How to convert a number to string in coffeescript? - string

Given a number
n = 42
What is the best way to convert it into a string?
s = String(n)
or
s = ''+n
or any better suggestion?

String interpolation might be the most natural approach in CoffeeScript:
s = "#{n}" # Just `'' + n` in disguise.
That might leave people wondering what you're doing though.

I think the best way would be:
(10).toString()
// or
n = 11;
n.toString()
Edited to fix syntax error. 10.toString() works in the CoffeeScript simulator but it's better to be safe.

There is no solution that is more "natural" than the other. Both are explicit and the reader will understand what it does right away in both cases.
Concerning performance, from this test, the fastest is :
s = '' + n
The other method, String(n), is slower.

Related

How to convert a string into a variable name in MATLAB? [duplicate]

Let's assume that I want to create 10 variables which would look like this:
x1 = 1;
x2 = 2;
x3 = 3;
x4 = 4;
.
.
xi = i;
This is a simplified version of what I'm intending to do. Basically I just want so save code lines by creating these variables in an automated way. Is there the possibility to construct a variable name in Matlab? The pattern in my example would be ["x", num2str(i)]. But I cant find a way to create a variable with that name.
You can do it with eval but you really should not
eval(['x', num2str(i), ' = ', num2str(i)]); %//Not recommended
Rather use a cell array:
x{i} = i
I also strongly advise using a cell array or a struct for such cases. I think it will even give you some performance boost.
If you really need to do so Dan told how to. But I would also like to point to the genvarname function. It will make sure your string is a valid variable name.
EDIT: genvarname is part of core matlab and not of the statistics toolbox
for k=1:10
assignin('base', ['x' num2str(k)], k)
end
Although it is long overdue, i justed wanted to add another answer.
the function genvarname is exactly for these cases
and if you use it with a tmp structure array you do not need the eval cmd
the example 4 from this link is how to do it http://www.mathworks.co.uk/help/matlab/ref/genvarname.html
for k = 1:5
t = clock;
pause(uint8(rand * 10));
v = genvarname('time_elapsed', who);
eval([v ' = etime(clock,t)'])
end
all the best
eyal
If anyone else is interested, the correct syntax from Dan's answer would be:
eval(['x', num2str(i), ' = ', num2str(i)]);
My question already contained the wrong syntax, so it's my fault.
I needed something like this since you cannot reference structs (or cell arrays I presume) from workspace in Simulink blocks if you want to be able to change them during the simulation.
Anyway, for me this worked best
assignin('base',['string' 'parts'],values);

Matlab evaluating a string containing operations

I have a first structure like:
struct1.Vx.Value=10;
struct1.Vy.Value=2;
In a 2nd structure, I write operations as strings:
struct2.param1.map='sqrt(Vx^2+Vy^2)';
struct2.param2.map='Vx+Vy';
What is the most efficient way to set:
struct2.param1.value= [sqrt(10^2+2^2)=10.198]
struct2.param2.value= [10+2=12]
I found a solution using assignin and fieldnames on struct1 to create variables Vx=10 and Vy=2
then, I use eval() on struct2 to perform the operations.
Ok, it works but I don't like this solution reading what is said on eval()...
Is there a more efficient way to do what I want?
Thanks!
I manage to find a good solution, formating my data differently:
s.Vx = 10;
s.Vy = 2;
Map1 = 'sqrt( s.Vx^2+ s.Vy^2)';
FunctionMap1 = str2func( [#(s) Map1] );
And then I can evaluate my function handle simply with:
Value = FunctionMap1(s)

Find a specific char in an array of chars

I am doing an application where I want to find a specific char in an array of chars. In other words, I have the following char array:
char[] charArray= new char[] {'\uE001', '\uE002', '\uE003', '\uE004', '\uE005', '\uE006', '\uE007', '\uE008', '\uE009'};
At some point, I want to check if the character '\uE002' exists in the charArray. My method was to make a loop on every character in the charArray and find if it exists.
for (int z = 0 ; z < charArray; z ++) {
if (charArray[z] == myChar) {
//Do the work
}
}
Is there any other solution than making a char array and finding the character by looping every single char?
One option is to pre-sort charArray and use Arrays.binarySearch(charArray, myChar). A non-negative return value will indicate that myChar is present in charArray.
char[] charArray = new char[] {'\uE001', '\uE002', '\uE003', '\uE004', '\uE005', '\uE006', '\uE007', '\uE008', '\uE009'};
Arrays.sort(charArray); // can be omitted if you know that the values are already sorted
...
if (Arrays.binarySearch(charArray, myChar) >= 0) {
// Do the work
}
edit An alternative that avoids using the Arrays module is to put the characters into a string (at initialization time) and then use String.indexOf():
String chars = "\uE001...";
...
if (chars.indexOf(myChar) >= 0) {
// Do the work
}
This is not hugely different to what you're doing already, except that it requires less code.
If n is the size of charArray, the first solution is O(log n) whereas the second one is O(n).
You can use hash/map to check existance of the characer. This approach has better time of O(log n) or O(1) depending on hash/map inner structure.
If you don't have access to Arrays, since you are working in JavaME, then you should try to:
Or implement a sorted array and the binary search youself
Or just use a O(n) solution, wich is a good solution anyways.
Your solution is O(n), along with the one stated by aix.
You could try to use a Map, but it would depends on how much elements you are in your array. If you think there won't be more than 1000 elements in the array, just use a O(n) solution. But if you think you could have an unkown number of elements, a Map would be a reasoable choice, providing a better solution.
You can use net.rim.device.api.util.Arrays.getIndex(char[] array, char element)
It depends on what Java ME configuration / profile you are using. If you're on CDC then check for what parts of Java SE 1.3 Collections framework are supported (just find javadocs targeted for your device and look in java.util package). Another thing worth checking is whether your device has some blackberry-specific API extensions to work with collections.
If you are limited to bare minimum of CLDC/MIDP then other solution than you mentioned would be to add chars to Vector and use Vector.contains(Object)
If you don't want to implement it yourself you could use ArrayUtils in apache commons project:
ArrayUtils apache-commons

Best way to build object from delimited string (hopefully not looped case)

this question feels like it would have been asked already, but I've not found anything so here goes...
I have constructor which is handed a string which is delimited. From that string I need to populate an object's instance variables. I can easily split the string by the delimited to give me an array of strings. I know I can simply iterate through the array and set my instance variables using ifs or a switch/case statement based on the current array index - however that just feels a bit nasty. Pseudo code:
String[] tokens = <from generic string tokenizer>;
for (int i = 0;i < tokens.length;i++) {
switch(i) {
case(0): instanceVariableA = tokens[i];
case(1): instanceVarliableB = tokens[i];
...
}
}
Does anyone have any ideas of how I do this better/nicer?
For what it's worth, I'm working in Java, but I guess this is language independant.
Uhm... "nasty" is in the way the constructor handles the parameters. If you can't change that then your code snippet is as good as it may be.
You could get rid of the for loop, though...
instanceVariableA = tokens[0];
instanceVariableB = tokens[1];
and then introduce constants (for readibilty):
instanceVariableA = tokens[VARIABLE_A_INDEX];
instanceVariableB = tokens[VARIABLE_B_INDEX];
NOTE: if you could change the string parameter syntax you could introduce a simple parser and, with a little bit of reflection, handle this thing in a slightly more elegant way:
String inputString = "instanceVariableA=some_stuff|instanceVariableB=some other stuff";
String[] tokens = inputString.split("|");
for (String token : tokens)
{
String[] elements = token.split("=");
String propertyName = tokens[0];
String propertyValue = tokens[1];
invokeSetter(this, propertyName, propertyValue); // TODO write method
}
Could you not use a "for-each" loop to eliminate much of the clutter?
I really think the way you are doing it is fine, and Manrico makes a good suggestion about using constants as well.
Another method would be to create a HashMap with integer keys and string values where the key is the index and the value is the name of the property. You could then use a simple loop and some reflection to set the properties. The reflection part might make this a bit slow, but in another language (say, PHP for example) this would be much cleaner.
just an untested idea,
keep the original token...
String[] tokens = <from generic string tokenizer>;
then create
int instanceVariableA = 0;
int instanceVariableB = 1;
if you need to use it, then just
tokens[instanceVariableA];
hence no more loops, no more VARIABLE_A_INDEX...
maybe JSON might help?
Python-specific solution:
Let's say params = ["instanceVariableA", "instanceVariableB"]. Then:
self.__dict__.update(dict(zip(params, tokens)))
should work; that's roughly equivalent to
for k,v in zip(params, tokens):
setAttr(self, k, v)
depending on the presence/absence of accessors.
In a non-dynamic language, you could accomplish the same effect building a mapping from strings to references/accessors of some kind.
(Also beware that zip stops when either list runs out.)

To ternary or not to ternary? [closed]

As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 10 years ago.
I'm personally an advocate of the ternary operator: () ? :
I do realize that it has its place, but I have come across many programmers that are completely against ever using it, and some that use it too often.
What are your feelings on it? What interesting code have you seen using it?
Use it for simple expressions only:
int a = (b > 10) ? c : d;
Don't chain or nest ternary operators as it hard to read and confusing:
int a = b > 10 ? c < 20 ? 50 : 80 : e == 2 ? 4 : 8;
Moreover, when using ternary operator, consider formatting the code in a way that improves readability:
int a = (b > 10) ? some_value
: another_value;
It makes debugging slightly more difficult since you can not place breakpoints on each of the sub expressions. I use it rarely.
I love them, especially in type-safe languages.
I don't see how this:
int count = (condition) ? 1 : 0;
is any harder than this:
int count;
if (condition)
{
count = 1;
}
else
{
count = 0;
}
I'd argue that ternary operators make everything less complex and more neat than the alternative.
Chained I'm fine with - nested, not so much.
I tend to use them more in C simply because they're an if statement that has value, so it cuts down on unnecessary repetition or variables:
x = (y < 100) ? "dog" :
(y < 150) ? "cat" :
(y < 300) ? "bar" : "baz";
rather than
if (y < 100) { x = "dog"; }
else if (y < 150) { x = "cat"; }
else if (y < 300) { x = "bar"; }
else { x = "baz"; }
In assignments like this, I find it's less to refactor, and clearer.
When I'm working in ruby on the other hand, I'm more likely to use if...else...end because it's an expression too.
x = if (y < 100) then "dog"
elif (y < 150) then "cat"
elif (y < 300) then "bar"
else "baz"
end
(Although, admittedly, for something this simple, I might just use the ternary operator anyway.)
The ternary ?: operator is merely a functional equivalent of the procedural if construct. So as long as you are not using nested ?: expressions, the arguments for/against the functional representation of any operation applies here. But nesting ternary operations can result in code that is downright confusing (exercise for the reader: try writing a parser that will handle nested ternary conditionals and you will appreciate their complexity).
But there are plenty of situations where conservative use of the ?: operator can result in code that is actually easier to read than otherwise. For example:
int compareTo(Object object) {
if((isLessThan(object) && reverseOrder) || (isGreaterThan(object) && !reverseOrder)) {
return 1;
if((isLessThan(object) && !reverseOrder) || (isGreaterThan(object) && reverseOrder)) {
return -1;
else
return 0;
}
Now compare that with this:
int compareTo(Object object) {
if(isLessThan(object))
return reverseOrder ? 1 : -1;
else(isGreaterThan(object))
return reverseOrder ? -1 : 1;
else
return 0;
}
As the code is more compact, there is less syntactic noise, and by using the ternary operator judiciously (that is only in relation with the reverseOrder property) the end result isn't particularly terse.
It's a question of style, really; the subconscious rules I tend to follow are:
Only evaluate 1 expression - so foo = (bar > baz) ? true : false, but NOT foo = (bar > baz && lotto && someArray.Contains(someValue)) ? true : false
If I'm using it for display logic, e.g. <%= (foo) ? "Yes" : "No" %>
Only really use it for assignment; never flow logic (so never (foo) ? FooIsTrue(foo) : FooIsALie(foo) ) Flow logic in ternary is itself a lie, ignore that last point.
I like it because it's concise and elegant for simple assignment operations.
Like so many opinion questions, the answer is inevitably: it depends
For something like:
return x ? "Yes" : "No";
I think that is much more concise (and quicker for me to parse) than:
if (x) {
return "Yes";
} else {
return "No";
}
Now if your conditional expression is complex, then the ternary operation is not a good choice. Something like:
x && y && z >= 10 && s.Length == 0 || !foo
is not a good candidate for the ternary operator.
As an aside, if you are a C programmer, GCC actually has an extension that allows you to exclude the if-true portion of the ternary, like this:
/* 'y' is a char * */
const char *x = y ? : "Not set";
Which will set x to y assuming y is not NULL. Good stuff.
In my mind, it only makes sense to use the ternary operator in cases where an expression is needed.
In other cases, it seems like the ternary operator decreases clarity.
I use the ternary operator wherever I can, unless it makes the code extremely hard to read, but then that's usually just an indication that my code could use a little refactoring.
It always puzzles me how some people think the ternary operator is a "hidden" feature or is somewhat mysterious. It's one of the first things I learnt when I start programming in C, and I don't think it decreases readability at all. It's a natural part of the language.
By the measure of cyclomatic complexity, the use of if statements or the ternary operator are equivalent. So by that measure, the answer is no, the complexity would be exactly the same as before.
By other measures such as readability, maintainability, and DRY (don't repeat yourself), either choice may prove better than the other.
I use it quite often in places where I'm constrained to work in a constructor - for example, the new .NET 3.5 LINQ to XML constructs - to define default values when an optional parameter is null.
Contrived example:
var e = new XElement("Something",
param == null ? new XElement("Value", "Default")
: new XElement("Value", param.ToString())
);
or (thanks asterite)
var e = new XElement("Something",
new XElement("Value",
param == null ? "Default"
: param.ToString()
)
);
No matter whether you use the ternary operator or not, making sure your code is readable is the important thing. Any construct can be made unreadable.
I agree with jmulder: it shouldn't be used in place of a if, but it has its place for return expression or inside an expression:
echo "Result: " + n + " meter" + (n != 1 ? "s" : "");
return a == null ? "null" : a;
The former is just an example, and better internationalisation and localisation support of plural should be used!
If you're using the ternary operator for a simple conditional assignment I think it's fine. I've seen it (ab)used to control program flow without even making an assignment, and I think that should be avoided. Use an if statement in these cases.
(Hack of the day)
#define IF(x) x ?
#define ELSE :
Then you can do if-then-else as expression:
int b = IF(condition1) res1
ELSE IF(condition2) res2
ELSE IF(conditions3) res3
ELSE res4;
I think the ternary operator should be used when needed. It is obviously a very subjective choice, but I find that a simple expression (specially as a return expression) is much clearer than a full test. Example in C/C++:
return (a>0)?a:0;
Compared to:
if(a>0) return a;
else return 0;
You also have the case where the solution is between the ternary operator and creating a function. For example in Python:
l = [ i if i > 0 else 0 for i in lst ]
The alternative is:
def cap(value):
if value > 0:
return value
return 0
l = [ cap(i) for i in lst ]
It is needed enough that in Python (as an example), such an idiom could be seen regularly:
l = [ ((i>0 and [i]) or [0])[0] for i in lst ]
this line uses properties of the logical operators in Python: they are lazy and returns the last value computed if it is equal to the final state.
I've seen such beasts like (it was actually much worse since it was isValidDate and checked month and day as well, but I couldn't be bothered trying to remember the whole thing):
isLeapYear =
((yyyy % 400) == 0)
? 1
: ((yyyy % 100) == 0)
? 0
: ((yyyy % 4) == 0)
? 1
: 0;
where, plainly, a series of if-statements would have been better (although this one's still better than the macro version I once saw).
I don't mind it for small things like:
reportedAge = (isFemale && (Age >= 21)) ? 21 + (Age - 21) / 3 : Age;
or even slightly tricky things like:
printf ("Deleted %d file%s\n", n, (n == 1) ? "" : "s");
I like using the operator in debug code to print error values so I don't have to look them up all the time. Usually I do this for debug prints that aren't going to remain once I'm done developing.
int result = do_something();
if( result != 0 )
{
debug_printf("Error while doing something, code %x (%s)\n", result,
result == 7 ? "ERROR_YES" :
result == 8 ? "ERROR_NO" :
result == 9 ? "ERROR_FILE_NOT_FOUND" :
"Unknown");
}
I almost never use the ternary operator, because whenever I do use it, it always makes me think a lot more than I have to later when I try to maintain it.
I like to avoid verbosity, but when it makes the code a lot easier to pick up, I will go for the verbosity.
Consider:
String name = firstName;
if (middleName != null) {
name += " " + middleName;
}
name += " " + lastName;
Now, that is a bit verbose, but I find it a lot more readable than:
String name = firstName + (middleName == null ? "" : " " + middleName)
+ " " + lastName;
Or:
String name = firstName;
name += (middleName == null ? "" : " " + middleName);
name += " " + lastName;
It just seems to compress too much information into too little space, without making it clear what's going on. Every time I saw the ternary operator used, I have always found an alternative that seemed much easier to read... then again, that is an extremely subjective opinion, so if you and your colleagues find ternary very readable, go for it.
I like them. I don't know why, but I feel very cool when I use the ternary expression.
I treat ternary operators a lot like GOTO. They have their place, but they are something which you should usually avoid to make the code easier to understand.
Well, the syntax for it is horrid. I find functional ifs very useful, and they often makes code more readable.
I would suggest making a macro to make it more readable, but I'm sure someone can come up with a horrible edge case (as there always is with C++).
I typically use it in things like this:
before:
if(isheader)
drawtext(x, y, WHITE, string);
else
drawtext(x, y, BLUE, string);
after:
drawtext(x, y, isheader == true ? WHITE : BLUE, string);
As others have pointed out they are nice for short simple conditions. I especially like them for defaults (kind of like the || and or usage in JavaScript and Python), e.g.
int repCount = pRepCountIn ? *pRepCountIn : defaultRepCount;
Another common use is to initialize a reference in C++. Since references have to be declared and initialized in the same statement you can't use an if statement.
SomeType& ref = pInput ? *pInput : somethingElse;
I like Groovy's special case of the ternary operator, called the Elvis operator: ?:
expr ?: default
This code evaluates to expr if it's not null, and default if it is. Technically it's not really a ternary operator, but it's definitely related to it and saves a lot of time/typing.
I recently saw a variation on ternary operators (well, sort of) that make the standard "() ? :" variant seem to be a paragon of clarity:
var Result = [CaseIfFalse, CaseIfTrue][(boolean expression)]
or, to give a more tangible example:
var Name = ['Jane', 'John'][Gender == 'm'];
Mind you, this is JavaScript, so things like that might not be possible in other languages (thankfully).
Only when:
$var = (simple > test ? simple_result_1 : simple_result_2);
KISS.
For simple if cases, I like to use it. Actually it's much easier to read/code for instance as parameters for functions or things like that. Also to avoid the new line I like to keep with all my if/else.
Nesting it would be a big no-no in my book.
So, resuming, for a single if/else I'll use the ternary operator. For other cases, a regular if/else if/else (or switch).
For simple tasks, like assigning a different value depending on a condition, they're great. I wouldn't use them when there are longer expressions depending on the condition though.
If you and your workmates understand what they do and they aren't created in massive groups I think they make the code less complex and easier to read because there is simply less code.
The only time I think ternary operators make code harder to understand is when you have more than three or foyr in one line. Most people don't remember that they are right based precedence and when you have a stack of them it makes reading the code a nightmare.
As so many answers have said, it depends. I find that if the ternary comparison is not visible in a quick scan down the code, then it should not be used.
As a side issue, I might also note that its very existence is actually a bit of an anomaly due to the fact that in C, comparison testing is a statement. In Icon, the if construct (like most of Icon) is actually an expression. So you can do things like:
x[if y > 5 then 5 else y] := "Y"
... which I find much more readable than a ternary comparison operator. :-)
There was a discussion recently about the possibility of adding the ?: operator to Icon, but several people correctly pointed out that there was absolutely no need because of the way if works.
Which means that if you could do that in C (or any of the other languages that have the ternary operator), then you wouldn't, in fact, need the ternary operator at all.

Resources