Hi,
I have one array for example[1,2,3,4]
i need to find the matching elements of another array is there any way
to find....
for example [1,2,3,4].include?(2)
it will return true
but i need to find one or more elements
example : [1,2,3,4].include?(2,3)
it is throwing an error
If you have solution reply me
Thanx
Pragash
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
I have one array for example[1,2,3,4]
i need to find the matching elements of another array is there any way
to find....
for example [1,2,3,4].include?(2)
it will return true
but i need to find one or more elements
example : [1,2,3,4].include?(2,3)
it is throwing an error
Depends what you want, if you just want to find out if the numbers 2
and 3 are in the other array, you could use:
== Array RDoc:
array & other_array
Set Intersection—Returns a new array containing elements common to
the two arrays, with no duplicates.
[ 1, 1, 3, 5 ] & [ 1, 2, 3 ] #=> [ 1, 3 ]
so you could do something like this:
class Array
def contains?(array)
(self & array) == array
end
end
=> nil
?> [1,2,3,4].contains?([1,2])
=> true
?> [1,2,3,4].contains?([1,3])
=> true
[1,2,3,4].contains?([1,9])
=> false
[1,2,3,4].contains?([12,3])
=> false
[1,2,3,4].contains?([2,3])
=> true
Mikel
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 4:04 PM, Pragash Mr. <gananapragasam@srishtisoft.com> wrote:
--
Rails, RSpec and Life blog....
class Array
alias old_include? include?
def include?(*args)
if args.length <= 1
old_include?(args)
else
args.all? do |a|
old_include?(a)
end
end
end
end
puts("#{(0..9).to_a.include?(3,5)}") # true
puts("#{('a'..'z').to_a.include?(3,5)}") # false
puts("#{('A'..'ZZ').to_a.include?('G','AB')}")# true
regards, Sandor Szücs
On 07.07.2008, at 08:04, Pragash Mr. wrote:
I have one array for example[1,2,3,4]
i need to find the matching elements of another array is there any way
to find....
for example [1,2,3,4].include?(2)
it will return true
but i need to find one or more elements
example : [1,2,3,4].include?(2,3)
it is throwing an errorIf you have solution reply me
--
How about something like this?
a = [1,2,3,4]
x = [2,3]
x.all? { |n| a.include?(n) }
(warning, this is slow for large arrays)
Jeff
On Jul 7, 1:04 am, "Pragash Mr." <gananapraga...@srishtisoft.com> wrote:
Hi,
I have one array for example[1,2,3,4]i need to find the matching elements of another array is there any way
to find....
for example [1,2,3,4].include?(2)
it will return true
but i need to find one or more elements
example : [1,2,3,4].include?(2,3)
it is throwing an errorIf you have solution reply me
Thanx
Pragash
--
Posted viahttp://www.ruby-forum.com/.
class Array
def contains?(array)
(self & array) == array
end
end
Note however, this will only work if the match is in order.
For example
[1,2,3,4].contains?([2,1]) #=> false
But
[1,2,3,4].contains?([1,4]) #=> true
That might be what you want. If not, you could call sort on it as well.
ANyway... the point is, you can have a look at the ruby rdoc and find
a lot about this. Arrays have been around for a while and Ruby
handles them more elegantly than any other language I have used.
Go have a read: class Array - RDoc Documentation
Mikel
--
Rails, RSpec and Life blog....
Two things:
1) This doesn't work. Try ('a'..'z').to_a.include?('a')
2) The length check isn't necessary. It's sufficient to just use
args.all? { |a| old_include?(a) }, assuming it's okay that calling
include? with no arguments now returns true.
I like Mikel's set-intersection solution (which, incidentally, is what
I was thinking), assuming once again that the order is important.
On Jul 7, 1:32 am, Sandor Szücs <sandor.szu...@fu-berlin.de> wrote:
class Array
alias old_include? include?
def include?(*args)if args.length <= 1
old_include?(args)
else
args.all? do |a|
old_include?(a)
end
end
end
endputs("#{(0..9).to_a.include?(3,5)}") # true
puts("#{('a'..'z').to_a.include?(3,5)}") # false
puts("#{('A'..'ZZ').to_a.include?('G','AB')}")# trueregards, Sandor Szücs
--
--
-yossef
Hi --
class Array
alias old_include? include?
def include?(*args)if args.length <= 1
old_include?(args)
else
args.all? do |a|
old_include?(a)
end
end
end
endputs("#{(0..9).to_a.include?(3,5)}") # true
puts("#{('a'..'z').to_a.include?(3,5)}") # false
puts("#{('A'..'ZZ').to_a.include?('G','AB')}")# trueregards, Sandor Szücs
--Two things:
1) This doesn't work. Try ('a'..'z').to_a.include?('a')
2) The length check isn't necessary. It's sufficient to just use
args.all? { |a| old_include?(a) }, assuming it's okay that calling
include? with no arguments now returns true.
I'd be in favor of keeping that safeguard, partly because it feels
weird for [1,2,3].include?() to be true and partly because there might
be some edge case or test where having it succeed silently might be
problematic.
A case statement might be a nice way to handle it:
def include?(*args)
case args.size
when 0
old_include?
else
args.all? {|a| old_include?(a) }
end
end
I also think this one is kind of cool, though I would assume it's a
good bit slower:
def include?(head,*tail)
case tail
when
old_include?(head)
else
include?(head) && include?(*tail)
end
end
David
On Tue, 8 Jul 2008, Yossef Mendelssohn wrote:
On Jul 7, 1:32 am, Sandor Szücs <sandor.szu...@fu-berlin.de> wrote:
--
Rails training from David A. Black and Ruby Power and Light:
Intro to Ruby on Rails July 21-24 Edison, NJ
Advancing With Rails August 18-21 Edison, NJ
See http://www.rubypal.com for details and updates!
Hi,
class Array
alias old_include? include?
def include?(*args)if args.length <= 1
old_include?(args)
else
args.all? do |a|
old_include?(a)
end
end
end
endputs("#{(0..9).to_a.include?(3,5)}") # true
puts("#{('a'..'z').to_a.include?(3,5)}") # false
puts("#{('A'..'ZZ').to_a.include?('G','AB')}")# trueregards, Sandor Szücs
--Two things:
1) This doesn't work. Try ('a'..'z').to_a.include?('a')
ack.
2) The length check isn't necessary. It's sufficient to just use
args.all? { |a| old_include?(a) }, assuming it's okay that calling
include? with no arguments now returns true.
ack.
I like Mikel's set-intersection solution (which, incidentally, is what
I was thinking), assuming once again that the order is important.
That's also what I thought if I read that e-mail.
regards, Sandor Szücs
On 08.07.2008, at 02:24, Yossef Mendelssohn wrote:
On Jul 7, 1:32 am, Sandor Szücs <sandor.szu...@fu-berlin.de> wrote:
--
Oh, I'd probably put a safeguard in there, possibly a check on the
number of arguments so that [1,2,3].include?() still raises an
ArgumentError.
My comment about the length check not being necessary wasn't a
judgement of how I would write it
as much as it was just saying that code doesn't perform any useful
function in that context. Personally, I think .all? shouldn't be
true, but that debate has happened before.
On Jul 7, 9:12 pm, "David A. Black" <dbl...@rubypal.com> wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jul 2008, Yossef Mendelssohn wrote:
> 2) The length check isn't necessary. It's sufficient to just use
> args.all? { |a| old_include?(a) }, assuming it's okay that calling
> include? with no arguments now returns true.I'd be in favor of keeping that safeguard, partly because it feels
weird for [1,2,3].include?() to be true and partly because there might
be some edge case or test where having it succeed silently might be
problematic.
--
-yossef