I need to check if there are more than one of the same letters in a word.
For example, in the name 'bob' the index of 'b' is '0 and 2' but indexOf only creates a sees the first index of 0.
What I need is for it to check and then skip over 0 and go further down the work and check for more of the same letters. Here is what I have so far.
String wordNow = "bob";
letterGuess = console.next().toUpperCase();
letterIndex = wordNow.indexOf(letterGuess);
System.out.println(letterIndex);
OUTPUT: 0
If anyone has a good efficient way of doing this, i'm all ears.
You can use String.lastIndexOf for this. Since both functions will return -1 if not found, then to check if there is more than one instance, you can just compare the values
return wordNow.indexOf(letterGuess) != wordNow.lastIndexOf(letterGuess);
There are multiple versions of the method indexOf. One of them takes an index itself! Just read the javadoc for the string class carefully. You see there is even one called "lastIndexOf" which would come in really handy.
You can use that for example to see if there are other occurrences of that char "behind" the first index you found.
In any case: the real answer here is that you should study the documentation of classes extensively.
You can use a substring by excluding the matching character, as below:
String wordNow = "bob";
letterGuess = console.next().toUpperCase();
letterIndex = wordNow.indexOf(letterGuess);
System.out.println(letterIndex);
if(letterIndex >= 0) {
int secondIndex = wordNow.subString(letterIndex+1).indexOf(letterGuess);
System.out.println(secondIndex);
}
The most efficient way is to simply just search for the element you are looking for (assuming no order or distribution over the input string).
public boolean isCharacterRepeatedIgnoreCase(String inputString, Character c) {
int numFound = 0;
final Character chUpper = Character.toUpperCase(c);
final String upperCaseString = inputString.toUpperCase();
for (int i=0;i<upperCaseString.length();++i) {
if (upperCaseString.charAt(i) == chUpper) {
numFound++;
}
if (numFound > 1) {
return true;
}
}
return false;
}
Note, I have not run the above code. So please write proper unit tests if you plan on considering the above. Also, I have assumed that your character can fit into 16 bits. You probably want to do something around String or toUpperCase(int) to handle Unicode, see Oracle.
Related
Got something for you all.
As the title of the problem suggests, I am trying to implement a non-array, non-looping, recursive method to find the alphabetically last letter in a string.
I think that I understand the nature of the problem I'm trying to solve, but I don't know how to start with the base case and then the recursion.
Can anyone be willing to solve this problem?
In this case, I would like the following code:
//Method Definition
public static String findZenithLetter(String str) {
//Put actual working Java code that finds the alphabetically last letter of the desired string here.
//Use recursion, not loops! :)
//Don't use arrays! ;)
}
//Driver Code
System.out.println(findZenithLetter("I can reach the apex, at the top of the world."));
//Should print the String "x" if implemented properly
I have tried to attempt numerous, but currently failed ways of solving this problem, including but not limited to:
Sorting the string by alphabetical order then finding the last letter of the new string, excluding punctuation marks.
Using the compareTo() method to compare two letters of the string side by side, but that has yet to work as I am so tempted to use loops, not recursion. I need a recursive method to solve this, though. :)
In the end, the best piece of code that I've written for this problem was just a drawn-out way to compute just the last character of a string and not actually THE alphabetically last character.
This is quite simple. All you need is just iterate (in the recursion of course), and check all characters int he string with local maximum.
public static char findZenithLetter(String str) {
return findZenithLetter(str, 0, 'a');
}
private static char findZenithLetter(String str, int i, char maxCh) {
if (i >= str.length())
return maxCh;
char ch = Character.toLowerCase(str.charAt(i));
if (Character.isLetter(ch))
maxCh = ch > maxCh ? ch : maxCh;
return findZenithLetter(str, i + 1, maxCh);
}
Nibble off the first character at each recursion, returning the greater of it and the greatest found in the rest of the input:
public static String findZenithLetter(String str) {
if (str.isEmpty()) {
return ""; // what's returned if no letters found
}
String next = str.substring(0, 1);
String rest = findZenithLetter(str.substring(1));
return Character.isLetter(next.charAt(0)) && next.compareToIgnoreCase(rest) > 0 ? next : rest;
}
See live demo.
The check for Character.isLetter() prevents non-letter characters, which may be "greater than" letters being returned.
If no letters are found, a blank is returned.
public static boolean Xish
This method should take in two parameters, in the following order: A String of the word to check and a String made up of the letters to check for. For example, a word is considered elf-ish, if it contains the letters e, l, and f, in any order (“waffle”, “rainleaf”) and a true return of the method would be Xish(“waffle”, ”elf”). If there are multiple occurrences of a letter to check for, it must occur multiple times in the search word. Return true if the word contains all the needed characters and false if it does not contain all the characters.
This is what I have so far, but I am lost how I would recall the method and check to see if there are multiple occurrences (2nd part).
public static boolean Xish(String check, String letters) {
String word = check;
String contains= letters;
if(word.indexOf(contains) >= 0)
return true;
else
return false;
}
Actually, doing this recursively will also take care of the multiple occurrences issue.
First, your own method is not really correct - it looks for the whole letters in the word. That is, if letters is elf, then true will be returned for self, but not for heartfelt, and that's wrong. You are supposed to look for the individual letters, because the order is not important.
For recursion:
If the letters is an empty string - return true. You can say that any word is fine if there are no restrictions.
If the check is an empty string - return false. An empty string does not contain the letters in letters (and we already know that letters is not empty).
Take the first letter in letters. Look for it in check. If it's not there, return false.
If it was there, then call the same method, but pass only what remains of check and letters. For example, if check was selfish and letters was elf, you found that e exists. Return the result of Xish("slfish","lf"). This will take care of the multiple occurrences. You do that by using substring and concatenating the applicable parts.
If multiple occurrences weren't an issue, you could pass the check as-is to the next level of the recursion. But since they matter, we need to remove one letter for each letter requested, to make sure that we don't match the same position again for the next occurrenc.
The title mentions a recursive function so I will propose a recursive solution.
For each character in your check string, compare it against the first character in your letters string.
If the compared characters are equivalent, remove the first character from your letters string and pass both strings back into your function.
If the check string is fully iterated without finding a character in the letters string, return false
If letters is empty at any point, return true
This is a brute force approach, and there are several other ways to accomplish what you are looking for. Maybe think about how you could check every character in your in you check string a single time?
public static boolean Xish(String check, String letters) {
boolean ish = true;
String word = check;
char[] contains= letters.toCharArray();
for(int i = 0; i < contains.length; i++){
if(word.indexOf(contains[i]) < 0){
ish = false;
}else {
StringBuilder sb = new StringBuilder(word);
sb.deleteCharAt(word.indexOf(contains[i]));
word = sb.toString();
// System.out.println(word);
}
}
return ish;
}
This could be one way, but it is not recursive.
Xish("Waffle", "elff") returns true, but
Xish("Waffle", "elfff") returns false.
Not sure whether it solves your question 100 %. But i tried a recursive method. See if this helps.
package com.company;
public class Selfish {
public static void main(String args[]) {
String check = "waffle";
String letters = "elf"; // "eof"
int xishCount = xish(check, letters, 0);
if(letters.length()== xishCount) {
System.out.println("TRUE");
}else{
System.out.println("FALSE");
}
}
static int xish(String check, String letters, int xishCount) {
if(letters.length() < 1) {
return 0;
}
if(check.contains(letters.substring(0, 1))) {
xishCount = 1;
}
return xishCount + xish(check, letters.substring(1, letters.length()), 0);
}
}
For this Kata, i am given random function names in the PEP8 format and i am to convert them to camelCase.
(input)get_speed == (output)getSpeed ....
(input)set_distance == (output)setDistance
I have a understanding on one way of doing this written in pseudo-code:
loop through the word,
if the letter is an underscore
then delete the underscore
then get the next letter and change to a uppercase
endIf
endLoop
return the resultant word
But im unsure the best way of doing this, would it be more efficient to create a char array and loop through the element and then when it comes to finding an underscore delete that element and get the next index and change to uppercase.
Or would it be better to use recursion:
function camelCase takes a string
if the length of the string is 0,
then return the string
endIf
if the character is a underscore
then change to nothing,
then find next character and change to uppercase
return the string taking away the character
endIf
finally return the function taking the first character away
Any thoughts please, looking for a good efficient way of handing this problem. Thanks :)
I would go with this:
divide given String by underscore to array
from second word until end take first letter and convert it to uppercase
join to one word
This will work in O(n) (go through all names 3 time). For first case, use this function:
str.split("_");
for uppercase use this:
String newName = substring(0, 1).toUpperCase() + stre.substring(1);
But make sure you check size of the string first...
Edited - added implementation
It would look like this:
public String camelCase(String str) {
if (str == null ||str.trim().length() == 0) return str;
String[] split = str.split("_");
String newStr = split[0];
for (int i = 1; i < split.length; i++) {
newStr += split[i].substring(0, 1).toUpperCase() + split[i].substring(1);
}
return newStr;
}
for inputs:
"test"
"test_me"
"test_me_twice"
it returns:
"test"
"testMe"
"testMeTwice"
It would be simpler to iterate over the string instead of recursing.
String pep8 = "do_it_again";
StringBuilder camelCase = new StringBuilder();
for(int i = 0, l = pep8.length(); i < l; ++i) {
if(pep8.charAt(i) == '_' && (i + 1) < l) {
camelCase.append(Character.toUpperCase(pep8.charAt(++i)));
} else {
camelCase.append(pep8.charAt(i));
}
}
System.out.println(camelCase.toString()); // prints doItAgain
The question you pose is whether to use an iterative or a recursive approach. For this case I'd go for the recursive approach because it's straightforward, easy to understand doesn't require much resources (only one array, no new stackframe etc), though that doesn't really matter for this example.
Recursion is good for divide-and-conquer problems, but I don't see that fitting the case well, although it's possible.
An iterative implementation of the algorithm you described could look like the following:
StringBuilder buf = new StringBuilder(input);
for(int i = 0; i < buf.length(); i++){
if(buf.charAt(i) == '_'){
buf.deleteCharAt(i);
if(i != buf.length()){ //check fo EOL
buf.setCharAt(i, Character.toUpperCase(buf.charAt(i)));
}
}
}
return buf.toString();
The check for the EOL is not part of the given algorithm and could be ommitted, if the input string never ends with '_'
I'm new to Java. I thought I would write a program to count the occurrences of a character or a sequence of characters in a sentence. I wrote the following code. But I then saw there are some ready-made options available in Apache Commons.
Anyway, can you look at my code and say if there is any rookie mistake? I tested it for a couple of cases and it worked fine. I can think of one case where if the input is a big text file instead of a small sentence/paragraph, the split() function may end up being problematic since it has to handle a large variable. However this is my guess and would love to have your opinions.
private static void countCharInString() {
//Get the sentence and the search keyword
System.out.println("Enter a sentence\n");
Scanner in = new Scanner(System.in);
String inputSentence = in.nextLine();
System.out.println("\nEnter the character to search for\n");
String checkChar = in.nextLine();
in.close();
//Count the number of occurrences
String[] splitSentence = inputSentence.split(checkChar);
int countChar = splitSentence.length - 1;
System.out.println("\nThe character/sequence of characters '" + checkChar + "' appear(s) '" + countChar + "' time(s).");
}
Thank you :)
Because of edge cases, split() is the wrong approach.
Instead, use replaceAll() to remove all other characters then use the length() of what's left to calculate the count:
int count = input.replaceAll(".*?(" + check + "|$)", "$1").length() / check.length();
FYI, the regex created (for example when check = 'xyz'), looks like ".*?(xyz|$)", which means "everything up to and including 'xyz' or end of input", and is replaced by the captured text (either `'xyz' or nothing if it's end of input). This leaves just a string of 0-n copies the check string. Then dividing by the length of check gives you the total.
To protect against the check being null or zero-length (causing a divide-by-zero error), code defensively like this:
int count = check == null || check.isEmpty() ? 0 : input.replaceAll(".*?(" + check + "|$)", "$1").length() / check.length();
A flaw that I can immediately think of is that if your inputSentence only consists of a single occurrence of checkChar. In this case split() will return an empty array and your count will be -1 instead of 1.
An example interaction:
Enter a sentence
onlyme
Enter the character to search for
onlyme
The character/sequence of characters 'onlyme' appear(s) '-1' time(s).
A better way would be to use the .indexOf() method of String to count the occurrences like this:
while ((i = inputSentence.indexOf(checkChar, i)) != -1) {
count++;
i = i + checkChar.length();
}
split is the wrong approach for a number of reasons:
String.split takes a regular expression
Regular expressions have characters with special meanings, so you cannot use it for all characters (without escaping them). This requires an escaping function.
Performance String.split is optimized for single characters. If this were not the case, you would be creating and compiling a regular expression every time. Still, String.split creates one object for the String[] and one object for each String in it, every time that you call it. And you have no use for these objects; all you want to know is the count. Although a future all-knowing HotSpot compiler might be able to optimize that away, the current one does not - it is roughly 10 times as slow as simply counting characters as below.
It will not count correctly if you have repeating instances of your checkChar
A better approach is much simpler: just go and count the characters in the string that match your checkChar. If you think about the steps you need to take count characters, that's what you'd end up with by yourself:
public static int occurrences(String str, char checkChar) {
int count = 0;
for (int i = 0, l = str.length(); i < l; i++) {
if (str.charAt(i) == checkChar)
count++;
}
return count;
}
If you want to count the occurrence of multiple characters, it becomes slightly tricker to write with some efficiency because you don't want to create a new substring every time.
public static int occurrences(String str, String checkChars) {
int count = 0;
int offset = 0;
while ((offset = str.indexOf(checkChars, offset)) != -1) {
offset += checkChars.length();
count++;
}
return count;
}
That's still 10-12 times as fast to match a two-character string than String.split()
Warning: Performance timings are ballpark figures that depends on many circumstances. Since the difference is an order of magnitude, it's safe to say that String.split is slower in general. (Tests performed on jdk 1.8.0-b28 64-bit, using 10 million iterations, verified that results were stable and the same with and without -Xcomp, after performing tests 10 times in same JVM instances.)
In Java is there a way to check the condition:
"Does this single character appear at all in string x"
without using a loop?
You can use string.indexOf('a').
If the char a is present in string :
it returns the the index of the first occurrence of the character in
the character sequence represented by this object, or -1 if the
character does not occur.
String.contains() which checks if the string contains a specified sequence of char values
String.indexOf() which returns the index within the string of the first occurence of the specified character or substring (there are 4 variations of this method)
I'm not sure what the original poster is asking exactly. Since indexOf(...) and contains(...) both probably use loops internally, perhaps he's looking to see if this is possible at all without a loop? I can think of two ways off hand, one would of course be recurrsion:
public boolean containsChar(String s, char search) {
if (s.length() == 0)
return false;
else
return s.charAt(0) == search || containsChar(s.substring(1), search);
}
The other is far less elegant, but completeness...:
/**
* Works for strings of up to 5 characters
*/
public boolean containsChar(String s, char search) {
if (s.length() > 5) throw IllegalArgumentException();
try {
if (s.charAt(0) == search) return true;
if (s.charAt(1) == search) return true;
if (s.charAt(2) == search) return true;
if (s.charAt(3) == search) return true;
if (s.charAt(4) == search) return true;
} catch (IndexOutOfBoundsException e) {
// this should never happen...
return false;
}
return false;
}
The number of lines grow as you need to support longer and longer strings of course. But there are no loops/recurrsions at all. You can even remove the length check if you're concerned that that length() uses a loop.
You can use 2 methods from the String class.
String.contains() which checks if the string contains a specified sequence of char values
String.indexOf() which returns the index within the string of the first occurence of the specified character or substring or returns -1 if the character is not found (there are 4 variations of this method)
Method 1:
String myString = "foobar";
if (myString.contains("x") {
// Do something.
}
Method 2:
String myString = "foobar";
if (myString.indexOf("x") >= 0 {
// Do something.
}
Links by: Zach Scrivena
String temp = "abcdefghi";
if(temp.indexOf("b")!=-1)
{
System.out.println("there is 'b' in temp string");
}
else
{
System.out.println("there is no 'b' in temp string");
}
If you need to check the same string often you can calculate the character occurrences up-front. This is an implementation that uses a bit array contained into a long array:
public class FastCharacterInStringChecker implements Serializable {
private static final long serialVersionUID = 1L;
private final long[] l = new long[1024]; // 65536 / 64 = 1024
public FastCharacterInStringChecker(final String string) {
for (final char c: string.toCharArray()) {
final int index = c >> 6;
final int value = c - (index << 6);
l[index] |= 1L << value;
}
}
public boolean contains(final char c) {
final int index = c >> 6; // c / 64
final int value = c - (index << 6); // c - (index * 64)
return (l[index] & (1L << value)) != 0;
}}
To check if something does not exist in a string, you at least need to look at each character in a string. So even if you don't explicitly use a loop, it'll have the same efficiency. That being said, you can try using str.contains(""+char).
Is the below what you were looking for?
int index = string.indexOf(character);
return index != -1;
Yes, using the indexOf() method on the string class. See the API documentation for this method
String.contains(String) or String.indexOf(String) - suggested
"abc".contains("Z"); // false - correct
"zzzz".contains("Z"); // false - correct
"Z".contains("Z"); // true - correct
"😀and😀".contains("😀"); // true - correct
"😀and😀".contains("😂"); // false - correct
"😀and😀".indexOf("😀"); // 0 - correct
"😀and😀".indexOf("😂"); // -1 - correct
String.indexOf(int) and carefully considered String.indexOf(char) with char to int widening
"😀and😀".indexOf("😀".charAt(0)); // 0 though incorrect usage has correct output due to portion of correct data
"😀and😀".indexOf("😂".charAt(0)); // 0 -- incorrect usage and ambiguous result
"😀and😀".indexOf("😂".codePointAt(0)); // -1 -- correct usage and correct output
The discussions around character is ambiguous in Java world
can the value of char or Character considered as single character?
No. In the context of unicode characters, char or Character can sometimes be part of a single character and should not be treated as a complete single character logically.
if not, what should be considered as single character (logically)?
Any system supporting character encodings for Unicode characters should consider unicode's codepoint as single character.
So Java should do that very clear & loud rather than exposing too much of internal implementation details to users.
String class is bad at abstraction (though it requires confusingly good amount of understanding of its encapsulations to understand the abstraction 😒😒😒 and hence an anti-pattern).
How is it different from general char usage?
char can be only be mapped to a character in Basic Multilingual Plane.
Only codePoint - int can cover the complete range of Unicode characters.
Why is this difference?
char is internally treated as 16-bit unsigned value and could not represent all the unicode characters using UTF-16 internal representation using only 2-bytes. Sometimes, values in a 16-bit range have to be combined with another 16-bit value to correctly define character.
Without getting too verbose, the usage of indexOf, charAt, length and such methods should be more explicit. Sincerely hoping Java will add new UnicodeString and UnicodeCharacter classes with clearly defined abstractions.
Reason to prefer contains and not indexOf(int)
Practically there are many code flows that treat a logical character as char in java.
In Unicode context, char is not sufficient
Though the indexOf takes in an int, char to int conversion masks this from the user and user might do something like str.indexOf(someotherstr.charAt(0))(unless the user is aware of the exact context)
So, treating everything as CharSequence (aka String) is better
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println("😀and😀".indexOf("😀".charAt(0))); // 0 though incorrect usage has correct output due to portion of correct data
System.out.println("😀and😀".indexOf("😂".charAt(0))); // 0 -- incorrect usage and ambiguous result
System.out.println("😀and😀".indexOf("😂".codePointAt(0))); // -1 -- correct usage and correct output
System.out.println("😀and😀".contains("😀")); // true - correct
System.out.println("😀and😀".contains("😂")); // false - correct
}
Semantics
char can handle most of the practical use cases. Still its better to use codepoints within programming environment for future extensibility.
codepoint should handle nearly all of the technical use cases around encodings.
Still, Grapheme Clusters falls out of the scope of codepoint level of abstraction.
Storage layers can choose char interface if ints are too costly(doubled). Unless storage cost is the only metric, its still better to use codepoint. Also, its better to treat storage as byte and delegate semantics to business logic built around storage.
Semantics can be abstracted at multiple levels. codepoint should become lowest level of interface and other semantics can be built around codepoint in runtime environment.
package com;
public class _index {
public static void main(String[] args) {
String s1="be proud to be an indian";
char ch=s1.charAt(s1.indexOf('e'));
int count = 0;
for(int i=0;i<s1.length();i++) {
if(s1.charAt(i)=='e'){
System.out.println("number of E:=="+ch);
count++;
}
}
System.out.println("Total count of E:=="+count);
}
}
static String removeOccurences(String a, String b)
{
StringBuilder s2 = new StringBuilder(a);
for(int i=0;i<b.length();i++){
char ch = b.charAt(i);
System.out.println(ch+" first index"+a.indexOf(ch));
int lastind = a.lastIndexOf(ch);
for(int k=new String(s2).indexOf(ch);k > 0;k=new String(s2).indexOf(ch)){
if(s2.charAt(k) == ch){
s2.deleteCharAt(k);
System.out.println("val of s2 : "+s2.toString());
}
}
}
System.out.println(s1.toString());
return (s1.toString());
}
you can use this code. It will check the char is present or not. If it is present then the return value is >= 0 otherwise it's -1. Here I am printing alphabets that is not present in the input.
import java.util.Scanner;
public class Test {
public static void letters()
{
System.out.println("Enter input char");
Scanner sc = new Scanner(System.in);
String input = sc.next();
System.out.println("Output : ");
for (char alphabet = 'A'; alphabet <= 'Z'; alphabet++) {
if(input.toUpperCase().indexOf(alphabet) < 0)
System.out.print(alphabet + " ");
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
letters();
}
}
//Ouput Example
Enter input char
nandu
Output :
B C E F G H I J K L M O P Q R S T V W X Y Z
If you see the source code of indexOf in JAVA:
public int indexOf(int ch, int fromIndex) {
final int max = value.length;
if (fromIndex < 0) {
fromIndex = 0;
} else if (fromIndex >= max) {
// Note: fromIndex might be near -1>>>1.
return -1;
}
if (ch < Character.MIN_SUPPLEMENTARY_CODE_POINT) {
// handle most cases here (ch is a BMP code point or a
// negative value (invalid code point))
final char[] value = this.value;
for (int i = fromIndex; i < max; i++) {
if (value[i] == ch) {
return i;
}
}
return -1;
} else {
return indexOfSupplementary(ch, fromIndex);
}
}
you can see it uses a for loop for finding a character. Note that each indexOf you may use in your code, is equal to one loop.
So, it is unavoidable to use loop for a single character.
However, if you want to find a special string with more different forms, use useful libraries such as util.regex, it deploys stronger algorithm to match a character or a string pattern with Regular Expressions. For example to find an email in a string:
String regex = "^(.+)#(.+)$";
Pattern pattern = Pattern.compile(regex);
Matcher matcher = pattern.matcher(email);
If you don't like to use regex, just use a loop and charAt and try to cover all cases in one loop.
Be careful recursive methods has more overhead than loop, so it's not recommended.
how about one uses this ;
let text = "Hello world, welcome to the universe.";
let result = text.includes("world");
console.log(result) ....// true
the result will be a true or false
this always works for me
You won't be able to check if char appears at all in some string without atleast going over the string once using loop / recursion ( the built-in methods like indexOf also use a loop )
If the no. of times you look up if a char is in string x is more way more than the length of the string than I would recommend using a Set data structure as that would be more efficient than simply using indexOf
String s = "abc";
// Build a set so we can check if character exists in constant time O(1)
Set<Character> set = new HashSet<>();
int len = s.length();
for(int i = 0; i < len; i++) set.add(s.charAt(i));
// Now we can check without the need of a loop
// contains method of set doesn't use a loop unlike string's contains method
set.contains('a') // true
set.contains('z') // false
Using set you will be able to check if character exists in a string in constant time O(1) but you will also use additional memory ( Space complexity will be O(n) ).