Okay, so what does the SET stand for in the second line? Why is the second string in<>, ?
public Weighted(In in, String delimiter) {
st = new ST<String, SET<String>>();
while (!in.isEmpty()) {
String line = in.readLine();
String[] names = line.split(delimiter);
for (int i = 1; i < names.length; i++) {
addEdge(names[0], names[i]);
}
}
}
With the little information you gave, I will assume that SET is an abstract data type. An abstract data type can store any values without any particular order and with no duplicates. By telling <String> after SET you are telling you want to store Strings inside your SET.
You can learn more about SETs here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_(abstract_data_type)
The question is:
Given a list of String, find a specific string in the list and return
its index in the ordered list of String sorted by mergesort. There are
two cases:
The string is in the list, return the index it should be in, in the ordered list.
The String is NOT in the list, return the index it is supposed to be in, in the ordered list.
Here is my my code, I assume that the given list is already ordered.
For 2nd case, how do I use mergesort to find the supposed index? I would appreciate some clues.
I was thinking to get a copy of the original list first, sort it, and get the index of the string in the copy list. Here I got stuck... do I use mergesort again to get the index of non-existing string in the copy list?
public static int BSearch(List<String> s, String a) {
int size = s.size();
int half = size / 2;
int index = 0;
// base case?
if (half == 0) {
if (s.get(half) == a) {
return index;
} else {
return index + 1;
}
}
// with String a
if (s.contains(a)) {
// on the right
if (s.indexOf(s) > half) {
List<String> rightHalf = s.subList(half + 1, size);
index += half;
return BSearch(rightHalf, a);
} else {
// one the left
List<String> leftHalf = s.subList(0, half - 1);
index += half;
return BSearch(leftHalf, a);
}
}
return index;
}
When I run this code, the index is not updated. I wonder what is wrong here. I only get 0 or 1 when I test the code even with the string in the list.
Your code only returns 0 or 1 because you don't keep track of your index for each recursive call, instead of resetting to 0 each time. Also, to find where the non-existent element should be, consider the list {0,2,3,5,6}. If we were to run a binary search to look for 4 here, it should stop at the index where element 5 is. Hope that's enough to get you started!
As an assignment we are supposed to create methods that copy what string methods do. We are just learning methods and I understand them, but am having trouble getting it to work.
given:
private String st = "";
public void setString(String p){
st = p;
}
public String getString(){
return st;
}
I need to create public int indexOf(char index){}, and public String substring(int start, int end){} I've succesfuly made charAt, and equals but I need some help. We are only allowed to use String methods charAt(), and length(), and + operator. No arrays or anything more advanced either. This is how I'm guessing you start these methods:
public int indexOf(char index){
for(int i = 0; i < st.length(); i++){
return index;
}
return 0;
}
public String substring(int start, int end){
for(int i = 0; i < st.length(); i++){
}
return new String(st + start);
}
thanks!
here's my two working methods:
public boolean equals(String index){
for(int a = 0; a < index.length() && a < st.length(); a++){
if(index.charAt(a) == st.charAt(a) && index.length() == st.length()){
return true;
}
else{
return false;
}
}
return false;
}
public char charAt(int index){
if(index >= 0 && index <= st.length() - 1)
return st.charAt(index);
else
return 0;
}
For your indexOf method, you're on the right track. You'll want to modify the code in the loop. Since you're looping through the whole String, and you only have two methods available, which will help you most to get the characters from the String? Look to your other methods (equals and charAt) to see how you did them, it might give a hint. Remember, you want find a single character in your String and print out the index in which you found it.
For your substring method what you need to do is get all the characters that are represented beginning at start index and go up until end index. A loop is a good start, but you will need a base String to hold your progress in (you will need an empty String). The beginning and end point of your loop need a looking at. For substring, you want to get everything starting at start and everything before end. For instance, if I do the following:
String myString = "Racecar";
String sub = myString.substring(1, 4);
System.out.println(sub);
I should get the output ace.
I would give you the answer, but I think helping guide your reasoning will give you more benefit. Enjoy your assignment!
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
I saw this in an interview question ,
Given a sorting order string, you are asked to sort the input string based on the given sorting order string.
for example if the sorting order string is dfbcae
and the Input string is abcdeeabc
the output should be dbbccaaee.
any ideas on how to do this , in an efficient way ?
The Counting Sort option is pretty cool, and fast when the string to be sorted is long compared to the sort order string.
create an array where each index corresponds to a letter in the alphabet, this is the count array
for each letter in the sort target, increment the index in the count array which corresponds to that letter
for each letter in the sort order string
add that letter to the end of the output string a number of times equal to it's count in the count array
Algorithmic complexity is O(n) where n is the length of the string to be sorted. As the Wikipedia article explains we're able to beat the lower bound on standard comparison based sorting because this isn't a comparison based sort.
Here's some pseudocode.
char[26] countArray;
foreach(char c in sortTarget)
{
countArray[c - 'a']++;
}
int head = 0;
foreach(char c in sortOrder)
{
while(countArray[c - 'a'] > 0)
{
sortTarget[head] = c;
head++;
countArray[c - 'a']--;
}
}
Note: this implementation requires that both strings contain only lowercase characters.
Here's a nice easy to understand algorithm that has decent algorithmic complexity.
For each character in the sort order string
scan string to be sorted, starting at first non-ordered character (you can keep track of this character with an index or pointer)
when you find an occurrence of the specified character, swap it with the first non-ordered character
increment the index for the first non-ordered character
This is O(n*m), where n is the length of the string to be sorted and m is the length of the sort order string. We're able to beat the lower bound on comparison based sorting because this algorithm doesn't really use comparisons. Like Counting Sort it relies on the fact that you have a predefined finite external ordering set.
Here's some psuedocode:
int head = 0;
foreach(char c in sortOrder)
{
for(int i = head; i < sortTarget.length; i++)
{
if(sortTarget[i] == c)
{
// swap i with head
char temp = sortTarget[head];
sortTarget[head] = sortTarget[i];
sortTarget[i] = temp;
head++;
}
}
}
In Python, you can just create an index and use that in a comparison expression:
order = 'dfbcae'
input = 'abcdeeabc'
index = dict([ (y,x) for (x,y) in enumerate(order) ])
output = sorted(input, cmp=lambda x,y: index[x] - index[y])
print 'input=',''.join(input)
print 'output=',''.join(output)
gives this output:
input= abcdeeabc
output= dbbccaaee
Use binary search to find all the "split points" between different letters, then use the length of each segment directly. This will be asymptotically faster then naive counting sort, but will be harder to implement:
Use an array of size 26*2 to store the begin and end of each letter;
Inspect the middle element, see if it is different from the element left to it. If so, then this is the begin for the middle element and end for the element before it;
Throw away the segment with identical begin and end (if there are any), recursively apply this algorithm.
Since there are at most 25 "split"s, you won't have to do the search for more than 25 segemnts, and for each segment it is O(logn). Since this is constant * O(logn), the algorithm is O(nlogn).
And of course, just use counting sort will be easier to implement:
Use an array of size 26 to record the number of different letters;
Scan the input string;
Output the string in the given sorting order.
This is O(n), n being the length of the string.
Interview questions are generally about thought process and don't usually care too much about language features, but I couldn't resist posting a VB.Net 4.0 version anyway.
"Efficient" can mean two different things. The first is "what's the fastest way to make a computer execute a task" and the second is "what's the fastest that we can get a task done". They might sound the same but the first can mean micro-optimizations like int vs short, running timers to compare execution times and spending a week tweaking every millisecond out of an algorithm. The second definition is about how much human time would it take to create the code that does the task (hopefully in a reasonable amount of time). If code A runs 20 times faster than code B but code B took 1/20th of the time to write, depending on the granularity of the timer (1ms vs 20ms, 1 week vs 20 weeks), each version could be considered "efficient".
Dim input = "abcdeeabc"
Dim sort = "dfbcae"
Dim SortChars = sort.ToList()
Dim output = New String((From c In input.ToList() Select c Order By SortChars.IndexOf(c)).ToArray())
Trace.WriteLine(output)
Here is my solution to the question
import java.util.*;
import java.io.*;
class SortString
{
public static void main(String arg[])throws IOException
{
BufferedReader br=new BufferedReader(new InputStreamReader(System.in));
// System.out.println("Enter 1st String :");
// System.out.println("Enter 1st String :");
// String s1=br.readLine();
// System.out.println("Enter 2nd String :");
// String s2=br.readLine();
String s1="tracctor";
String s2="car";
String com="";
String uncom="";
for(int i=0;i<s2.length();i++)
{
if(s1.contains(""+s2.charAt(i)))
{
com=com+s2.charAt(i);
}
}
System.out.println("Com :"+com);
for(int i=0;i<s1.length();i++)
if(!com.contains(""+s1.charAt(i)))
uncom=uncom+s1.charAt(i);
System.out.println("Uncom "+uncom);
System.out.println("Combined "+(com+uncom));
HashMap<String,Integer> h1=new HashMap<String,Integer>();
for(int i=0;i<s1.length();i++)
{
String m=""+s1.charAt(i);
if(h1.containsKey(m))
{
int val=(int)h1.get(m);
val=val+1;
h1.put(m,val);
}
else
{
h1.put(m,new Integer(1));
}
}
StringBuilder x=new StringBuilder();
for(int i=0;i<com.length();i++)
{
if(h1.containsKey(""+com.charAt(i)))
{
int count=(int)h1.get(""+com.charAt(i));
while(count!=0)
{x.append(""+com.charAt(i));count--;}
}
}
x.append(uncom);
System.out.println("Sort "+x);
}
}
Here is my version which is O(n) in time. Instead of unordered_map, I could have just used a char array of constant size. i.,e. char char_count[256] (and done ++char_count[ch - 'a'] ) assuming the input strings has all ASCII small characters.
string SortOrder(const string& input, const string& sort_order) {
unordered_map<char, int> char_count;
for (auto ch : input) {
++char_count[ch];
}
string res = "";
for (auto ch : sort_order) {
unordered_map<char, int>::iterator it = char_count.find(ch);
if (it != char_count.end()) {
string s(it->second, it->first);
res += s;
}
}
return res;
}
private static String sort(String target, String reference) {
final Map<Character, Integer> referencesMap = new HashMap<Character, Integer>();
for (int i = 0; i < reference.length(); i++) {
char key = reference.charAt(i);
if (!referencesMap.containsKey(key)) {
referencesMap.put(key, i);
}
}
List<Character> chars = new ArrayList<Character>(target.length());
for (int i = 0; i < target.length(); i++) {
chars.add(target.charAt(i));
}
Collections.sort(chars, new Comparator<Character>() {
#Override
public int compare(Character o1, Character o2) {
return referencesMap.get(o1).compareTo(referencesMap.get(o2));
}
});
StringBuilder sb = new StringBuilder();
for (Character c : chars) {
sb.append(c);
}
return sb.toString();
}
In C# I would just use the IComparer Interface and leave it to Array.Sort
void Main()
{
// we defin the IComparer class to define Sort Order
var sortOrder = new SortOrder("dfbcae");
var testOrder = "abcdeeabc".ToCharArray();
// sort the array using Array.Sort
Array.Sort(testOrder, sortOrder);
Console.WriteLine(testOrder.ToString());
}
public class SortOrder : IComparer
{
string sortOrder;
public SortOrder(string sortOrder)
{
this.sortOrder = sortOrder;
}
public int Compare(object obj1, object obj2)
{
var obj1Index = sortOrder.IndexOf((char)obj1);
var obj2Index = sortOrder.IndexOf((char)obj2);
if(obj1Index == -1 || obj2Index == -1)
{
throw new Exception("character not found");
}
if(obj1Index > obj2Index)
{
return 1;
}
else if (obj1Index == obj2Index)
{
return 0;
}
else
{
return -1;
}
}
}
I am attempting to transform a table named app_user which has a column named created_dt into AppUser.CreatedDt in SubSonic3 using the ActiveRecord template. From what I've seen one should be able to modify table and column names as needed in the CleanUp method of Settings.ttinclude
So I added this method to Settings.ttinclude
string UnderscoreToCamelCase(string input) {
if( !input.Contains("_"))
return input;
StringBuilder sb = new StringBuilder();
for (int i = 0; i < input.Length; i++)
{
if (input[i] == '_')
{
while (i < input.Length && input[i] == '_')
i++;
if (i < input.Length)
sb.Append(input[i].ToString().ToUpper());
}
else
{
if (sb.Length == 0)
sb.Append(input[i].ToString().ToUpper());
else
sb.Append(input[i]);
}
}
return sb.ToString();
}
And then this call to CleanUp
result=UnderscoreToCamelCase(result);
If I run a query such as :
var count = (from u in AppUser.All()
where u.CreatedDt >= DateTime.Parse("1/1/2009 0:0:0")
select u).Count();
I get a NotSupportedException, The member 'CreatedDt' is not supported
which comes from a method in TSqlFormatter.sql line 152
protected override Expression VisitMemberAccess(MemberExpression m)
If I comment out the call to UnderscoreToCamelCase and use the names as they are in the database everything works fine.
One interesting thing is that when everything is working OK the VisitMemberAccess method is never called.
Has anyone else been able to convert table/column names with undersores in them to camel case in SubSonic3 ?
There may be an answer to this on another thread within StackOverflow, but it entails modifying the source code for Subsonic.core.
link text