How to make a list of partial sums using forEachCreating 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?
String won't reverse using reverse_copy
Position of past participle and extent of the Verbklammer
What is the difference between 反日 and 日本たたき?
Independent, post-Brexit Scotland - would there be a hard border with England?
Has a commercial or military jet bi-plane ever been manufactured?
Which module had more 'comfort' in terms of living space, the Lunar Module or the Command module?
What property of a BJT transistor makes it an amplifier?
How wide is a neg symbol, how to get the width for alignment?
How to display a value with zenity?
How important is people skills in academic career and applications?
What to use instead of cling film to wrap pastry
What is a smasher?
Why Isn’t SQL More Refactorable?
What is the most remote airport from the center of the city it supposedly serves?
Why did the Apollo 13 crew extend the LM landing gear?
Manager is threatening to grade me poorly if I don't complete the project
Where can I go to avoid planes overhead?
Out of scope work duties and resignation
Pronunciation of numbers with respect to years
Verb "geeitet" in an old scientific text
Why isn't nylon as strong as kevlar?
How was the quadratic formula created?
As matter approaches a black hole, does it speed up?
I drew a randomly colored grid of points with tikz, how do I force it to remember the first grid from then on?
How to make a list of partial sums using forEach
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
89521122
89521122
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) => 0;
return [...ac, lastVal + v];
, []));
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
202k16115184
202k16115184
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
704k12412591350
704k12412591350
answered Mar 20 at 10:59
ThomasThomas
5,2611510
5,2611510
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
9,7161821
9,7161821
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
2,87221431
2,87221431
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) => 0;
return [...ac, lastVal + v];
, []));
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) => 0;
return [...ac, lastVal + v];
, []));
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) => 0;
return [...ac, lastVal + v];
, []));
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) => 0;
return [...ac, lastVal + v];
, []));
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) => 0;
return [...ac, lastVal + v];
, []));
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) => 0;
return [...ac, lastVal + v];
, []));
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
8,38882962
8,38882962
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
11418
11418
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