currently I am doing
var adnetCustomerModel = customersList.find((adnetCustomerModel) => {
return adnetCustomerModel.getId() == customerId;
})
but wasting CPU cycles as I have to continue and traverse the entire list (or so I am assuming that's what happens).
I'd like to quit on first find.
Now I know I can do a filter().first() (which I believe will have same waste of CPU cycles) but is there a better way?
If it was a normal for loop I would just break...
will the return achieve the same effect in immutable.js?
tx for reading,
Sean
Immutable’s find() already returns only the first value for which the predicate returns true. It actually just wraps around the findEntry() method that’s implemented like this:
findEntry(predicate, context, notSetValue) {
var found = notSetValue;
this.__iterate((v, k, c) => {
if (predicate.call(context, v, k, c)) {
found = [k, v];
return false;
}
});
return found;
}
So, you’re not wasting any cycles. :)
Vanilla JavaScript Array.prototype.find() also returns the value of the first element to match the predicate.
Related
I am trying to write a function in CAPL that takes a signal and calculates the physical value with the signal value, the signal factor and the signal offset.
This is how a simple gateway normally works:
message CAN1.myMessage1 myMessage1 = {DIR = RX};//message from the database
message CAN2.myMessage2 myMessage2 = {DIR = TX};//another message from the database
on message CAN1.*
{
if(this.id == myMessage1.id)
{
myMessage1 = this;
myMessage2.mySignalB = myMessage1.mySignalA * myMessage1.mySignalA.factor + myMessage1.mySignalA.offset;
}
}
And this is what I am trying to do:
...
on message CAN1.*
{
if(this.id ==myMessage1.id)
{
myMessage1 = this;
myMessage2.mySignalB = PhysicalValue(myMessage1.mySignalA);
}
}
double PhysicalValue(signal * s)
{
return s*s.factor+s.offset;
}
There are two problems with this code:
Firstly when I pass the signal as the parameter the compiler says that the types don't match. The second problem is that inside the function the attributes (factor and offset) are no longer recognized.
These problems might have something to do with the weird object-oriented-but-not-really nature of CAPL. The value of the signals can be accessed directly but it also has attributes?
int rawValue = myMessage1.mySignalA;
If you are familiar with C you might say that the problem is that I am specifying a pointer in the function but that I am not passing a pointer into it. But in CAPL there are no pointers and the * simply means anything.
Without the * I would have needed to use a specific signal which would have defeated the purpose of the function.
EDIT:
I have found the attribute .phys by now which does exactly what my demo function would have done.
double physValue = myMessage1.mySignalA.phys;
This has already made my code much shorter but there are other operations that I need to perform for multiple signals so being able to use signals as a function parameter would still be useful.
What you can do is this:
double PhysicalValue(signal * s)
{
// access signal by prepending a $
return $s.phys;
}
Call like this
on message CAN1.*
{
if(this.id ==myMessage1.id)
{
myMessage1 = this;
myMessage2.mySignalB = PhysicalValue(CAN1::myMessage1::mySignalA);
}
}
I.e. when you call your function, you have to provide the qualified name of the signal (with colons rather than dots). To my knowledge it is not possible to use myMessage1.mySignalA, since signals itself are not a CAPL datatype.
Apart from this, you might re-think whether you really should be using on message, but rather switch to on signal. Handling the signal values no matter with which message they are sent is done by CANoe's signal server.
Note that CANoe already has a function which does exactly what you're trying to do (multiplying by factor and adding offset). It's called getSignal:
on message CAN1.*
{
if(this.id == myMessage1.id)
{
myMessage2.mySignalB = getSignal(myMessage1::mySignalA);
}
}
Offsets and factors are defined in e.g. the DBC files.
So I'm just getting to grips with node-red and I need to create a conditional global function.
I have two separate global.payloads set to a number value of either 0 or 1.
What I need to happen now is, if global.payload is equal to value 1 then follow this flow, if it is equal to value 0 then follow this one.
I'm just a little confused with the syntax for the function statement. Any help gratefully appreciated.
Since you haven't accepted the current answer, thought I'd give this a try.
I think this is what you need to handle inputs from two separate global contexts. I'm simulating them here with two separate inject nodes to demonstrate:
The checkconf inject node emits a 1 or a 0. Same for the meshstatus node. Substitute your real inputs for those inject nodes. The real work is done inside the function:
var c = context.get('c') || 0; // initialize variables
var m = context.get('m') || 0;
if (msg.topic == "checkconf") // update context based on topic of input
{
c = {payload: msg.payload};
context.set("c", c); // save last value in local context
}
if (msg.topic == 'meshstatus') // same here
{
m = {payload: msg.payload};
context.set('m', m); // save last value in local context
}
// now do the test to see if both inputs are triggered...
if (m.payload == 1) // check last value of meshstatus first
{
if (c.payload == 1) // now check last value of checkconf
return {topic:'value', payload: "YES"};
}
else
return {topic:'value', payload: "NO"};
Be sure to set the "topic" property of whatever you use as inputs so the if statements can discriminate between the two input. Good luck!
You can use the Switch node to do this, rather than a Function node.
I'm wondering if any programming language has an operator like so (ALWAYS is a placeholder--I'm asking what language has something like ALWAYS)
if a
doAStuff()
else if b
doBStuff()
ALWAYS
//runs if a or b is true
win()
else
doElse()
Basically, the opposite of else. It runs if something else in the statement ran.
logically, it would be like this
always = true
if a
doA()
else if b
doB()
else
always = false
doElse()
if always
win()
Does any language have that logic built into a keyword, such as ALWAYS from the first example?
Not really 'language-agnostic'. More like 'find-my-language'. With Forth and Lisp you can add such a construct naturally to the language, and it will work just like existing constructs. I'm not aware of any language that has it by default. If you have a less extensible language than Forth or Lisp, then the natural ways to do this are to use a local function (if you have first-class functions) or to set a flag as you show, or else to factor the code such that both conditions can be treated as pairs without a lot of repetition.
So, in JavaScript:
;(function() {
function both() { win(); more stuff, potentially }
if (a) { doA(); if (b) both() }
else if (b) { doB(); if (a) both() }
else neither()
})()
At upon reading that, it should be clear that the 'both' case is never going to happen in that second block. So this simplifies to:
;(function() {
function both() { win(); more stuff, potentially }
if (a) { doA(); if (b) both() }
else if (b) doB()
else neither()
})()
Which doesn't seem worth the effort. So it seems even less worth a language feature. Why not go further and write this?
if (a) { doA(); if (b) { win(); more stuff, potentially } }
else if (b) doB()
else neither()
If b is an expensive test, just save the result of it. If b must not be tested before a, save both results. Obviously, both tests must always be run anyway.
;(function() {
var a = testA(),
b = testB()
... as above ...
})()
As for the last option, "factor the code such that both conditions can be treated as pairs", what you're looking for is:
if (a && !b) doA()
if (!a && b) doB()
if (a && b) { doA(); doB(); win() } // or no doB() if you really want that
if (!a && !b) neither()
With else if if you like. I'd prefer this option actually in a pattern-matching language. Mercury will even throw an compile-time error if you forget one of the four possible outcomes.
Not sure if this is what you're looking for, but a simple do-while loop will ALWAYS run at least once in Java.
Actually I've parsed a website using htmlparser and I would like to find a specific value inside the parsed object, for example, a string "$199", and keep tracking that element(by periodic parsing) to see the value is still "$199" or has changed.
And after some painful stupid searching using my eyes, I found the that string is located at somewhere like this:
price = handler.dom[3].children[3].children[3].children[5].children[1].
children[3].children[3].children[5].children[0].children[0].raw;
So I'd like to know whether there are methods which are less painful? Thanks!
A tree based recursive search would probably be easiest to get the node you're interested in.
I've not used htmlparser and the documentation seems a little thin, so this is just an example to get you started and is not tested:
function getElement(el,val) {
if (el.children && el.children.length > 0) {
for (var i = 0, l = el.children.length; i<l; i++) {
var r = getElement(el.children[i],val);
if (r) return r;
}
} else {
if (el.raw == val) {
return el;
}
}
return null;
}
Call getElement(handler.dom[3],'$199') and it'll go through all the children recursively until it finds an element without an children and then compares it's raw value with '$199'. Note this is a straight comparison, you might want to swap this for a regexp or similar?
I am trying to sort big array using actionscript 3.
The problem is that i have to use custom sorting function which is painfully slow and leads to flash plugin crash.
Below is a sample code for custom function used to sort array by length of its members:
private function sortByLength():int {
var x:int = arguments[0].length;
var y:int = arguments[1].length;
if (x > y){
return 1;
}else if (x < y){
return -1;
}else{
return 0;
}
}
Which is called like this:
var txt:Array = ["abcde","ab","abc","a"];
txt.sort(sortByLength);
Please advise me how can this be done faster ?
How to change application logic to avoid Flash plugin crashes during sorting ?
try to use strong typing whenever possible, here tell your function that you are waiting two strings.
you could rewrite your function in two way one fastest than the other if you know that all your element are not null:
function sortByLength(a:String, b:String):int {
return a.length-b.length // fastest way not comparison
}
and if you can have null check for it (this one will put null in front of all element):
function sortByLengthWithNull(a:String, b:String):int {
if (a==null) return -1
if (b==null) return 1
return a.length-b.length
}
If you need super-fast sorting, then it might be worthwhile not using an array at all and instead using a linked-list. There are different advantages to each. Primarily, with a linked-list, index-access is slow, while iterating through the list is fast, and linked-lists are not native to AS3 so you'll have to roll your own.
On the upside, you may well be able to use some of Polygonal Labs' code: http://lab.polygonal.de/as3ds/.
Sorting is very, very fast for nearly-sorted data with a linked list, as this article discusses: http://lab.polygonal.de/2007/11/26/data-structures-more-on-linked-lists/.
This solution gives you lots more work, but will eventually give you lots more sort-speed too.
Hope this helps.
-- additional --
I noticed your question in the comments of another answer about "One question however is unanswered - how to perform greedy computations in Flash without hanging it?"
For this, essentially the answer is to break your computation over multiple frames, something like this:
public function sort():void
{
addEventListener(Event.ENTER_FRAME, iterateSort);
}
private function iterateSort():void
{
var time:int = getTimer() + TARGET_MILLISECONDS_PER_FRAME;
var isFinished:Boolean = false;
while (!isFinished && getTimer() < time)
isFinished = continueSort();
if (isFinished)
removeEventListener(Event.ENTER_FRAME, iterateSort);
}
function continueSort():Boolean
{
... implement an 'atom of sort' here, whatever that means ...
}
sortByLength should have two parameters, shouldn't it? I guess that's what you mean by the arguments array...
This looks fine to me, unless arguments is not a local variable, but instead a member variable, and you're just looking at its [0] and [1] elements on each function call. That would at least produce undesired results.