I'm trying to make helper functions to make use of the Google Analytics API, and I have a simple problem building strings. The scenario is, I have to apply a filter, and there may be n number of filters (a nominal amount, not more than 128 anyhow). I wanted to write a function which can take in the n strings and combine them with comma-separation in between.
I don't know if the number of arguments can be variable in javascript, and if it can take arrays as arguments in javascript (I am a newbie to JS), but I see no difference as variables are simply var and there is no datatype anywhere in JS (I come from a C++/Java background and find it confusing as it is). So I tried passing an array as an argument to a function so that the no. of things I can work with can be dynamic, decided by the elements in the array.
When I started searching for solutions, I came across this page. After that I recently came across this thread which also refers the same link and the format they have provided does me no good.
For the sake of clarity, let me provide the function definition I've written.
/**
* Utility method to build a comma-ed string from an array of strings
* for the multiple-condition requests to the GA API
*/
function buildString(strArray)
{
var returnString='';
for(var x in strArray)
returnString+=x+',';
return returnString = returnString.substring(0, returnString.length - 1);
}
And this is how I call it:
buildString.apply(this,[desc(visits),source])
where desc(visits) and source are both strings, so I assumed I'm sending an array of strings. Strangely, both this and null in the apply() call to the buildString function give me "0,1" as the return value.
Please tell me where I'm going wrong. Am I passing the array in a wrong manner? Or is my function definition wrong? Or is there some other simpler way to achieve what I'm trying?
Passing arrays to functions is no different from passing any other type:
var string = buildString([desc(visits), source]);
However, your function is not necessary, since Javascript has a built-in function for concatenating array elements with a delimiter:
var string = someArray.join(',');
You're over complicating things — JavaScript arrays have a built-in join method:
[ desc( visits ), source ].join( ',' );
EDIT: simpler still: the toString method:
[ desc( visits ), source ].toString();
The easiest would be to use the built-in join method:
[desc(visits), source].join(',');
Anyway, your problem was in the for..in loop
Instead of this:
for(var x in strArray){
returnString+=x+',';
}
You should have:
for(var i in strArray){
var x = strArray[i]; //Note this
returnString+=x+',';
}
Because for...in gives back the index/key, not the actual element as foreach does in other languages
Also your call should be:
buildString.call(this,[desc(visits),source]) or just buildString([desc(visits),source])
Cheers
Js argument can be any type and no limit to the number of argument,
But it is recommanded use 3-4 arguments at most, if there are more args, you can pass it as an object or array.
You don't need to worry about the type of args, js will do the job.
For example:
var func1 = function(a) {
console.log(a);
}
func1('good');
func1(1);
func1(['good', 'a', 1]);
func1({name: 'fn1', age: 12});
Anything you like!,
You can even define a function with three arguments, but only pass one is ok!
var func2 = function(a, b, c) {
console.log(a);
}
func2(1);
func2(1, 'good');
func2(1, 'good', 'night', 4);
And default array obj has many build-in func; for example:
var arr = ['good', 'night', 'foo', 'bar']; //define any thing in a array
str = arr.join(','); //you may get 'good,night,foo,bar'
var arr1 = str.split(','); // you may get ['good', 'night', 'foo', 'bar'];
Related
Summary: Is there a faster way to hash objects than JSON.stringify?
Details: I have a Ruby and JavaScript library (NeatJSON) that provides pretty-printing of JavaScript values. I recently fixed a problem where deeply-nested objects caused O(n!) performance (n being the nesting level) using memoization based on the object being serialized and the indentation amount.
In Ruby, the fix was really easy, because you can index hashes by arrays of unique sets of objects:
build = ->(object,indent) do
memoizer[[object,indent]] ||= <all the rest of the code>
end
In JavaScript, however, I can't index an object by another object (in a unique way). Following the lead of several articles I found online, I decide to fix the problem generically, using JSON.stringify on the full set of arguments to the function to create a unique key for memoization:
function memoize(f){
var memo = {};
var slice = Array.prototype.slice;
return function(){
var args = slice.call(arguments);
var mkey = JSON.stringify(args);
if (!(mkey in memo)) memo[mkey] = f.apply(this,args);
return memo[mkey];
}
}
function rawBuild(o,indent){ .. }
var build = memoize(rawBuild);
This works, but (a) it's a little slower than I'd like, and (b) it seems wildly inefficient (and inelegant) to perform (naive) serialization of every object and value that I'm about to serialize smartly. The act of serializing a large object with many values is going to store a string and formatting result for EVERY unique value (not just leaf values) in the entire object.
Is there a modern JavaScript trick that would let me uniquely identify a value? For example, some way of accessing an internal ID, or otherwise associating complex objects with unique integers that takes O(1) time to find the identifier for a value?
If you are looking to memoise your objects by identity (not by content), then you'll want to use a WeakMap which is designed for exactly this purpose. They don't work for primitive values though, so you'll need a different solution for such arguments.
Using #Bergi's suggestion of a WeakMap I found out about Map, which allows using any value type as the key (not just objects). Because I needed a compound key—uniquely memoizing the combination of the value passed in and the indentation string—I created a hierarchical memoization structure:
function memoizedBuild(){
var memo = new Map;
return function(value,indent){
var byIndent=memo.get(value);
if (!byIndent) memo.set(value,byIndent={});
if (!byIndent[indent]) byIndent[indent] = rawBuild(value,indent);
return byIndent[indent];
}
}
This proved to be about 4× faster than the memoization code I had been using when serializing a large 270kB JSON object.
Note that in the above code I'm able to use !byIndent[indent] only because I know that rawBuild will never return a falsey value (null, undefined, false, NaN, 0, ""). The safer code line would look something like:
if (!(indent in byIndent)) byIndent[indent] = rawBuild(value,indent);
If you just need to memoise objects then it makes sense to assign some unique ID to your objects .
var gID = 0;
function createNode() {
var obj = ...
obj.id = (++gID).toString();
}
and use those obj.id's as keys in your memo collection.
That would be fastest and least greedy solution.
Update:
If you want that id property to do not clash with existing properties
then you can create non-enumerable properties using standard ES5.1 Object.createProperty() (with some unique name) or to use ES6 symbols:
var gID = 0;
var gUidSym = Symbol("uid");
function getUidOf(obj) {
return obj[gUidSym]
|| (obj[gUidSym] = (++gID).toString());
}
I have an object (returned from jQuery ajax) that looks like this:
data:{
materials:{
1:{
id:1,
name:"jacob"
}//1 (some integer)
}//materials
}//data
I'm trying to access name, but I can't get passed the object 1. I tried using makeArray() like this
var m = $.makeArray(data.materials);
var m0 = m.shift();
console.log(m);
console.log(m0);
$isArray(m) & $.isArray(m0) return true, but m and m0 both return:
1:{
id:1,
name:"jacob"
}//1 (some integer)
I expect that shift() to return the object that's inside of 1.
When I try to access m0.name it returns undefined, and when I try to access m[1] it returns undefined.
btw data.materials["1"].name works. the problem is 1 is variable (I don't know what it will be, so I wanted to use shift() which doesn't work on an object).
EDIT: So it seems that there is a limitation within makeArray(): since an object property is not supposed to be named with a number, that function does not convert the rest of the object and the output is some kind of object-array hybrid (on which you cannot use array functions like shift()), so the quick-n-dirty solution I came to was to loop thru it like this:
var m = data.materials,
id;
for ( key in m ) { id = key; }
console.log( m[id].name );
It's not all that clean, so if there's a better way, please let me know.
p.s. The 1:{} is there in the first place because the controller returns multiple "materials" under certain conditions (which will never be true when this js is used).
You should use data.materials["1"].name
http://jsfiddle.net/nq4RE/
Jacob, I see you updated your question.
To use a variable, you simply call data.materials[your_variable_here].name
http://jsfiddle.net/nq4RE/1/
Did you try: data.materials[1].name?
But in my opinion using number as property name is misleading.
Is there a more succinct way to write this?
var me = {};
for (var i in you) {
me[i] = you[i];
}
(where you is an arbitrarily-lengthed JavaScript array)
In other words, given the input of:
var you = [
"what",
"r",
"u"
];
The output, me, becomes:
me = {
0: "what",
1: "r",
2: "u"
};
Like, a one-liner that uses some functional method?
Why do you want to do this? Arrays in JavaScript are Objects, except with some additional properties like slice, splice, push and length.
Internally, Arrays and Objects are stored exactly in the same way: e.g. array[0] is the same as array["0"], or object["0"] (unlike in other languages where adjacent array indices are in fact in adjacent memory - array "indices" are simply converted into strings in JavaScript).
So, if you just want to copy the data, then this will suffice:
me = you.slice(); // me is a copy of you, but is still an array
Or, if you really want some sort of mapping functionality, then underscore.js provides a whole collection of functional programming tools for your perusal.
There is no built-in function that does what you ask, however some of the widely used javascript libraries like jQuery provide such a function. In jQuery's case: jQuery.extend()
Usage:
var me = {};
jQuery.extend(me,someObject);
//or, equivalently -
var me2 = jQuery.extend({},someObject);
jQuery has an extend() function (documentation here). Your code would look like this:
var me = {};
var you = ["what", "r", "u"];
$.extend(me, you);
This would allow you to do things like:
alert("Second element: " + me[1]);
It's a little odd, but I think it's what you're looking for.
I saw what you were trying to achieve with your string formatter. Instead of answering your original question of coming up with a concise implementation of one portion of it, I'll suggest a concise (and more flexible) implementation for the whole thing:
String.prototype.format = function () {
var args = arguments;
return this.replace(/\{(?:(\d+)|(\w+))\}/g, function (s, idx, prop) {
return prop && args[0]
? args[0][prop]
: args[idx];
});
};
When you have a number n inside a token "{n}", it uses the n-th argument for replacement. Otherwise, for non-numerical keys, it picks the corresponding property of the first argument.
For example:
"I have {1} {name}s in my basket.".replace({ type: "fruit", name: "eggplant" }, 4);
Returns:
"I have 4 eggplants in my basket."
The underscore.js library also has a basic extend function.
var me = _({}).extend(you)
or
var me = {}
_(me).extend(you)
or
var me = {}
_.extend(me, you)
I have a situation where I want to create a mapping from a tuple to an integer. In python, I would simply use a tuple (a,b) as the key to a dictionary,
Does Javascript have tuples? I found that (a,b) in javascript as an expression just returns b (the last item). Apparently this is inherited from C.
So, as a workaround, I thought I can use arrays instead,
my_map[[a,b]] = c
I tried it at the Firebug console and it seemed to work. Is that a good way to do it?
Another alternative I thought of is to create a string out of the tuples
my_map[""+a+":"+b] = c
So the question is: is there any problem with any of these methods? Is there a better way?
EDIT:
Small clarification: in my case, a,b,c are all integers
EcmaScript doesn't distinguish between indexing a property by name or by [], eg.
a.name
is literally equivalent to
a["name"]
The only difference is that numbers, etc are not valid syntax in a named property access
a.1
a.true
and so on are all invalid syntax.
Alas the reason all of these indexing mechanisms are the same is because in EcmaScript all property names are strings. eg.
a[1]
is effectively interpreted as
a[String(1)]
Which means in your example you do:
my_map[[a,b]] = c
Which becomes
my_map[String([a,b])] = c
Which is essentially the same as what your second example is doing (depending on implementation it may be faster however).
If you want true value-associative lookups you will need to implement it yourself on top of the js language, and you'll lose the nice [] style access :-(
You could use my jshashtable and then use any object as a key, though assuming your tuples are arrays of integers I think your best bet is one you've mentioned yourself: use the join() method of Array to create property names of a regular object. You could wrap this very simply:
function TupleDictionary() {
this.dict = {};
}
TupleDictionary.prototype = {
tupleToString: function(tuple) {
return tuple.join(",");
},
put: function(tuple, val) {
this.dict[ this.tupleToString(tuple) ] = val;
},
get: function(tuple) {
return this.dict[ this.tupleToString(tuple) ];
}
};
var dict = new TupleDictionary();
dict.put( [1,2], "banana" );
alert( dict.get( [1,2] ) );
All object keys in Javascript are strings. Using my_map[[a,b]] = c will produce a key in my_map which is the result of [a,b].toString(): a.toString() + ',' + b.toString(). This may actually be desirable (and is similar to your use of a + ':' + b), but you may run into conflicts if your keys contain the separator (either the comma if you use the array as the key, or the colon if you write the string as you have in your example).
Edit: An alternate approach would be to keep a separate array for key references. Eg:
var keys = [
[a,b],
[c,d]
];
var my_map = {
'keys[0]': /* Whatever [a,b] ought to be the key for */,
'keys[1]': /* Whatever [c,d] ought to be the key for */
};
the most simple and "natural" way to achieve something similar is by using multidimensional arrays, like this:
var my_map = [["blah","blah","bla"],
["foo", "bla", 8],
[324, 2345, 235],
[true, false, "whatever..."]];
Is there a better way than this to splice an array into another array in javascript
var string = 'theArray.splice('+start+', '+number+',"'+newItemsArray.join('","')+'");';
eval(string);
You can use apply to avoid eval:
var args = [start, number].concat(newItemsArray);
Array.prototype.splice.apply(theArray, args);
The apply function is used to call another function, with a given context and arguments, provided as an array, for example:
If we call:
var nums = [1,2,3,4];
Math.min.apply(Math, nums);
The apply function will execute:
Math.min(1,2,3,4);
UPDATE: ES6 version
If you're coding in ES6, you can use the "spread operator" (...).
array.splice(index, 0, ...arrayToInsert);
To learn more about the spread operator see the MDN documentation.
The 'old' ES5 way
If you wrap the top answer into a function you get this:
function insertArrayAt(array, index, arrayToInsert) {
Array.prototype.splice.apply(array, [index, 0].concat(arrayToInsert));
}
You would use it like this:
var arr = ["A", "B", "C"];
insertArrayAt(arr, 1, ["x", "y", "z"]);
alert(JSON.stringify(arr)); // output: A, x, y, z, B, C
You can check it out in this jsFiddle: http://jsfiddle.net/luisperezphd/Wc8aS/
This question is really old, but with ES6, there's a simpler way to do this using the spread operator:
sourceArray.splice(index, 0, ...insertedArray)
If you're using uncompiled javascript in the browser, be sure to check if it's supported in your target browser at https://kangax.github.io/compat-table/es6/#test-spread_(...)_operator.
Also, this may be slightly off topic, but if you don't want or need to modify the original array, but could use a new array instead, consider this approach:
mergedArray = sourceArray.slice(0, index).concat(insertedArray, sourceArray.slice(index))
You can also add such a function to the Array prototype, if you want something that is almost identical to the splice method. E.g.
Array.prototype.spliceArray = function(index, n, array) {
return Array.prototype.splice.apply(this, [index, n].concat(array));
}
Then usage would simply be:
var array = ["A","B","C","","E","F"];
array.splice(3,1,"D");
// array is ["A","B","C","D","E","F"]
array.spliceArray(3,3,["1","2","3"]);
// array is ["A","B","C","1","2","3"]
See it in action here: http://jsfiddle.net/TheMadDeveloper/knv2f8bb/1/
Some notes:
The splice function modifies the array directly, but returns the an array of elements that were removed... not the spliced array.
While it's normally not recommended to extend core javascript classes, this is relatively benign with most standard frameworks.
Extending Array won't work in cases where specialized array classes are used, such as an ImageData data Uint8ClampedArray.
The answers above that involve splice.apply and insert the array in a one liner will blow up the stack in a stack overflow for large array.
See example here:
http://jsfiddle.net/gkohen/u49ku99q/
You might have to slice and and push each item of the inserted and remaining part of the original array for it to work.
See fiddle: http://jsfiddle.net/gkohen/g9abppgy/26/
Array.prototype.spliceArray = function(index, insertedArray) {
var postArray = this.splice(index);
inPlacePush(this, insertedArray);
inPlacePush(this, postArray);
function inPlacePush(targetArray, pushedArray) {
// Not using forEach for browser compatability
var pushedArrayLength = pushedArray.length;
for (var index = 0; index < pushedArrayLength; index++) {
targetArray.push(pushedArray[index]);
}
}
}
There are a lot of clever answers here, but the reason you use splice is so that it puts the elements into the current array without creating another. If you have to create an array to concat() against so you can use apply() then you're creating 2 additional trash arrays! Sorta defeats the whole purpose of writing esoteric Javascript. Besides if you don't care about that memory usage stuff (and you should) just dest = src1.concat(src2); it is infinitely more readable. So here's is my smallest number of lines while staying efficient answer.
for( let item of src ) dest.push( item );
Or if you'd like to polyfill it and have a little better browser support back:
src.forEach( function( x ) { dest.push(x); });
I'm sure the first is more performant (it's a word ;), but not supported in all browsers out there in the wild.
If you don't want to concatenate inserting items to first two parameters of Array.splice(),
an elegant way is to use Function.bind() and Function.apply() together.
theArray.splice.bind(null, startIndex, deleteCount).apply(newItemsArray);
I wanted to have a function which would take only part of the source array so I have mine slightly different
based off CMS's answer
function spliceArray(array, index, howmany, source, start, end) {
var arguments;
if( source !== undefined ){
arguments = source.slice(start, end);
arguments.splice(0,0, index, howmany);
} else{
arguments = [index, howmany];
}
return Array.prototype.splice.apply(array, arguments)
}
Array.prototype.spliceArray = function(index, howmany, source, start, end) {
return spliceArray(this, index, howmany, source, start, end);
}
You can see it at: https://jsfiddle.net/matthewvukomanovic/nx858uz5/