I want to do aggregation operation by identifying "sum(a)" as in the below string and need to perform some logical operation to get sum, avg, count or percentage(i have separate method to do that so don't worry about that).
expression like below,
= '"sum(a)" * 10 + "count(b)"'
Here a and b is key word. Based on the key word i will perform the operation. But i need to identify operation name and key word in the above string.
Then, I need to execute the expression without using eval function for following expression. like below,
"10 * 10 + 22"
Note: I am trying to use Function constructor, but i am facing performance issue.(Use string to call function without eval())
You can use Array.proptotype.reduce:
const values = [2,3,4];
const sum = values.reduce((sum, current) => sum + current, 0);
console.log(sum * 10 + values.length);
function sum(values){
return values.reduce(function(s, n){
return s + n;
}, 0)
}
function count(values){
return values.length
}
alert( sum([2,3,4]) * 10 + count([2,3,4]) )
Related
I have a simple JS function
let a = 0.33, c=13.89;
var res = calcRound(c*2+calcRound(a*2,1,1),1,1);
console.log(res);
function calcRound(value, figure, padding) {
let val = value;
let result = parseFloat(val);
result = result.toFixed(figure);
return result;
}
It returns a 27.8. But the answer should be 28.5
I have debugged the code. At first, it calculates this and it is correct
calcRound(a*2,1,1) = 0.7
Second time the '+' operator between c*2 and calcRound(a*2,1,1) gets lost.
it becomes like this 27.780.7 which should be like this 27.78+0.7
I know JS first evaluates the expression before sending it as an argument. My question is why the '+' operator is getting omitted?
+ is the concatenator operator in JS, it thinks the result from calcRound() is a string and behaves accordingly.
As mentioned by Andy in the comments, you can see in the
documentation for toFixed()
Return value: A string representing the given number using fixed-point
notation.
Change the return of your function to (to make sure it returns a number):
return Number( result );
let a = 0.33,
c = 13.89;
var res = calcRound(c * 2 + calcRound(a * 2, 1, 1), 1, 1);
console.log(res);
function calcRound(value, figure, padding) {
let val = value;
let result = parseFloat(val);
result = result.toFixed(figure);
return Number(result);
}
It's not getting omitted, JavaScript is treating them like strings and adding 27.78+0.7 as strings, you want to surround them in Number() or parseFloat() statements so that they are treated as numbers.
Like so:
calcRound(parseFloat(c*2) + parseFloat(calcRound(a*2,1,1)),1,1)
Generate string from integer with arbitrary base in JavaScript received the following answer:
function parseInt(value, code) {
return [...value].reduce((r, a) => r * code.length + code.indexOf(a), 0);
}
function toString(value, code) {
var digit,
radix= code.length,
result = '';
do {
digit = value % radix;
result = code[digit] + result;
value = Math.floor(value / radix);
} while (value)
return result;
}
console.log(parseInt('dj', 'abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz0123456789+-'));
console.log(toString(123, 'abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz0123456789+-'));
console.log(parseInt('a', 'abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz0123456789+-'));
console.log(toString(0, 'abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz0123456789+-'));
I am interested something slightly different. Whereas this will generate the shortest code for the number, I would like to now generate a constant-length code based on the number of bits. I am not sure if this is also a complex radix solution as well.
Say I want to generate 8-bit codes using a 16-character alphabet. That means I should be able to take the first 4 bits to select 1 character, and the next 4 bits to select the second character. So I might end up with MV if my 16 character set was ABDHNMOPQRSTUVYZ. Likewise if I had a 16-bit range, I would have 4 character code, and 32-bit range would be an 8-character code. So calling code32(1, 'ABDHNMOPQRSTUVYZ') would give an 8 letter code, while code8(1, 'ABDHNMOPQRSTUVYZ') would give a 2 digit code.
How could that be implemented in JavaScript? Something along these lines?
code8(i, alpha) // 0 to 255 it accepts
code16(i, alpha) // 0 to 65535 it accepts
code32(i, alpha) // 0 to 2^32-1 it accepts
Likewise, how would you get the string code back into the original number (or bit sequence)?
This really comes down to changing toString so that:
It only accepts a code that has a length of a power of 2
It pads the result to a given number of "digits" (characters)
The actual number of digits you would use for a 16 bit number depends on the size of the code. If the code has 16 characters, then it can cover for 4 bits, and so an output of 4 characters would be needed. If however the code has 4 characters, then the output would need 8 characters. You can have cases where the match is not exact, like when you would have a code with 8 characters. Then the output would need 6 characters.
Here I have highlighted the changes to the toString method. My personal preference is to also put the value as last parameter to toString.
function toString(digitCount, code, value) { // <-- add argument digitCount
// Perform a sanity check: code must have a length that is power of 2
if (Math.log2(code.length) % 1) throw "code size not power of 2: " + code.length;
var digit,
radix = code.length,
result = '';
do {
digit = value % radix;
result = code[digit] + result;
value = Math.floor(value / radix);
} while (value)
return result.padStart(digitCount, code[0]); // Pad to the desired output size
}
console.log(toString(4, 'abcdefghijklmnop', 123));
console.log(toString(4, 'abcdefghijklmnop', 0));
console.log(toString(4, 'abcdefghijklmnop', 0xFFFF));
// You could define some more specific functions
const code8 = (code, value) => toString(Math.ceil(8 / Math.log2(code.length)), code, value);
const code16 = (code, value) => toString(Math.ceil(16 / Math.log2(code.length)), code, value);
console.log(code16('abcdefghijklmnop', 123));
console.log(code16('abcdefghijklmnop', 0));
console.log(code16('abcdefghijklmnop', 0xFFFF));
console.log(code8('abcdefghijklmnop', 123));
console.log(code8('abcdefghijklmnop', 0));
console.log(code8('abcdefghijklmnop', 0xFF));
EDIT: I just noticed that you required a decoder as well. It is easy to implement a non-optimal version too, while an optimal one can be implemented via go through each letter and accumulate their value times their weighs.
Is this what you want? I tested this code for bit=16 and bit=8, but when bit=32 the count of codewords becomes too large and hangs the devtools of the browser. It's only a demonstrative code and may need optimization if need to be applied in practical use...
function genCode(len, alpha){
let tmp = [...alpha];
for(let i = 1; i != len; ++i){
const ttmp = [];
tmp.forEach(te => {
[...alpha].forEach(e => {
ttmp.push(te + e);
});
});
tmp = ttmp;
}
return tmp;
}
function code(bits, i, alpha){
const len = Math.ceil(bits / Math.floor(Math.log2(alpha.length)));
return genCode(len, alpha)[i];
}
function decode(bits, c, alpha){
const len = Math.ceil(bits / Math.floor(Math.log2(alpha.length)));
const codes = genCode(len, alpha);
return codes.indexOf(c);
}
console.log(code(16, 2, "ABDHNMOPQRSTUVYZ"));
console.log(decode(16, "AAAD", "ABDHNMOPQRSTUVYZ"));
console.log(code(8, 255, "ABDHNMOPQRSTUVYZ"));
console.log(decode(8, "ZZ", "ABDHNMOPQRSTUVYZ"));
I'm currently stuck on a Codewars challenge that I can't get my head around:
Given a string representation of two integers, return the string representation of those integers, e.g. sumStrings('1','2') // => '3'
I've used the following code so far, but it fails on large number test cases as the number is converted into a scientific notation:
function sumStrings(a,b) {
var res = +a + +b;
return res.toString();
}
Any help would be much appreciated.
Edit:
Fiddle example: https://jsfiddle.net/ag1z4x7d/
function sumStrings(a, b) { // sum for any length
function carry(value, index) { // cash & carry
if (!value) { // no value no fun
return; // leave shop
}
this[index] = (this[index] || 0) + value; // add value
if (this[index] > 9) { // carry necessary?
carry.bind(this)(this[index] / 10 | 0, index + 1); // better know this & go on
this[index] %= 10; // remind me later
}
}
var array1 = a.split('').map(Number).reverse(), // split stuff and reverse
array2 = b.split('').map(Number).reverse(); // here as well
array1.forEach(carry, array2); // loop baby, shop every item
return array2.reverse().join(''); // return right ordered sum
}
document.write(sumStrings('999', '9') + '<br>');
document.write(sumStrings('9', '999') + '<br>');
document.write(sumStrings('1', '9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999') + '<br>');
The problem is that in that specific kata (IIRC), the numbers stored in a and b are too large for a regular 32 bit integer, and floating point arithmetic isn't exact. Therefore, your version does not return the correct value:
sumStrings('100000000000000000000', '1')
// returns '100000000000000000000' instead of '100000000000000000001'
You have to make sure that this does not happen. One way is to do an good old-fashioned carry-based addition and stay in the digit/character based world throughout the whole computation:
function sumStrings(a, b) {
var digits_a = a.split('')
var digits_b = b.split('')
...
}
Why would we declare a second variable (val) when we can use the parameter of the function as a variable?
Here's how it looks like on codecademy:
var divideByThree = function (number) {
var val = number / 3;
console.log(val);
};
divideByThree(6);
I've made some changes as below:
var divideByThree = function (number) {
number = number / 3;
console.log(number);
};
divideByThree(6);
And it works pretty fine!!
In your example, you do not need to preserve the original value of the parameter. However, you may find it easier to use extra variables in the future for more complicated functions.
Here is an example:
// This function uses the parameter "rawNumber" as a variable, but also uses an extra variable "number"
function TestThis(rawNumber, p) {
// Convert the input (string) to integer
// parseInt returns NaN or integer. Truncates decimals
var number = parseInt(rawNumber);
// Check to see if the result is NaN or is an integer
if (isNaN(number)) {
Log(rawNumber + " is not a number.", p); // Log is my imitation of console.log()
}
// will run if number is type int
else {
if (number > 0 && number <= 100) {
Log(rawNumber + " is a valid number.", p);
} else {
Log(rawNumber + " is not between 1 and 100.", p);
}
}
}
You can see this code working in this Fiddle.
In this function I used an extra variable called "number" in three different places. I didn't have to, but it was easier than typing isNaN(parseInt(rawNumber)) and if(parseInt(rawNumber) > 0 && parseInt(rawNumber) <= 100). Codecademy was probably decided to teach you this way because it is easier to realize you can simplify your code than to realize you can simplify a more complex code through the use of extra variables.
Also, JK Price's answer brings up a readability issue. Simply put, this code is easier to read and understand:
function Example(number) {
var processedNumber = 5/(Math.log(1/number*3.14 - 7));
console.log("Message: " + (processedNumber * 2));
console.log("Message: " + (processedNumber / 10));
}
This code might be a little harder:
function Example(number) {
console.log("Message: " + ((5/(Math.log(1/number*3.14 - 7)) * 2));
console.log("Message: " + ((5/(Math.log(1/number*3.14 - 7)) / 10));
}
Variables are supposed to help the programmer write better and describe a better story. You can't have the same actor play multiple characters! One thing it does is to help keep variables separate.
The variable val in this case helps abstract the logic and most importantly help in debugging. If this was a long script and you saw that number was not what you originally passed it, you might consider it to be an error.
How would it be a nice way of handling this?
I already thought on removing the comma and then parsing to float.
Do you know a better/cleaner way?
Thanks
parseFloat( theString.replace(/,/g,'') );
I don't know why no one has suggested this expression-
parseFloat( theString.replace(/[^\d\.]/g,'') );
Removes any non-numeric characters except for periods. You don't need custom functions/loops for this either, that's just overkill.
Nope. Remove the comma.
You can use the string replace method, but not in a one liner as a regexp allows.
while(str.indexOf(',')!=-1)str= str.replace(',','');
parseFloat(str);
Or to make a single expression without a regexp=
return parseFloat(str.split(',').join(''));
I'd use the regexp.
I don't have enough reputation to add a comment, but for anyone wondering on the performance for regex vs split/join, here's a quick fiddle: https://jsfiddle.net/uh3mmgru/
var test = "1,123,214.19";
var t0 = performance.now();
for (var i = 0; i < 1000000; i++)
{
var a = parseFloat(test.replace(/,/g,''));
}
var t1 = performance.now();
document.write('Regex took: ' + (t1 - t0) + ' ms');
document.write('<br>')
var t0 = performance.now();
for (var i = 0; i < 1000000; i++)
{
var b = parseFloat(test.split(',').join(''));
}
var t1 = performance.now();
document.write('Split/join took: ' + (t1 - t0) + ' ms');
The results I get are (for 1 million loops each):
Regex: 263.335 ms
Split/join: 1035.875 ms
So I think its safe to say that regex is the way to go in this scenario
Building on the idea from #kennebec, if you want to make sure that the commas are correct, and you don't want to replace commas, you could try something like this:
function myParse(num) {
var n2 = num.split(",")
out = 0
for(var i = 0; i < n2.length; i++) {
out *= 1000;
out += parseFloat(n2[i])
}
return out
}
alert(myParse("1,432,85"));
// Returns 1432085, as the comma is misplaced.
It may not be as fast, but you wanted alternatives :)
What about a simple function to solve most of the common problems?
function getValue(obj) {
Value = parseFloat( $(obj).val().replace(/,/g,'') ).toFixed(2);
return +Value;
}
The above function gets values from fields (using jQuery) assuming the entered values are numeric (I rather validate fields while user is entering data, so I know for sure field content is numeric).
In case of floating point values, if well formatted in the field, the function will return a float point value correctly.
This function is far from complete, but it quickly fix the "," (comma) issue for values entered as 1,234.56 or 1,234,567. It will return valid number as far the content is numeric.
The + (plus) sign in front of the variable Value in the return command is a "dirty trick" used in JavaScript to assure the variable content returned will be numeric.
it is easy to modify the function to other purposes, such as (for instance), convert strings to numeric values taking care of the "," (comma) issue:
function parseValue(str) {
Value = parseFloat( str.replace(/,/g,'') ).toFixed(2);
return +Value;
}
Both operations can even be combined in one function. I.e.:
function parseNumber(item,isField=false) {
Value = (isField) ? parseFloat( $(item).val().replace(/,/g,'') ).toFixed(2) : parseFloat( item.replace(/,/g,'') ).toFixed(2)
return +Value;
}
In such case, if function is called result = parseNumber('12,092.98'); it will parse the value as it is a String. But if called as result = parseNumber('#MyField', true); it will try to obtain the value from '#MyField'.
As I said before, such functions are far from complete, and can be expanded in many ways. One idea is to check the first character of the given parameter (string) and decide based on the string format where to obtain the value to be parsed (if 1st character is = '#' then it is an ID from a DOM object, otherwise, if it begins with a number, it must be a string to be parsed).
Try it... Happy coding.