it makes things easier to read. (My editor syntax-highlights (), [] and {} differently which helps even more.)
Some instances I'd use a list for data:
If I have an ordered data structure that needs to grow from the front, that I'm never going to need random-access to
Building a seq "by hand", as via lazy-seq
Writing a macro, which needs to return code as data
For the simple cases a recursive substitution function will give you just what you need with out much extra complexity. when things get a little more complex its time to crack open clojure build in zipper functions: "Clojure includes purely functional, generic tree walking and editing, using a technique called a zipper (in namespace zip)."
adapted from the example in: http://clojure.org/other_libraries
(defn randomly-replace [replace-with in-tree]
(loop [loc dz]
(if (zip/end? loc)
(zip/root loc)
(recur
(zip/next
(if (= 0 (get-random-int 10))
(zip/replace loc replace-with)
loc)))))
these will work with nested anything (seq'able) even xmls
It sort of doesn't answer your question, but if you have vectors instead of lists:
user=> (update-in [1 [2 3] 4 5] [1 1] inc)
[1 [2 4] 4 5]
user=> (assoc-in [1 [2 3] 4 5] [1 1] 6)
[1 [2 6] 4 5]
So if possible avoid lists in favour of vectors for the better access behaviour. If you have to work with lazy-seq from various sources, this is of course not much of an advice...
You could use this function and adapt it for your needs (nested lists):
(defn replace-item
"Returns a list with the n-th item of l replaced by v."
[l n v]
(concat (take n l) (list v) (drop (inc n) l)))
A simple-minded suggestion from the peanut gallery:
copy the inner list to a vector;
fiddle that vector's elements randomly and to your heart's content using assoc;
copy the vector back to a list;
replace the nested list in the outer list.
This might waste some performance; but if this was a performance sensitive operation you'd be working with vectors in the first place.