I have been working on an exercise from google's dev tech guide. It is called Compression and Decompression you can check the following link to get the description of the problem Challenge Description.
Here is my code for the solution:
public static String decompressV2 (String string, int start, int times) {
String result = "";
for (int i = 0; i < times; i++) {
inner:
{
for (int j = start; j < string.length(); j++) {
if (isNumeric(string.substring(j, j + 1))) {
String num = string.substring(j, j + 1);
int times2 = Integer.parseInt(num);
String temp = decompressV2(string, j + 2, times2);
result = result + temp;
int next_j = find_next(string, j + 2);
j = next_j;
continue;
}
if (string.substring(j, j + 1).equals("]")) { // Si es un bracket cerrado
break inner;
}
result = result + string.substring(j,j+1);
}
}
}
return result;
}
public static int find_next(String string, int start) {
int count = 0;
for (int i = start; i < string.length(); i++) {
if (string.substring(i, i+1).equals("[")) {
count= count + 1;
}
if (string.substring(i, i +1).equals("]") && count> 0) {
count = count- 1;
continue;
}
if (string.substring(i, i +1).equals("]") && count== 0) {
return i;
}
}
return -111111;
}
I will explain a little bit about the inner workings of my approach. It is a basic solution involves use of simple recursion and loops.
So, let's start from the beggining with a simple decompression:
DevTech.decompressV2("2[3[a]b]", 0, 1);
As you can see, the 0 indicates that it has to iterate over the string at index 0, and the 1 indicates that the string has to be evaluated only once: 1[ 2[3[a]b] ]
The core here is that everytime you encounter a number you call the algorithm again(recursively) and continue where the string insides its brackets ends, that's the find_next function for.
When it finds a close brackets, the inner loop breaks, that's the way I choose to make the stop sign.
I think that would be the main idea behind the algorithm, if you read the code closely you'll get the full picture.
So here are some of my concerns about the way I've written the solution:
I could not find a more clean solution to tell the algorithm were to go next if it finds a number. So I kind of hardcoded it with the find_next function. Is there a way to do this more clean inside the decompress func ?
About performance, It wastes a lot of time by doing the same thing again, when you have a number bigger than 1 at the begging of a bracket.
I am relatively to programming so maybe this code also needs an improvement not in the idea, but in the ways It's written. So would be very grateful to get some suggestions.
This is the approach I figure out but I am sure there are a couple more, I could not think of anyone but It would be great if you could tell your ideas.
In the description it tells you some things that you should be awared of when developing the solutions. They are: handling non-repeated strings, handling repetitions inside, not doing the same job twice, not copying too much. Are these covered by my approach ?
And the last point It's about tets cases, I know that confidence is very important when developing solutions, and the best way to give confidence to an algorithm is test cases. I tried a few and they all worked as expected. But what techniques do you recommend for developing test cases. Are there any softwares?
So that would be all guys, I am new to the community so I am open to suggestions about the how to improve the quality of the question. Cheers!
Your solution involves a lot of string copying that really slows it down. Instead of returning strings that you concatenate, you should pass a StringBuilder into every call and append substrings onto that.
That means you can use your return value to indicate the position to continue scanning from.
You're also parsing repeated parts of the source string more than once.
My solution looks like this:
public static String decompress(String src)
{
StringBuilder dest = new StringBuilder();
_decomp2(dest, src, 0);
return dest.toString();
}
private static int _decomp2(StringBuilder dest, String src, int pos)
{
int num=0;
while(pos < src.length()) {
char c = src.charAt(pos++);
if (c == ']') {
break;
}
if (c>='0' && c<='9') {
num = num*10 + (c-'0');
} else if (c=='[') {
int startlen = dest.length();
pos = _decomp2(dest, src, pos);
if (num<1) {
// 0 repetitions -- delete it
dest.setLength(startlen);
} else {
// copy output num-1 times
int copyEnd = startlen + (num-1) * (dest.length()-startlen);
for (int i=startlen; i<copyEnd; ++i) {
dest.append(dest.charAt(i));
}
}
num=0;
} else {
// regular char
dest.append(c);
num=0;
}
}
return pos;
}
I would try to return a tuple that also contains the next index where decompression should continue from. Then we can have a recursion that concatenates the current part with the rest of the block in the current recursion depth.
Here's JavaScript code. It takes some thought to encapsulate the order of operations that reflects the rules.
function f(s, i=0){
if (i == s.length)
return ['', i];
// We might start with a multiplier
let m = '';
while (!isNaN(s[i]))
m = m + s[i++];
// If we have a multiplier, we'll
// also have a nested expression
if (s[i] == '['){
let result = '';
const [word, nextIdx] = f(s, i + 1);
for (let j=0; j<Number(m); j++)
result = result + word;
const [rest, end] = f(s, nextIdx);
return [result + rest, end]
}
// Otherwise, we may have a word,
let word = '';
while (isNaN(s[i]) && s[i] != ']' && i < s.length)
word = word + s[i++];
// followed by either the end of an expression
// or another multiplier
const [rest, end] = s[i] == ']' ? ['', i + 1] : f(s, i);
return [word + rest, end];
}
var strs = [
'2[3[a]b]',
'10[a]',
'3[abc]4[ab]c',
'2[2[a]g2[r]]'
];
for (const s of strs){
console.log(s);
console.log(JSON.stringify(f(s)));
console.log('');
}
How would I go about generating a list of all possible permutations of a string between x and y characters in length, containing a variable list of characters.
Any language would work, but it should be portable.
There are several ways to do this. Common methods use recursion, memoization, or dynamic programming. The basic idea is that you produce a list of all strings of length 1, then in each iteration, for all strings produced in the last iteration, add that string concatenated with each character in the string individually. (the variable index in the code below keeps track of the start of the last and the next iteration)
Some pseudocode:
list = originalString.split('')
index = (0,0)
list = [""]
for iteration n in 1 to y:
index = (index[1], len(list))
for string s in list.subset(index[0] to end):
for character c in originalString:
list.add(s + c)
you'd then need to remove all strings less than x in length, they'll be the first (x-1) * len(originalString) entries in the list.
It's better to use backtracking
#include <stdio.h>
#include <string.h>
void swap(char *a, char *b) {
char temp;
temp = *a;
*a = *b;
*b = temp;
}
void print(char *a, int i, int n) {
int j;
if(i == n) {
printf("%s\n", a);
} else {
for(j = i; j <= n; j++) {
swap(a + i, a + j);
print(a, i + 1, n);
swap(a + i, a + j);
}
}
}
int main(void) {
char a[100];
gets(a);
print(a, 0, strlen(a) - 1);
return 0;
}
You are going to get a lot of strings, that's for sure...
Where x and y is how you define them and r is the number of characters we are selecting from --if I am understanding you correctly. You should definitely generate these as needed and not get sloppy and say, generate a powerset and then filter the length of strings.
The following definitely isn't the best way to generate these, but it's an interesting aside, none-the-less.
Knuth (volume 4, fascicle 2, 7.2.1.3) tells us that (s,t)-combination is equivalent to s+1 things taken t at a time with repetition -- an (s,t)-combination is notation used by Knuth that is equal to . We can figure this out by first generating each (s,t)-combination in binary form (so, of length (s+t)) and counting the number of 0's to the left of each 1.
10001000011101 --> becomes the permutation: {0, 3, 4, 4, 4, 1}
Non recursive solution according to Knuth, Python example:
def nextPermutation(perm):
k0 = None
for i in range(len(perm)-1):
if perm[i]<perm[i+1]:
k0=i
if k0 == None:
return None
l0 = k0+1
for i in range(k0+1, len(perm)):
if perm[k0] < perm[i]:
l0 = i
perm[k0], perm[l0] = perm[l0], perm[k0]
perm[k0+1:] = reversed(perm[k0+1:])
return perm
perm=list("12345")
while perm:
print perm
perm = nextPermutation(perm)
You might look at "Efficiently Enumerating the Subsets of a Set", which describes an algorithm to do part of what you want - quickly generate all subsets of N characters from length x to y. It contains an implementation in C.
For each subset, you'd still have to generate all the permutations. For instance if you wanted 3 characters from "abcde", this algorithm would give you "abc","abd", "abe"...
but you'd have to permute each one to get "acb", "bac", "bca", etc.
Some working Java code based on Sarp's answer:
public class permute {
static void permute(int level, String permuted,
boolean used[], String original) {
int length = original.length();
if (level == length) {
System.out.println(permuted);
} else {
for (int i = 0; i < length; i++) {
if (!used[i]) {
used[i] = true;
permute(level + 1, permuted + original.charAt(i),
used, original);
used[i] = false;
}
}
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
String s = "hello";
boolean used[] = {false, false, false, false, false};
permute(0, "", used, s);
}
}
Here is a simple solution in C#.
It generates only the distinct permutations of a given string.
static public IEnumerable<string> permute(string word)
{
if (word.Length > 1)
{
char character = word[0];
foreach (string subPermute in permute(word.Substring(1)))
{
for (int index = 0; index <= subPermute.Length; index++)
{
string pre = subPermute.Substring(0, index);
string post = subPermute.Substring(index);
if (post.Contains(character))
continue;
yield return pre + character + post;
}
}
}
else
{
yield return word;
}
}
There are a lot of good answers here. I also suggest a very simple recursive solution in C++.
#include <string>
#include <iostream>
template<typename Consume>
void permutations(std::string s, Consume consume, std::size_t start = 0) {
if (start == s.length()) consume(s);
for (std::size_t i = start; i < s.length(); i++) {
std::swap(s[start], s[i]);
permutations(s, consume, start + 1);
}
}
int main(void) {
std::string s = "abcd";
permutations(s, [](std::string s) {
std::cout << s << std::endl;
});
}
Note: strings with repeated characters will not produce unique permutations.
I just whipped this up quick in Ruby:
def perms(x, y, possible_characters)
all = [""]
current_array = all.clone
1.upto(y) { |iteration|
next_array = []
current_array.each { |string|
possible_characters.each { |c|
value = string + c
next_array.insert next_array.length, value
all.insert all.length, value
}
}
current_array = next_array
}
all.delete_if { |string| string.length < x }
end
You might look into language API for built in permutation type functions, and you might be able to write more optimized code, but if the numbers are all that high, I'm not sure there is much of a way around having a lot of results.
Anyways, the idea behind the code is start with string of length 0, then keep track of all the strings of length Z where Z is the current size in the iteration. Then, go through each string and append each character onto each string. Finally at the end, remove any that were below the x threshold and return the result.
I didn't test it with potentially meaningless input (null character list, weird values of x and y, etc).
This is a translation of Mike's Ruby version, into Common Lisp:
(defun perms (x y original-string)
(loop with all = (list "")
with current-array = (list "")
for iteration from 1 to y
do (loop with next-array = nil
for string in current-array
do (loop for c across original-string
for value = (concatenate 'string string (string c))
do (push value next-array)
(push value all))
(setf current-array (reverse next-array)))
finally (return (nreverse (delete-if #'(lambda (el) (< (length el) x)) all)))))
And another version, slightly shorter and using more loop facility features:
(defun perms (x y original-string)
(loop repeat y
collect (loop for string in (or (car (last sets)) (list ""))
append (loop for c across original-string
collect (concatenate 'string string (string c)))) into sets
finally (return (loop for set in sets
append (loop for el in set when (>= (length el) x) collect el)))))
Here is a simple word C# recursive solution:
Method:
public ArrayList CalculateWordPermutations(string[] letters, ArrayList words, int index)
{
bool finished = true;
ArrayList newWords = new ArrayList();
if (words.Count == 0)
{
foreach (string letter in letters)
{
words.Add(letter);
}
}
for(int j=index; j<words.Count; j++)
{
string word = (string)words[j];
for(int i =0; i<letters.Length; i++)
{
if(!word.Contains(letters[i]))
{
finished = false;
string newWord = (string)word.Clone();
newWord += letters[i];
newWords.Add(newWord);
}
}
}
foreach (string newWord in newWords)
{
words.Add(newWord);
}
if(finished == false)
{
CalculateWordPermutations(letters, words, words.Count - newWords.Count);
}
return words;
}
Calling:
string[] letters = new string[]{"a","b","c"};
ArrayList words = CalculateWordPermutations(letters, new ArrayList(), 0);
... and here is the C version:
void permute(const char *s, char *out, int *used, int len, int lev)
{
if (len == lev) {
out[lev] = '\0';
puts(out);
return;
}
int i;
for (i = 0; i < len; ++i) {
if (! used[i])
continue;
used[i] = 1;
out[lev] = s[i];
permute(s, out, used, len, lev + 1);
used[i] = 0;
}
return;
}
permute (ABC) -> A.perm(BC) -> A.perm[B.perm(C)] -> A.perm[(*BC), (CB*)] -> [(*ABC), (BAC), (BCA*), (*ACB), (CAB), (CBA*)]
To remove duplicates when inserting each alphabet check to see if previous string ends with the same alphabet (why? -exercise)
public static void main(String[] args) {
for (String str : permStr("ABBB")){
System.out.println(str);
}
}
static Vector<String> permStr(String str){
if (str.length() == 1){
Vector<String> ret = new Vector<String>();
ret.add(str);
return ret;
}
char start = str.charAt(0);
Vector<String> endStrs = permStr(str.substring(1));
Vector<String> newEndStrs = new Vector<String>();
for (String endStr : endStrs){
for (int j = 0; j <= endStr.length(); j++){
if (endStr.substring(0, j).endsWith(String.valueOf(start)))
break;
newEndStrs.add(endStr.substring(0, j) + String.valueOf(start) + endStr.substring(j));
}
}
return newEndStrs;
}
Prints all permutations sans duplicates
Recursive solution in C++
int main (int argc, char * const argv[]) {
string s = "sarp";
bool used [4];
permute(0, "", used, s);
}
void permute(int level, string permuted, bool used [], string &original) {
int length = original.length();
if(level == length) { // permutation complete, display
cout << permuted << endl;
} else {
for(int i=0; i<length; i++) { // try to add an unused character
if(!used[i]) {
used[i] = true;
permute(level+1, original[i] + permuted, used, original); // find the permutations starting with this string
used[i] = false;
}
}
}
In Perl, if you want to restrict yourself to the lowercase alphabet, you can do this:
my #result = ("a" .. "zzzz");
This gives all possible strings between 1 and 4 characters using lowercase characters. For uppercase, change "a" to "A" and "zzzz" to "ZZZZ".
For mixed-case it gets much harder, and probably not doable with one of Perl's builtin operators like that.
Ruby answer that works:
class String
def each_char_with_index
0.upto(size - 1) do |index|
yield(self[index..index], index)
end
end
def remove_char_at(index)
return self[1..-1] if index == 0
self[0..(index-1)] + self[(index+1)..-1]
end
end
def permute(str, prefix = '')
if str.size == 0
puts prefix
return
end
str.each_char_with_index do |char, index|
permute(str.remove_char_at(index), prefix + char)
end
end
# example
# permute("abc")
The following Java recursion prints all permutations of a given string:
//call it as permut("",str);
public void permut(String str1,String str2){
if(str2.length() != 0){
char ch = str2.charAt(0);
for(int i = 0; i <= str1.length();i++)
permut(str1.substring(0,i) + ch + str1.substring(i,str1.length()),
str2.substring(1,str2.length()));
}else{
System.out.println(str1);
}
}
Following is the updated version of above "permut" method which makes n! (n factorial) less recursive calls compared to the above method
//call it as permut("",str);
public void permut(String str1,String str2){
if(str2.length() > 1){
char ch = str2.charAt(0);
for(int i = 0; i <= str1.length();i++)
permut(str1.substring(0,i) + ch + str1.substring(i,str1.length()),
str2.substring(1,str2.length()));
}else{
char ch = str2.charAt(0);
for(int i = 0; i <= str1.length();i++)
System.out.println(str1.substring(0,i) + ch + str1.substring(i,str1.length()),
str2.substring(1,str2.length()));
}
}
import java.util.*;
public class all_subsets {
public static void main(String[] args) {
String a = "abcd";
for(String s: all_perm(a)) {
System.out.println(s);
}
}
public static Set<String> concat(String c, Set<String> lst) {
HashSet<String> ret_set = new HashSet<String>();
for(String s: lst) {
ret_set.add(c+s);
}
return ret_set;
}
public static HashSet<String> all_perm(String a) {
HashSet<String> set = new HashSet<String>();
if(a.length() == 1) {
set.add(a);
} else {
for(int i=0; i<a.length(); i++) {
set.addAll(concat(a.charAt(i)+"", all_perm(a.substring(0, i)+a.substring(i+1, a.length()))));
}
}
return set;
}
}
I'm not sure why you would want to do this in the first place. The resulting set for any moderately large values of x and y will be huge, and will grow exponentially as x and/or y get bigger.
Lets say your set of possible characters is the 26 lowercase letters of the alphabet, and you ask your application to generate all permutations where length = 5. Assuming you don't run out of memory you'll get 11,881,376 (i.e. 26 to the power of 5) strings back. Bump that length up to 6, and you'll get 308,915,776 strings back. These numbers get painfully large, very quickly.
Here's a solution I put together in Java. You'll need to provide two runtime arguments (corresponding to x and y). Have fun.
public class GeneratePermutations {
public static void main(String[] args) {
int lower = Integer.parseInt(args[0]);
int upper = Integer.parseInt(args[1]);
if (upper < lower || upper == 0 || lower == 0) {
System.exit(0);
}
for (int length = lower; length <= upper; length++) {
generate(length, "");
}
}
private static void generate(int length, String partial) {
if (length <= 0) {
System.out.println(partial);
} else {
for (char c = 'a'; c <= 'z'; c++) {
generate(length - 1, partial + c);
}
}
}
}
Here's a non-recursive version I came up with, in javascript.
It's not based on Knuth's non-recursive one above, although it has some similarities in element swapping.
I've verified its correctness for input arrays of up to 8 elements.
A quick optimization would be pre-flighting the out array and avoiding push().
The basic idea is:
Given a single source array, generate a first new set of arrays which swap the first element with each subsequent element in turn, each time leaving the other elements unperturbed.
eg: given 1234, generate 1234, 2134, 3214, 4231.
Use each array from the previous pass as the seed for a new pass,
but instead of swapping the first element, swap the second element with each subsequent element. Also, this time, don't include the original array in the output.
Repeat step 2 until done.
Here is the code sample:
function oxe_perm(src, depth, index)
{
var perm = src.slice(); // duplicates src.
perm = perm.split("");
perm[depth] = src[index];
perm[index] = src[depth];
perm = perm.join("");
return perm;
}
function oxe_permutations(src)
{
out = new Array();
out.push(src);
for (depth = 0; depth < src.length; depth++) {
var numInPreviousPass = out.length;
for (var m = 0; m < numInPreviousPass; ++m) {
for (var n = depth + 1; n < src.length; ++n) {
out.push(oxe_perm(out[m], depth, n));
}
}
}
return out;
}
In ruby:
str = "a"
100_000_000.times {puts str.next!}
It is quite fast, but it is going to take some time =). Of course, you can start at "aaaaaaaa" if the short strings aren't interesting to you.
I might have misinterpreted the actual question though - in one of the posts it sounded as if you just needed a bruteforce library of strings, but in the main question it sounds like you need to permutate a particular string.
Your problem is somewhat similar to this one: http://beust.com/weblog/archives/000491.html (list all integers in which none of the digits repeat themselves, which resulted in a whole lot of languages solving it, with the ocaml guy using permutations, and some java guy using yet another solution).
I needed this today, and although the answers already given pointed me in the right direction, they weren't quite what I wanted.
Here's an implementation using Heap's method. The length of the array must be at least 3 and for practical considerations not be bigger than 10 or so, depending on what you want to do, patience and clock speed.
Before you enter your loop, initialise Perm(1 To N) with the first permutation, Stack(3 To N) with zeroes*, and Level with 2**. At the end of the loop call NextPerm, which will return false when we're done.
* VB will do that for you.
** You can change NextPerm a little to make this unnecessary, but it's clearer like this.
Option Explicit
Function NextPerm(Perm() As Long, Stack() As Long, Level As Long) As Boolean
Dim N As Long
If Level = 2 Then
Swap Perm(1), Perm(2)
Level = 3
Else
While Stack(Level) = Level - 1
Stack(Level) = 0
If Level = UBound(Stack) Then Exit Function
Level = Level + 1
Wend
Stack(Level) = Stack(Level) + 1
If Level And 1 Then N = 1 Else N = Stack(Level)
Swap Perm(N), Perm(Level)
Level = 2
End If
NextPerm = True
End Function
Sub Swap(A As Long, B As Long)
A = A Xor B
B = A Xor B
A = A Xor B
End Sub
'This is just for testing.
Private Sub Form_Paint()
Const Max = 8
Dim A(1 To Max) As Long, I As Long
Dim S(3 To Max) As Long, J As Long
Dim Test As New Collection, T As String
For I = 1 To UBound(A)
A(I) = I
Next
Cls
ScaleLeft = 0
J = 2
Do
If CurrentY + TextHeight("0") > ScaleHeight Then
ScaleLeft = ScaleLeft - TextWidth(" 0 ") * (UBound(A) + 1)
CurrentY = 0
CurrentX = 0
End If
T = vbNullString
For I = 1 To UBound(A)
Print A(I);
T = T & Hex(A(I))
Next
Print
Test.Add Null, T
Loop While NextPerm(A, S, J)
J = 1
For I = 2 To UBound(A)
J = J * I
Next
If J <> Test.Count Then Stop
End Sub
Other methods are described by various authors. Knuth describes two, one gives lexical order, but is complex and slow, the other is known as the method of plain changes. Jie Gao and Dianjun Wang also wrote an interesting paper.
Here is a link that describes how to print permutations of a string.
http://nipun-linuxtips.blogspot.in/2012/11/print-all-permutations-of-characters-in.html
This code in python, when called with allowed_characters set to [0,1] and 4 character max, would generate 2^4 results:
['0000', '0001', '0010', '0011', '0100', '0101', '0110', '0111', '1000', '1001', '1010', '1011', '1100', '1101', '1110', '1111']
def generate_permutations(chars = 4) :
#modify if in need!
allowed_chars = [
'0',
'1',
]
status = []
for tmp in range(chars) :
status.append(0)
last_char = len(allowed_chars)
rows = []
for x in xrange(last_char ** chars) :
rows.append("")
for y in range(chars - 1 , -1, -1) :
key = status[y]
rows[x] = allowed_chars[key] + rows[x]
for pos in range(chars - 1, -1, -1) :
if(status[pos] == last_char - 1) :
status[pos] = 0
else :
status[pos] += 1
break;
return rows
import sys
print generate_permutations()
Hope this is of use to you. Works with any character, not only numbers
Many of the previous answers used backtracking. This is the asymptotically optimal way O(n*n!) of generating permutations after initial sorting
class Permutation {
/* runtime -O(n) for generating nextPermutaion
* and O(n*n!) for generating all n! permutations with increasing sorted array as start
* return true, if there exists next lexicographical sequence
* e.g [a,b,c],3-> true, modifies array to [a,c,b]
* e.g [c,b,a],3-> false, as it is largest lexicographic possible */
public static boolean nextPermutation(char[] seq, int len) {
// 1
if (len <= 1)
return false;// no more perm
// 2: Find last j such that seq[j] <= seq[j+1]. Terminate if no such j exists
int j = len - 2;
while (j >= 0 && seq[j] >= seq[j + 1]) {
--j;
}
if (j == -1)
return false;// no more perm
// 3: Find last l such that seq[j] <= seq[l], then exchange elements j and l
int l = len - 1;
while (seq[j] >= seq[l]) {
--l;
}
swap(seq, j, l);
// 4: Reverse elements j+1 ... count-1:
reverseSubArray(seq, j + 1, len - 1);
// return seq, add store next perm
return true;
}
private static void swap(char[] a, int i, int j) {
char temp = a[i];
a[i] = a[j];
a[j] = temp;
}
private static void reverseSubArray(char[] a, int lo, int hi) {
while (lo < hi) {
swap(a, lo, hi);
++lo;
--hi;
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
String str = "abcdefg";
char[] array = str.toCharArray();
Arrays.sort(array);
int cnt=0;
do {
System.out.println(new String(array));
cnt++;
}while(nextPermutation(array, array.length));
System.out.println(cnt);//5040=7!
}
//if we use "bab"-> "abb", "bab", "bba", 3(#permutations)
}
Recursive Approach
func StringPermutations(inputStr string) (permutations []string) {
for i := 0; i < len(inputStr); i++ {
inputStr = inputStr[1:] + inputStr[0:1]
if len(inputStr) <= 2 {
permutations = append(permutations, inputStr)
continue
}
leftPermutations := StringPermutations(inputStr[0 : len(inputStr)-1])
for _, leftPermutation := range leftPermutations {
permutations = append(permutations, leftPermutation+inputStr[len(inputStr)-1:])
}
}
return
}
Though this doesn't answer your question exactly, here's one way to generate every permutation of the letters from a number of strings of the same length: eg, if your words were "coffee", "joomla" and "moodle", you can expect output like "coodle", "joodee", "joffle", etc.
Basically, the number of combinations is the (number of words) to the power of (number of letters per word). So, choose a random number between 0 and the number of combinations - 1, convert that number to base (number of words), then use each digit of that number as the indicator for which word to take the next letter from.
eg: in the above example. 3 words, 6 letters = 729 combinations. Choose a random number: 465. Convert to base 3: 122020. Take the first letter from word 1, 2nd from word 2, 3rd from word 2, 4th from word 0... and you get... "joofle".
If you wanted all the permutations, just loop from 0 to 728. Of course, if you're just choosing one random value, a much simpler less-confusing way would be to loop over the letters. This method lets you avoid recursion, should you want all the permutations, plus it makes you look like you know Maths(tm)!
If the number of combinations is excessive, you can break it up into a series of smaller words and concatenate them at the end.
c# iterative:
public List<string> Permutations(char[] chars)
{
List<string> words = new List<string>();
words.Add(chars[0].ToString());
for (int i = 1; i < chars.Length; ++i)
{
int currLen = words.Count;
for (int j = 0; j < currLen; ++j)
{
var w = words[j];
for (int k = 0; k <= w.Length; ++k)
{
var nstr = w.Insert(k, chars[i].ToString());
if (k == 0)
words[j] = nstr;
else
words.Add(nstr);
}
}
}
return words;
}
def gen( x,y,list): #to generate all strings inserting y at different positions
list = []
list.append( y+x )
for i in range( len(x) ):
list.append( func(x,0,i) + y + func(x,i+1,len(x)-1) )
return list
def func( x,i,j ): #returns x[i..j]
z = ''
for i in range(i,j+1):
z = z+x[i]
return z
def perm( x , length , list ): #perm function
if length == 1 : # base case
list.append( x[len(x)-1] )
return list
else:
lists = perm( x , length-1 ,list )
lists_temp = lists #temporarily storing the list
lists = []
for i in range( len(lists_temp) ) :
list_temp = gen(lists_temp[i],x[length-2],lists)
lists += list_temp
return lists
def permutation(str)
posibilities = []
str.split('').each do |char|
if posibilities.size == 0
posibilities[0] = char.downcase
posibilities[1] = char.upcase
else
posibilities_count = posibilities.length
posibilities = posibilities + posibilities
posibilities_count.times do |i|
posibilities[i] += char.downcase
posibilities[i+posibilities_count] += char.upcase
end
end
end
posibilities
end
Here is my take on a non recursive version