How to make a list of partial sums using forEach Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30 UTC (7:30pm US/Eastern) Data science time! April 2019 and salary with experience The Ask Question Wizard is Live!Creating an array of cumulative sum in javascriptHow do JavaScript closures work?How do I check if an element is hidden in jQuery?jQuery get specific option tag textHow do I check if an array includes an object in JavaScript?How do I redirect to another webpage?How do I make the first letter of a string uppercase in JavaScript?How to check whether a string contains a substring in JavaScript?How do I remove a particular element from an array in JavaScript?Remove duplicate values from JS arrayHow does PHP 'foreach' actually work?
Why do people think Winterfell crypts is the safest place for women, children & old people?
How can I introduce the names of fantasy creatures to the reader?
Marquee sign letters
FME Console for testing
What's the difference between using dependency injection with a container and using a service locator?
What's the connection between Mr. Nancy and fried chicken?
Can this water damage be explained by lack of gutters and grading issues?
A journey... into the MIND
My admission is revoked after accepting the admission offer
Why do C and C++ allow the expression (int) + 4*5?
Is Bran literally the world's memory?
Difference between decryption and deciphering?
Indexes with the same object_id but different names
How to calculate density of unknown planet?
Why did Israel vote against lifting the American embargo on Cuba?
Is it OK if I do not take the receipt in Germany?
How was Lagrange appointed professor of mathematics so early?
Example of a central simple algebra
Paektu / Changbai border dispute — why does the BBC shade a large area around the mountain?
How to produce a PS1 prompt in bash or ksh93 similar to tcsh
Protagonist's race is hidden - should I reveal it?
How to ask rejected full-time candidates to apply to teach individual courses?
Raising a bilingual kid. When should we introduce the majority language?
Coin Game with infinite paradox
How to make a list of partial sums using forEach
Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30 UTC (7:30pm US/Eastern)
Data science time! April 2019 and salary with experience
The Ask Question Wizard is Live!Creating an array of cumulative sum in javascriptHow do JavaScript closures work?How do I check if an element is hidden in jQuery?jQuery get specific option tag textHow do I check if an array includes an object in JavaScript?How do I redirect to another webpage?How do I make the first letter of a string uppercase in JavaScript?How to check whether a string contains a substring in JavaScript?How do I remove a particular element from an array in JavaScript?Remove duplicate values from JS arrayHow does PHP 'foreach' actually work?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty height:90px;width:728px;box-sizing:border-box;
I have an array of arrays which looks like this:
changes = [ [1, 1, 1, -1], [1, -1, -1], [1, 1] ];
I want to get the next value in the array by adding the last value
values = [ [1, 2, 3, 2], [1, 0, -1], [1, 2] ];
so far I have tried to use a forEach:
changes.forEach(change =>
let i = changes.indexOf(change);
let newValue = change[i] + change[i + 1]
);
I think I am on the right lines but I cannot get this approach to work, or maybe there is a better way to do it.
javascript arrays ecmascript-6 foreach
|
show 4 more comments
I have an array of arrays which looks like this:
changes = [ [1, 1, 1, -1], [1, -1, -1], [1, 1] ];
I want to get the next value in the array by adding the last value
values = [ [1, 2, 3, 2], [1, 0, -1], [1, 2] ];
so far I have tried to use a forEach:
changes.forEach(change =>
let i = changes.indexOf(change);
let newValue = change[i] + change[i + 1]
);
I think I am on the right lines but I cannot get this approach to work, or maybe there is a better way to do it.
javascript arrays ecmascript-6 foreach
1
Please elaborate this "I want to be able to increment the values based on the next value in the array to get this result:"
– Syed Mehtab Hassan
Mar 20 at 10:51
1
This is just a cumulative sum wrapped in.map
. The answer by Thomas is better than anything you'll find there though.
– JollyJoker
Mar 20 at 12:21
2
@JollyJoker Thomas simulate.reduce
method, why not use .reduce directly ?
– R3tep
Mar 20 at 12:26
1
@Thomas Look my answer, you can use an array as accumulator.
– R3tep
Mar 20 at 12:52
1
Never useforEach
if you want to produce a result.
– Bergi
Mar 20 at 13:55
|
show 4 more comments
I have an array of arrays which looks like this:
changes = [ [1, 1, 1, -1], [1, -1, -1], [1, 1] ];
I want to get the next value in the array by adding the last value
values = [ [1, 2, 3, 2], [1, 0, -1], [1, 2] ];
so far I have tried to use a forEach:
changes.forEach(change =>
let i = changes.indexOf(change);
let newValue = change[i] + change[i + 1]
);
I think I am on the right lines but I cannot get this approach to work, or maybe there is a better way to do it.
javascript arrays ecmascript-6 foreach
I have an array of arrays which looks like this:
changes = [ [1, 1, 1, -1], [1, -1, -1], [1, 1] ];
I want to get the next value in the array by adding the last value
values = [ [1, 2, 3, 2], [1, 0, -1], [1, 2] ];
so far I have tried to use a forEach:
changes.forEach(change =>
let i = changes.indexOf(change);
let newValue = change[i] + change[i + 1]
);
I think I am on the right lines but I cannot get this approach to work, or maybe there is a better way to do it.
javascript arrays ecmascript-6 foreach
javascript arrays ecmascript-6 foreach
edited Mar 20 at 14:51
Solomon Ucko
88121122
88121122
asked Mar 20 at 10:47
Team CafeTeam Cafe
1365
1365
1
Please elaborate this "I want to be able to increment the values based on the next value in the array to get this result:"
– Syed Mehtab Hassan
Mar 20 at 10:51
1
This is just a cumulative sum wrapped in.map
. The answer by Thomas is better than anything you'll find there though.
– JollyJoker
Mar 20 at 12:21
2
@JollyJoker Thomas simulate.reduce
method, why not use .reduce directly ?
– R3tep
Mar 20 at 12:26
1
@Thomas Look my answer, you can use an array as accumulator.
– R3tep
Mar 20 at 12:52
1
Never useforEach
if you want to produce a result.
– Bergi
Mar 20 at 13:55
|
show 4 more comments
1
Please elaborate this "I want to be able to increment the values based on the next value in the array to get this result:"
– Syed Mehtab Hassan
Mar 20 at 10:51
1
This is just a cumulative sum wrapped in.map
. The answer by Thomas is better than anything you'll find there though.
– JollyJoker
Mar 20 at 12:21
2
@JollyJoker Thomas simulate.reduce
method, why not use .reduce directly ?
– R3tep
Mar 20 at 12:26
1
@Thomas Look my answer, you can use an array as accumulator.
– R3tep
Mar 20 at 12:52
1
Never useforEach
if you want to produce a result.
– Bergi
Mar 20 at 13:55
1
1
Please elaborate this "I want to be able to increment the values based on the next value in the array to get this result:"
– Syed Mehtab Hassan
Mar 20 at 10:51
Please elaborate this "I want to be able to increment the values based on the next value in the array to get this result:"
– Syed Mehtab Hassan
Mar 20 at 10:51
1
1
This is just a cumulative sum wrapped in
.map
. The answer by Thomas is better than anything you'll find there though.– JollyJoker
Mar 20 at 12:21
This is just a cumulative sum wrapped in
.map
. The answer by Thomas is better than anything you'll find there though.– JollyJoker
Mar 20 at 12:21
2
2
@JollyJoker Thomas simulate
.reduce
method, why not use .reduce directly ?– R3tep
Mar 20 at 12:26
@JollyJoker Thomas simulate
.reduce
method, why not use .reduce directly ?– R3tep
Mar 20 at 12:26
1
1
@Thomas Look my answer, you can use an array as accumulator.
– R3tep
Mar 20 at 12:52
@Thomas Look my answer, you can use an array as accumulator.
– R3tep
Mar 20 at 12:52
1
1
Never use
forEach
if you want to produce a result.– Bergi
Mar 20 at 13:55
Never use
forEach
if you want to produce a result.– Bergi
Mar 20 at 13:55
|
show 4 more comments
8 Answers
8
active
oldest
votes
You could save a sum and add the values.
var array = [[1, 1, 1, -1], [1, -1, -1], [1, 1]],
result = array.map(a => a.map((s => v => s += v)(0)));
console.log(result);
By using forEach
, you need to take the object reference and the previous value or zero.
var array = [[1, 1, 1, -1], [1, -1, -1], [1, 1]];
array.forEach(a => a.forEach((v, i, a) => a[i] = (a[i - 1] || 0) + v));
console.log(array);
1
That first approach looks nice, but is really inefficient.
– T.J. Crowder
Mar 20 at 10:58
13
but man does it look nice
– Jeremy Thille
Mar 20 at 10:58
1
@T.J.Crowder could you explain or point me in the right direction, why the first approach is inefficient?
– Thomas
Mar 20 at 11:01
1
@Thomas - Look at all the functions it's creating and executing. Your solution is great -- as concise (way more so than mine) and still efficient.
– T.J. Crowder
Mar 20 at 11:01
2
really, for three items in the outer array? if you really want to speed up the execution, you never use some array methods, instead use nestedfor
loops and create new arrays.
– Nina Scholz
Mar 20 at 11:05
|
show 4 more comments
A version with map.
const changes = [
[1, 1, 1, -1],
[1, -1, -1],
[1, 1]
];
const values = changes.map(array =>
let acc = 0;
return array.map(v => acc += v);
);
console.log(values);
.as-console-wrappertop:0;max-height:100%!important
And this doesn't change the source Array.
Note that the array of arrays structure is just a needless complication. The question is actually about the cumulative sum of an array. I'd split out the outer mapping function into something calledcumulativeSum
– JollyJoker
Mar 20 at 12:25
add a comment |
New ESNext features of generators are nice for this.
Here I've created a simple sumpUp
generator that you can re-use.
function* sumUp(a)
let sum = 0;
for (const v of a) yield sum += v;
const changes = [ [1, 1, 1, -1], [1, -1, -1], [1, 1] ];
const values = changes.map(a => [...sumUp(a)]);
console.log(values);
add a comment |
const changes = [ [1, 1, 1, -1], [1, -1, -1], [1, 1] ]
let values = []
changes.forEach(arr =>
let accu = 0
let nestedArr = []
arr.forEach(n =>
accu += n
nestedArr.push(accu)
)
values.push(nestedArr)
)
console.log(values)
add a comment |
You may use map function of Array
const changes = [ [1, 1, 1, -1], [1, -1, -1], [1, 1] ];
const result = changes.map((v) => v.slice(0).map((t, i, arr) => i === 0 ? t : (arr[i] += arr[i - 1])))
console.log(changes);
console.log(result);
Update
Use slice to clone array. This will prevent changes to the original array.
3
This modifies the source array, which is probably not a good idea.
– T.J. Crowder
Mar 20 at 10:56
Yes. Andslice
will help to prevent that. Thanks for the tip
– Alexander
Mar 20 at 11:02
add a comment |
Here is an easier to read way that iterates over the outer list of arrays. A copy of the inner array is made to keep the initial values (like [1, 1, 1, -1]). It then iterates over each value in the copied array and adds it to each index after it in the original array.
var changes = [[1, 1, 1, -1], [1, -1, -1], [1, 1]];
changes.forEach(subArray =>
var subArrayCopy = subArray.slice(); // Create a copy of the current sub array (i.e. subArrayCopy = [1, 1, 1, -1];)
subArrayCopy.forEach((val, index) => // Iterate through each value in the copy
for (var i = subArray.length - 1; i > index; i--) // For each element from the end to the current index
subArray[i] += val; // Add the copy's current index value to the original array
);
)
console.log(changes);
add a comment |
Another way,
You can use .map
to return your new array with the desired results. By using .reduce
with an array as an accumulator, you can generate the subarray.
var array = [[1, 1, 1, -1], [1, -1, -1], [1, 1]],
result = array.map(a => a.reduce((ac, v, i) => , []));
console.log(result);
// shorter
result = array.map(a => a.reduce((ac, v, i) => [...ac, (ac[i-1] || 0) + v], []));
console.log(result);
add a comment |
You have an array of arrays, but each constituent array is independent from the next so let's tackle them individually. Let's talk about [1, 1, 1, -1]
.
Your use of the phrase "partial sum" is very informative. The full sum could be implemented using reduce
:
[1, 1, 1, -1].reduce((x, y) => x + y);
// 2
But you want an array of partial sums. That's very similar to this usage of reduce
, but instead of retaining only the last computed result, we retain every intermediate value too. In other languages, this is called scan
(cf. F#, Haskell).
A javascript implementation of a generic scan
would probably look a lot like reduce
. In fact, you can implement it with reduce
, with just a little extra work:
function scan(array, callback)
const results = [array[0]];
// reduce does all the heavy lifting for us, but we define a wrapper to pass to it.
array.reduce((...args) =>
// The wrapper forwards all those arguments to the callback, but captures the result...
const result = callback(...args);
// ...storing that intermediate result in our results array...
results.push(result);
// ...then passes it back to reduce to continue what it was doing.
return result;
);
return results;
// scan([1, 1, 1, -1], (x, y) => x + y) -> [1, 2, 3, 2]
A more robust implementation would hew closer to the standard library's reduce
, especially around initial values:
function scan(array, callback, initialValue)
const results = [];
const reducer = (...args) =>
const result = callback(...args);
results.push(result);
return result;
;
if (arguments.length === 2)
results.push(array[0]);
array.reduce(reducer);
else
results.push(initialValue);
array.reduce(reducer, initialValue);
return results;
Bringing it back together, if you'd like to do this for your arrays of arrays, it would just be a map
over scan
:
[[1, 1, 1, -1], [1, -1, -1], [1, 1]].map(a => scan(a, (x, y) => x + y));
// [[1, 2, 3, 2], [1, 0, -1], [1, 2]]
No copying necessary or side effects to watch out for, and you get a handy higher-order function out of it to boot!
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function ()
StackExchange.using("snippets", function ()
StackExchange.snippets.init();
);
);
, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f55258925%2fhow-to-make-a-list-of-partial-sums-using-foreach%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
8 Answers
8
active
oldest
votes
8 Answers
8
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
You could save a sum and add the values.
var array = [[1, 1, 1, -1], [1, -1, -1], [1, 1]],
result = array.map(a => a.map((s => v => s += v)(0)));
console.log(result);
By using forEach
, you need to take the object reference and the previous value or zero.
var array = [[1, 1, 1, -1], [1, -1, -1], [1, 1]];
array.forEach(a => a.forEach((v, i, a) => a[i] = (a[i - 1] || 0) + v));
console.log(array);
1
That first approach looks nice, but is really inefficient.
– T.J. Crowder
Mar 20 at 10:58
13
but man does it look nice
– Jeremy Thille
Mar 20 at 10:58
1
@T.J.Crowder could you explain or point me in the right direction, why the first approach is inefficient?
– Thomas
Mar 20 at 11:01
1
@Thomas - Look at all the functions it's creating and executing. Your solution is great -- as concise (way more so than mine) and still efficient.
– T.J. Crowder
Mar 20 at 11:01
2
really, for three items in the outer array? if you really want to speed up the execution, you never use some array methods, instead use nestedfor
loops and create new arrays.
– Nina Scholz
Mar 20 at 11:05
|
show 4 more comments
You could save a sum and add the values.
var array = [[1, 1, 1, -1], [1, -1, -1], [1, 1]],
result = array.map(a => a.map((s => v => s += v)(0)));
console.log(result);
By using forEach
, you need to take the object reference and the previous value or zero.
var array = [[1, 1, 1, -1], [1, -1, -1], [1, 1]];
array.forEach(a => a.forEach((v, i, a) => a[i] = (a[i - 1] || 0) + v));
console.log(array);
1
That first approach looks nice, but is really inefficient.
– T.J. Crowder
Mar 20 at 10:58
13
but man does it look nice
– Jeremy Thille
Mar 20 at 10:58
1
@T.J.Crowder could you explain or point me in the right direction, why the first approach is inefficient?
– Thomas
Mar 20 at 11:01
1
@Thomas - Look at all the functions it's creating and executing. Your solution is great -- as concise (way more so than mine) and still efficient.
– T.J. Crowder
Mar 20 at 11:01
2
really, for three items in the outer array? if you really want to speed up the execution, you never use some array methods, instead use nestedfor
loops and create new arrays.
– Nina Scholz
Mar 20 at 11:05
|
show 4 more comments
You could save a sum and add the values.
var array = [[1, 1, 1, -1], [1, -1, -1], [1, 1]],
result = array.map(a => a.map((s => v => s += v)(0)));
console.log(result);
By using forEach
, you need to take the object reference and the previous value or zero.
var array = [[1, 1, 1, -1], [1, -1, -1], [1, 1]];
array.forEach(a => a.forEach((v, i, a) => a[i] = (a[i - 1] || 0) + v));
console.log(array);
You could save a sum and add the values.
var array = [[1, 1, 1, -1], [1, -1, -1], [1, 1]],
result = array.map(a => a.map((s => v => s += v)(0)));
console.log(result);
By using forEach
, you need to take the object reference and the previous value or zero.
var array = [[1, 1, 1, -1], [1, -1, -1], [1, 1]];
array.forEach(a => a.forEach((v, i, a) => a[i] = (a[i - 1] || 0) + v));
console.log(array);
var array = [[1, 1, 1, -1], [1, -1, -1], [1, 1]],
result = array.map(a => a.map((s => v => s += v)(0)));
console.log(result);
var array = [[1, 1, 1, -1], [1, -1, -1], [1, 1]],
result = array.map(a => a.map((s => v => s += v)(0)));
console.log(result);
var array = [[1, 1, 1, -1], [1, -1, -1], [1, 1]];
array.forEach(a => a.forEach((v, i, a) => a[i] = (a[i - 1] || 0) + v));
console.log(array);
var array = [[1, 1, 1, -1], [1, -1, -1], [1, 1]];
array.forEach(a => a.forEach((v, i, a) => a[i] = (a[i - 1] || 0) + v));
console.log(array);
answered Mar 20 at 10:54
Nina ScholzNina Scholz
200k15112182
200k15112182
1
That first approach looks nice, but is really inefficient.
– T.J. Crowder
Mar 20 at 10:58
13
but man does it look nice
– Jeremy Thille
Mar 20 at 10:58
1
@T.J.Crowder could you explain or point me in the right direction, why the first approach is inefficient?
– Thomas
Mar 20 at 11:01
1
@Thomas - Look at all the functions it's creating and executing. Your solution is great -- as concise (way more so than mine) and still efficient.
– T.J. Crowder
Mar 20 at 11:01
2
really, for three items in the outer array? if you really want to speed up the execution, you never use some array methods, instead use nestedfor
loops and create new arrays.
– Nina Scholz
Mar 20 at 11:05
|
show 4 more comments
1
That first approach looks nice, but is really inefficient.
– T.J. Crowder
Mar 20 at 10:58
13
but man does it look nice
– Jeremy Thille
Mar 20 at 10:58
1
@T.J.Crowder could you explain or point me in the right direction, why the first approach is inefficient?
– Thomas
Mar 20 at 11:01
1
@Thomas - Look at all the functions it's creating and executing. Your solution is great -- as concise (way more so than mine) and still efficient.
– T.J. Crowder
Mar 20 at 11:01
2
really, for three items in the outer array? if you really want to speed up the execution, you never use some array methods, instead use nestedfor
loops and create new arrays.
– Nina Scholz
Mar 20 at 11:05
1
1
That first approach looks nice, but is really inefficient.
– T.J. Crowder
Mar 20 at 10:58
That first approach looks nice, but is really inefficient.
– T.J. Crowder
Mar 20 at 10:58
13
13
but man does it look nice
– Jeremy Thille
Mar 20 at 10:58
but man does it look nice
– Jeremy Thille
Mar 20 at 10:58
1
1
@T.J.Crowder could you explain or point me in the right direction, why the first approach is inefficient?
– Thomas
Mar 20 at 11:01
@T.J.Crowder could you explain or point me in the right direction, why the first approach is inefficient?
– Thomas
Mar 20 at 11:01
1
1
@Thomas - Look at all the functions it's creating and executing. Your solution is great -- as concise (way more so than mine) and still efficient.
– T.J. Crowder
Mar 20 at 11:01
@Thomas - Look at all the functions it's creating and executing. Your solution is great -- as concise (way more so than mine) and still efficient.
– T.J. Crowder
Mar 20 at 11:01
2
2
really, for three items in the outer array? if you really want to speed up the execution, you never use some array methods, instead use nested
for
loops and create new arrays.– Nina Scholz
Mar 20 at 11:05
really, for three items in the outer array? if you really want to speed up the execution, you never use some array methods, instead use nested
for
loops and create new arrays.– Nina Scholz
Mar 20 at 11:05
|
show 4 more comments
A version with map.
const changes = [
[1, 1, 1, -1],
[1, -1, -1],
[1, 1]
];
const values = changes.map(array =>
let acc = 0;
return array.map(v => acc += v);
);
console.log(values);
.as-console-wrappertop:0;max-height:100%!important
And this doesn't change the source Array.
Note that the array of arrays structure is just a needless complication. The question is actually about the cumulative sum of an array. I'd split out the outer mapping function into something calledcumulativeSum
– JollyJoker
Mar 20 at 12:25
add a comment |
A version with map.
const changes = [
[1, 1, 1, -1],
[1, -1, -1],
[1, 1]
];
const values = changes.map(array =>
let acc = 0;
return array.map(v => acc += v);
);
console.log(values);
.as-console-wrappertop:0;max-height:100%!important
And this doesn't change the source Array.
Note that the array of arrays structure is just a needless complication. The question is actually about the cumulative sum of an array. I'd split out the outer mapping function into something calledcumulativeSum
– JollyJoker
Mar 20 at 12:25
add a comment |
A version with map.
const changes = [
[1, 1, 1, -1],
[1, -1, -1],
[1, 1]
];
const values = changes.map(array =>
let acc = 0;
return array.map(v => acc += v);
);
console.log(values);
.as-console-wrappertop:0;max-height:100%!important
And this doesn't change the source Array.
A version with map.
const changes = [
[1, 1, 1, -1],
[1, -1, -1],
[1, 1]
];
const values = changes.map(array =>
let acc = 0;
return array.map(v => acc += v);
);
console.log(values);
.as-console-wrappertop:0;max-height:100%!important
And this doesn't change the source Array.
const changes = [
[1, 1, 1, -1],
[1, -1, -1],
[1, 1]
];
const values = changes.map(array =>
let acc = 0;
return array.map(v => acc += v);
);
console.log(values);
.as-console-wrappertop:0;max-height:100%!important
const changes = [
[1, 1, 1, -1],
[1, -1, -1],
[1, 1]
];
const values = changes.map(array =>
let acc = 0;
return array.map(v => acc += v);
);
console.log(values);
.as-console-wrappertop:0;max-height:100%!important
edited Mar 20 at 11:01
T.J. Crowder
703k12412501343
703k12412501343
answered Mar 20 at 10:59
ThomasThomas
5,2261510
5,2261510
Note that the array of arrays structure is just a needless complication. The question is actually about the cumulative sum of an array. I'd split out the outer mapping function into something calledcumulativeSum
– JollyJoker
Mar 20 at 12:25
add a comment |
Note that the array of arrays structure is just a needless complication. The question is actually about the cumulative sum of an array. I'd split out the outer mapping function into something calledcumulativeSum
– JollyJoker
Mar 20 at 12:25
Note that the array of arrays structure is just a needless complication. The question is actually about the cumulative sum of an array. I'd split out the outer mapping function into something called
cumulativeSum
– JollyJoker
Mar 20 at 12:25
Note that the array of arrays structure is just a needless complication. The question is actually about the cumulative sum of an array. I'd split out the outer mapping function into something called
cumulativeSum
– JollyJoker
Mar 20 at 12:25
add a comment |
New ESNext features of generators are nice for this.
Here I've created a simple sumpUp
generator that you can re-use.
function* sumUp(a)
let sum = 0;
for (const v of a) yield sum += v;
const changes = [ [1, 1, 1, -1], [1, -1, -1], [1, 1] ];
const values = changes.map(a => [...sumUp(a)]);
console.log(values);
add a comment |
New ESNext features of generators are nice for this.
Here I've created a simple sumpUp
generator that you can re-use.
function* sumUp(a)
let sum = 0;
for (const v of a) yield sum += v;
const changes = [ [1, 1, 1, -1], [1, -1, -1], [1, 1] ];
const values = changes.map(a => [...sumUp(a)]);
console.log(values);
add a comment |
New ESNext features of generators are nice for this.
Here I've created a simple sumpUp
generator that you can re-use.
function* sumUp(a)
let sum = 0;
for (const v of a) yield sum += v;
const changes = [ [1, 1, 1, -1], [1, -1, -1], [1, 1] ];
const values = changes.map(a => [...sumUp(a)]);
console.log(values);
New ESNext features of generators are nice for this.
Here I've created a simple sumpUp
generator that you can re-use.
function* sumUp(a)
let sum = 0;
for (const v of a) yield sum += v;
const changes = [ [1, 1, 1, -1], [1, -1, -1], [1, 1] ];
const values = changes.map(a => [...sumUp(a)]);
console.log(values);
function* sumUp(a)
let sum = 0;
for (const v of a) yield sum += v;
const changes = [ [1, 1, 1, -1], [1, -1, -1], [1, 1] ];
const values = changes.map(a => [...sumUp(a)]);
console.log(values);
function* sumUp(a)
let sum = 0;
for (const v of a) yield sum += v;
const changes = [ [1, 1, 1, -1], [1, -1, -1], [1, 1] ];
const values = changes.map(a => [...sumUp(a)]);
console.log(values);
edited Mar 20 at 11:18
answered Mar 20 at 11:13
KeithKeith
9,3631821
9,3631821
add a comment |
add a comment |
const changes = [ [1, 1, 1, -1], [1, -1, -1], [1, 1] ]
let values = []
changes.forEach(arr =>
let accu = 0
let nestedArr = []
arr.forEach(n =>
accu += n
nestedArr.push(accu)
)
values.push(nestedArr)
)
console.log(values)
add a comment |
const changes = [ [1, 1, 1, -1], [1, -1, -1], [1, 1] ]
let values = []
changes.forEach(arr =>
let accu = 0
let nestedArr = []
arr.forEach(n =>
accu += n
nestedArr.push(accu)
)
values.push(nestedArr)
)
console.log(values)
add a comment |
const changes = [ [1, 1, 1, -1], [1, -1, -1], [1, 1] ]
let values = []
changes.forEach(arr =>
let accu = 0
let nestedArr = []
arr.forEach(n =>
accu += n
nestedArr.push(accu)
)
values.push(nestedArr)
)
console.log(values)
const changes = [ [1, 1, 1, -1], [1, -1, -1], [1, 1] ]
let values = []
changes.forEach(arr =>
let accu = 0
let nestedArr = []
arr.forEach(n =>
accu += n
nestedArr.push(accu)
)
values.push(nestedArr)
)
console.log(values)
const changes = [ [1, 1, 1, -1], [1, -1, -1], [1, 1] ]
let values = []
changes.forEach(arr =>
let accu = 0
let nestedArr = []
arr.forEach(n =>
accu += n
nestedArr.push(accu)
)
values.push(nestedArr)
)
console.log(values)
const changes = [ [1, 1, 1, -1], [1, -1, -1], [1, 1] ]
let values = []
changes.forEach(arr =>
let accu = 0
let nestedArr = []
arr.forEach(n =>
accu += n
nestedArr.push(accu)
)
values.push(nestedArr)
)
console.log(values)
answered Mar 20 at 10:52
holydragonholydragon
2,80321330
2,80321330
add a comment |
add a comment |
You may use map function of Array
const changes = [ [1, 1, 1, -1], [1, -1, -1], [1, 1] ];
const result = changes.map((v) => v.slice(0).map((t, i, arr) => i === 0 ? t : (arr[i] += arr[i - 1])))
console.log(changes);
console.log(result);
Update
Use slice to clone array. This will prevent changes to the original array.
3
This modifies the source array, which is probably not a good idea.
– T.J. Crowder
Mar 20 at 10:56
Yes. Andslice
will help to prevent that. Thanks for the tip
– Alexander
Mar 20 at 11:02
add a comment |
You may use map function of Array
const changes = [ [1, 1, 1, -1], [1, -1, -1], [1, 1] ];
const result = changes.map((v) => v.slice(0).map((t, i, arr) => i === 0 ? t : (arr[i] += arr[i - 1])))
console.log(changes);
console.log(result);
Update
Use slice to clone array. This will prevent changes to the original array.
3
This modifies the source array, which is probably not a good idea.
– T.J. Crowder
Mar 20 at 10:56
Yes. Andslice
will help to prevent that. Thanks for the tip
– Alexander
Mar 20 at 11:02
add a comment |
You may use map function of Array
const changes = [ [1, 1, 1, -1], [1, -1, -1], [1, 1] ];
const result = changes.map((v) => v.slice(0).map((t, i, arr) => i === 0 ? t : (arr[i] += arr[i - 1])))
console.log(changes);
console.log(result);
Update
Use slice to clone array. This will prevent changes to the original array.
You may use map function of Array
const changes = [ [1, 1, 1, -1], [1, -1, -1], [1, 1] ];
const result = changes.map((v) => v.slice(0).map((t, i, arr) => i === 0 ? t : (arr[i] += arr[i - 1])))
console.log(changes);
console.log(result);
Update
Use slice to clone array. This will prevent changes to the original array.
const changes = [ [1, 1, 1, -1], [1, -1, -1], [1, 1] ];
const result = changes.map((v) => v.slice(0).map((t, i, arr) => i === 0 ? t : (arr[i] += arr[i - 1])))
console.log(changes);
console.log(result);
const changes = [ [1, 1, 1, -1], [1, -1, -1], [1, 1] ];
const result = changes.map((v) => v.slice(0).map((t, i, arr) => i === 0 ? t : (arr[i] += arr[i - 1])))
console.log(changes);
console.log(result);
edited Mar 20 at 11:01
answered Mar 20 at 10:51
AlexanderAlexander
1,155314
1,155314
3
This modifies the source array, which is probably not a good idea.
– T.J. Crowder
Mar 20 at 10:56
Yes. Andslice
will help to prevent that. Thanks for the tip
– Alexander
Mar 20 at 11:02
add a comment |
3
This modifies the source array, which is probably not a good idea.
– T.J. Crowder
Mar 20 at 10:56
Yes. Andslice
will help to prevent that. Thanks for the tip
– Alexander
Mar 20 at 11:02
3
3
This modifies the source array, which is probably not a good idea.
– T.J. Crowder
Mar 20 at 10:56
This modifies the source array, which is probably not a good idea.
– T.J. Crowder
Mar 20 at 10:56
Yes. And
slice
will help to prevent that. Thanks for the tip– Alexander
Mar 20 at 11:02
Yes. And
slice
will help to prevent that. Thanks for the tip– Alexander
Mar 20 at 11:02
add a comment |
Here is an easier to read way that iterates over the outer list of arrays. A copy of the inner array is made to keep the initial values (like [1, 1, 1, -1]). It then iterates over each value in the copied array and adds it to each index after it in the original array.
var changes = [[1, 1, 1, -1], [1, -1, -1], [1, 1]];
changes.forEach(subArray =>
var subArrayCopy = subArray.slice(); // Create a copy of the current sub array (i.e. subArrayCopy = [1, 1, 1, -1];)
subArrayCopy.forEach((val, index) => // Iterate through each value in the copy
for (var i = subArray.length - 1; i > index; i--) // For each element from the end to the current index
subArray[i] += val; // Add the copy's current index value to the original array
);
)
console.log(changes);
add a comment |
Here is an easier to read way that iterates over the outer list of arrays. A copy of the inner array is made to keep the initial values (like [1, 1, 1, -1]). It then iterates over each value in the copied array and adds it to each index after it in the original array.
var changes = [[1, 1, 1, -1], [1, -1, -1], [1, 1]];
changes.forEach(subArray =>
var subArrayCopy = subArray.slice(); // Create a copy of the current sub array (i.e. subArrayCopy = [1, 1, 1, -1];)
subArrayCopy.forEach((val, index) => // Iterate through each value in the copy
for (var i = subArray.length - 1; i > index; i--) // For each element from the end to the current index
subArray[i] += val; // Add the copy's current index value to the original array
);
)
console.log(changes);
add a comment |
Here is an easier to read way that iterates over the outer list of arrays. A copy of the inner array is made to keep the initial values (like [1, 1, 1, -1]). It then iterates over each value in the copied array and adds it to each index after it in the original array.
var changes = [[1, 1, 1, -1], [1, -1, -1], [1, 1]];
changes.forEach(subArray =>
var subArrayCopy = subArray.slice(); // Create a copy of the current sub array (i.e. subArrayCopy = [1, 1, 1, -1];)
subArrayCopy.forEach((val, index) => // Iterate through each value in the copy
for (var i = subArray.length - 1; i > index; i--) // For each element from the end to the current index
subArray[i] += val; // Add the copy's current index value to the original array
);
)
console.log(changes);
Here is an easier to read way that iterates over the outer list of arrays. A copy of the inner array is made to keep the initial values (like [1, 1, 1, -1]). It then iterates over each value in the copied array and adds it to each index after it in the original array.
var changes = [[1, 1, 1, -1], [1, -1, -1], [1, 1]];
changes.forEach(subArray =>
var subArrayCopy = subArray.slice(); // Create a copy of the current sub array (i.e. subArrayCopy = [1, 1, 1, -1];)
subArrayCopy.forEach((val, index) => // Iterate through each value in the copy
for (var i = subArray.length - 1; i > index; i--) // For each element from the end to the current index
subArray[i] += val; // Add the copy's current index value to the original array
);
)
console.log(changes);
var changes = [[1, 1, 1, -1], [1, -1, -1], [1, 1]];
changes.forEach(subArray =>
var subArrayCopy = subArray.slice(); // Create a copy of the current sub array (i.e. subArrayCopy = [1, 1, 1, -1];)
subArrayCopy.forEach((val, index) => // Iterate through each value in the copy
for (var i = subArray.length - 1; i > index; i--) // For each element from the end to the current index
subArray[i] += val; // Add the copy's current index value to the original array
);
)
console.log(changes);
var changes = [[1, 1, 1, -1], [1, -1, -1], [1, 1]];
changes.forEach(subArray =>
var subArrayCopy = subArray.slice(); // Create a copy of the current sub array (i.e. subArrayCopy = [1, 1, 1, -1];)
subArrayCopy.forEach((val, index) => // Iterate through each value in the copy
for (var i = subArray.length - 1; i > index; i--) // For each element from the end to the current index
subArray[i] += val; // Add the copy's current index value to the original array
);
)
console.log(changes);
answered Mar 20 at 13:06
Nick GNick G
1,029614
1,029614
add a comment |
add a comment |
Another way,
You can use .map
to return your new array with the desired results. By using .reduce
with an array as an accumulator, you can generate the subarray.
var array = [[1, 1, 1, -1], [1, -1, -1], [1, 1]],
result = array.map(a => a.reduce((ac, v, i) => , []));
console.log(result);
// shorter
result = array.map(a => a.reduce((ac, v, i) => [...ac, (ac[i-1] || 0) + v], []));
console.log(result);
add a comment |
Another way,
You can use .map
to return your new array with the desired results. By using .reduce
with an array as an accumulator, you can generate the subarray.
var array = [[1, 1, 1, -1], [1, -1, -1], [1, 1]],
result = array.map(a => a.reduce((ac, v, i) => , []));
console.log(result);
// shorter
result = array.map(a => a.reduce((ac, v, i) => [...ac, (ac[i-1] || 0) + v], []));
console.log(result);
add a comment |
Another way,
You can use .map
to return your new array with the desired results. By using .reduce
with an array as an accumulator, you can generate the subarray.
var array = [[1, 1, 1, -1], [1, -1, -1], [1, 1]],
result = array.map(a => a.reduce((ac, v, i) => , []));
console.log(result);
// shorter
result = array.map(a => a.reduce((ac, v, i) => [...ac, (ac[i-1] || 0) + v], []));
console.log(result);
Another way,
You can use .map
to return your new array with the desired results. By using .reduce
with an array as an accumulator, you can generate the subarray.
var array = [[1, 1, 1, -1], [1, -1, -1], [1, 1]],
result = array.map(a => a.reduce((ac, v, i) => , []));
console.log(result);
// shorter
result = array.map(a => a.reduce((ac, v, i) => [...ac, (ac[i-1] || 0) + v], []));
console.log(result);
var array = [[1, 1, 1, -1], [1, -1, -1], [1, 1]],
result = array.map(a => a.reduce((ac, v, i) => , []));
console.log(result);
// shorter
result = array.map(a => a.reduce((ac, v, i) => [...ac, (ac[i-1] || 0) + v], []));
console.log(result);
var array = [[1, 1, 1, -1], [1, -1, -1], [1, 1]],
result = array.map(a => a.reduce((ac, v, i) => , []));
console.log(result);
// shorter
result = array.map(a => a.reduce((ac, v, i) => [...ac, (ac[i-1] || 0) + v], []));
console.log(result);
edited Mar 20 at 14:37
answered Mar 20 at 12:12
R3tepR3tep
8,33882962
8,33882962
add a comment |
add a comment |
You have an array of arrays, but each constituent array is independent from the next so let's tackle them individually. Let's talk about [1, 1, 1, -1]
.
Your use of the phrase "partial sum" is very informative. The full sum could be implemented using reduce
:
[1, 1, 1, -1].reduce((x, y) => x + y);
// 2
But you want an array of partial sums. That's very similar to this usage of reduce
, but instead of retaining only the last computed result, we retain every intermediate value too. In other languages, this is called scan
(cf. F#, Haskell).
A javascript implementation of a generic scan
would probably look a lot like reduce
. In fact, you can implement it with reduce
, with just a little extra work:
function scan(array, callback)
const results = [array[0]];
// reduce does all the heavy lifting for us, but we define a wrapper to pass to it.
array.reduce((...args) =>
// The wrapper forwards all those arguments to the callback, but captures the result...
const result = callback(...args);
// ...storing that intermediate result in our results array...
results.push(result);
// ...then passes it back to reduce to continue what it was doing.
return result;
);
return results;
// scan([1, 1, 1, -1], (x, y) => x + y) -> [1, 2, 3, 2]
A more robust implementation would hew closer to the standard library's reduce
, especially around initial values:
function scan(array, callback, initialValue)
const results = [];
const reducer = (...args) =>
const result = callback(...args);
results.push(result);
return result;
;
if (arguments.length === 2)
results.push(array[0]);
array.reduce(reducer);
else
results.push(initialValue);
array.reduce(reducer, initialValue);
return results;
Bringing it back together, if you'd like to do this for your arrays of arrays, it would just be a map
over scan
:
[[1, 1, 1, -1], [1, -1, -1], [1, 1]].map(a => scan(a, (x, y) => x + y));
// [[1, 2, 3, 2], [1, 0, -1], [1, 2]]
No copying necessary or side effects to watch out for, and you get a handy higher-order function out of it to boot!
add a comment |
You have an array of arrays, but each constituent array is independent from the next so let's tackle them individually. Let's talk about [1, 1, 1, -1]
.
Your use of the phrase "partial sum" is very informative. The full sum could be implemented using reduce
:
[1, 1, 1, -1].reduce((x, y) => x + y);
// 2
But you want an array of partial sums. That's very similar to this usage of reduce
, but instead of retaining only the last computed result, we retain every intermediate value too. In other languages, this is called scan
(cf. F#, Haskell).
A javascript implementation of a generic scan
would probably look a lot like reduce
. In fact, you can implement it with reduce
, with just a little extra work:
function scan(array, callback)
const results = [array[0]];
// reduce does all the heavy lifting for us, but we define a wrapper to pass to it.
array.reduce((...args) =>
// The wrapper forwards all those arguments to the callback, but captures the result...
const result = callback(...args);
// ...storing that intermediate result in our results array...
results.push(result);
// ...then passes it back to reduce to continue what it was doing.
return result;
);
return results;
// scan([1, 1, 1, -1], (x, y) => x + y) -> [1, 2, 3, 2]
A more robust implementation would hew closer to the standard library's reduce
, especially around initial values:
function scan(array, callback, initialValue)
const results = [];
const reducer = (...args) =>
const result = callback(...args);
results.push(result);
return result;
;
if (arguments.length === 2)
results.push(array[0]);
array.reduce(reducer);
else
results.push(initialValue);
array.reduce(reducer, initialValue);
return results;
Bringing it back together, if you'd like to do this for your arrays of arrays, it would just be a map
over scan
:
[[1, 1, 1, -1], [1, -1, -1], [1, 1]].map(a => scan(a, (x, y) => x + y));
// [[1, 2, 3, 2], [1, 0, -1], [1, 2]]
No copying necessary or side effects to watch out for, and you get a handy higher-order function out of it to boot!
add a comment |
You have an array of arrays, but each constituent array is independent from the next so let's tackle them individually. Let's talk about [1, 1, 1, -1]
.
Your use of the phrase "partial sum" is very informative. The full sum could be implemented using reduce
:
[1, 1, 1, -1].reduce((x, y) => x + y);
// 2
But you want an array of partial sums. That's very similar to this usage of reduce
, but instead of retaining only the last computed result, we retain every intermediate value too. In other languages, this is called scan
(cf. F#, Haskell).
A javascript implementation of a generic scan
would probably look a lot like reduce
. In fact, you can implement it with reduce
, with just a little extra work:
function scan(array, callback)
const results = [array[0]];
// reduce does all the heavy lifting for us, but we define a wrapper to pass to it.
array.reduce((...args) =>
// The wrapper forwards all those arguments to the callback, but captures the result...
const result = callback(...args);
// ...storing that intermediate result in our results array...
results.push(result);
// ...then passes it back to reduce to continue what it was doing.
return result;
);
return results;
// scan([1, 1, 1, -1], (x, y) => x + y) -> [1, 2, 3, 2]
A more robust implementation would hew closer to the standard library's reduce
, especially around initial values:
function scan(array, callback, initialValue)
const results = [];
const reducer = (...args) =>
const result = callback(...args);
results.push(result);
return result;
;
if (arguments.length === 2)
results.push(array[0]);
array.reduce(reducer);
else
results.push(initialValue);
array.reduce(reducer, initialValue);
return results;
Bringing it back together, if you'd like to do this for your arrays of arrays, it would just be a map
over scan
:
[[1, 1, 1, -1], [1, -1, -1], [1, 1]].map(a => scan(a, (x, y) => x + y));
// [[1, 2, 3, 2], [1, 0, -1], [1, 2]]
No copying necessary or side effects to watch out for, and you get a handy higher-order function out of it to boot!
You have an array of arrays, but each constituent array is independent from the next so let's tackle them individually. Let's talk about [1, 1, 1, -1]
.
Your use of the phrase "partial sum" is very informative. The full sum could be implemented using reduce
:
[1, 1, 1, -1].reduce((x, y) => x + y);
// 2
But you want an array of partial sums. That's very similar to this usage of reduce
, but instead of retaining only the last computed result, we retain every intermediate value too. In other languages, this is called scan
(cf. F#, Haskell).
A javascript implementation of a generic scan
would probably look a lot like reduce
. In fact, you can implement it with reduce
, with just a little extra work:
function scan(array, callback)
const results = [array[0]];
// reduce does all the heavy lifting for us, but we define a wrapper to pass to it.
array.reduce((...args) =>
// The wrapper forwards all those arguments to the callback, but captures the result...
const result = callback(...args);
// ...storing that intermediate result in our results array...
results.push(result);
// ...then passes it back to reduce to continue what it was doing.
return result;
);
return results;
// scan([1, 1, 1, -1], (x, y) => x + y) -> [1, 2, 3, 2]
A more robust implementation would hew closer to the standard library's reduce
, especially around initial values:
function scan(array, callback, initialValue)
const results = [];
const reducer = (...args) =>
const result = callback(...args);
results.push(result);
return result;
;
if (arguments.length === 2)
results.push(array[0]);
array.reduce(reducer);
else
results.push(initialValue);
array.reduce(reducer, initialValue);
return results;
Bringing it back together, if you'd like to do this for your arrays of arrays, it would just be a map
over scan
:
[[1, 1, 1, -1], [1, -1, -1], [1, 1]].map(a => scan(a, (x, y) => x + y));
// [[1, 2, 3, 2], [1, 0, -1], [1, 2]]
No copying necessary or side effects to watch out for, and you get a handy higher-order function out of it to boot!
answered Apr 11 at 7:00
stuffystuffy
10918
10918
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f55258925%2fhow-to-make-a-list-of-partial-sums-using-foreach%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
Please elaborate this "I want to be able to increment the values based on the next value in the array to get this result:"
– Syed Mehtab Hassan
Mar 20 at 10:51
1
This is just a cumulative sum wrapped in
.map
. The answer by Thomas is better than anything you'll find there though.– JollyJoker
Mar 20 at 12:21
2
@JollyJoker Thomas simulate
.reduce
method, why not use .reduce directly ?– R3tep
Mar 20 at 12:26
1
@Thomas Look my answer, you can use an array as accumulator.
– R3tep
Mar 20 at 12:52
1
Never use
forEach
if you want to produce a result.– Bergi
Mar 20 at 13:55