Want to protect your cyber security and still get fast solutions? Ask a secure question today.Go Premium

x
  • Status: Solved
  • Priority: Medium
  • Security: Public
  • Views: 343
  • Last Modified:

wordmultiple challenge

Hi,

I am working on below challenge




wordMultiple
Given an array of strings, return a Map<String, Boolean> where each different string is a key and its value is true if that string appears 2 or more times in the array.

wordMultiple(["a", "b", "a", "c", "b"]) → {"b": true, "c": false, "a": true}
wordMultiple(["c", "b", "a"]) → {"b": false, "c": false, "a": false}
wordMultiple(["c", "c", "c", "c"]) → {"c": true}

do i need to care about the output sorting of values like alphabetical ascending or descending etc.

please advise
0
gudii9
Asked:
gudii9
  • 4
  • 4
  • 2
  • +1
2 Solutions
 
Amitkumar PSr. ConsultantCommented:
Looking at results, sorting is not the requirement.
{"b": true, "c": false, "a": true}
{"b": false, "c": false, "a": false}
{"c": true}

You will need to iterate thru an array and keep a count of strings. Once counted then you need to check if it is more than two.
0
 
zzynxSoftware engineerCommented:
do i need to care about the output sorting of values like alphabetical ascending or descending etc.
Does the challenge asks for that? No.
It asks for return a Map. And by nature a Map simply has no key sorting. (a SortedMap has)
0
 
gudii9Author Commented:
Here is actual link

http://codingbat.com/prob/p190862

It asks for return a Map. And by nature a Map simply has no key sorting. (a SortedMap has)
only Map not SorterMap here.
0
What does it mean to be "Always On"?

Is your cloud always on? With an Always On cloud you won't have to worry about downtime for maintenance or software application code updates, ensuring that your bottom line isn't affected.

 
phoffricCommented:
If you click on the MAP link in the challenge question, you see that you are actually returning a hashmap which is not sorted.
As you know, hashing usually removes any sorted order.
So the answer to your question is: No.

Even the examples you show in the OP show no ordering.
0
 
gudii9Author Commented:
public Map < String, Boolean > wordMultiple(String[] strings) {
    Map < String, Boolean > boolMap = new HashMap();
    Map < String, Integer > intMap = new HashMap();

    for (int i = 0; i < strings.length; i++) {
        String buffer = strings[i];

        if (intMap.containsKey(buffer)) {
            int val = intMap.get(buffer);
            val++;
            intMap.put(buffer, val);
        } else {
            intMap.put(buffer, 1);
        }
        boolMap.put(buffer, intMap.get(buffer) >= 2);

    }

    return boolMap;
}

Open in new window


above passes all. any improvements or alternate aproaches?
0
 
phoffricCommented:
Here's a tiny improvement, IMO:
    for (String buffer:strings) {
//        String buffer = strings[i];

Open in new window

Nice indenting, BTW.
0
 
zzynxSoftware engineerCommented:
If you would like to use

 for (String buffer:strings) {

Open in new window


that's a replacement for these TWO lines of code:

for (int i = 0; i < strings.length; i++) {
        String buffer = strings[i];

Open in new window


Another imrpovement:
1) no need for intermediate variables
2) once you've counted two instances, there's no need to further "manipulating" your maps. Since it won't change the outcome.

public Map<String, Boolean> wordMultiple(String[] strings) {
   Map < String, Boolean > boolMap = new HashMap();
   Map < String, Integer > intMap = new HashMap();
  
   for (String buffer:strings) {
      if (boolMap.containsKey(buffer) && boolMap.get(buffer)) {
        continue;
      }
      if (intMap.containsKey(buffer)) {
          intMap.put(buffer, intMap.get(buffer)+1);
      } else {
          intMap.put(buffer, 1);
      }
      boolMap.put(buffer, intMap.get(buffer) >= 2);
   }
   return boolMap;    
}

Open in new window

0
 
phoffricCommented:
@zzynx,
In the first half of  your last post #a41827513 you say, "that's a replacement for these TWO lines of code:"

But I demonstrated that in the post before you. Why did you repeat this small point?
0
 
zzynxSoftware engineerCommented:
@phoffric
You told that
for (String buffer:strings) {

Open in new window

is a replacement for
//        String buffer = strings[i];

Open in new window

Which is in correct.

I corrected that. That's why I wrote TWO with capitals.
0
 
phoffricCommented:
Ok. No replacement since a for loop can hardly replace a definition of a variable. Just replacing one for loop with another and then commenting out the duplicate definition of buffer.
0
 
zzynxSoftware engineerCommented:
Just replacing one for loop with another
That wasn't clear to me.

It's always good to use the form
replace
this code

Open in new window

by
that code

Open in new window

0

Featured Post

Get your problem seen by more experts

Be seen. Boost your question’s priority for more expert views and faster solutions

  • 4
  • 4
  • 2
  • +1
Tackle projects and never again get stuck behind a technical roadblock.
Join Now