przemyxe0p

przemyxe0p

What do you do if you can not comprehend solution?

What do you do if you’ve done an exercise, it works, it’s not very inefficient and seems concise, then you go to the community solutions, sort by highest-rated user and see this?

defmodule Sublist do
  @doc """
  Returns whether the first list is a sublist or a superlist of the second list
  and if not whether it is equal or unequal to the second list.
  """
  def compare(a, b) when is_list(a) and is_list(b) do
    case {contains?(a, b), contains?(b,a)} do
      {true, true} -> :equal
      {true, false} -> :superlist
      {false, true} -> :sublist
      {false, false} -> :unequal
    end
  end

  # determines if list a contains list b. restore_a is needed to restore
  # already "eaten" members of a, when b couldn't be matched completely
  defp contains?(a, b, current_b \\ :initial, restore_a \\ nil)
  defp contains?(a, b, :initial, nil), do: contains?(a, b, b, nil)
  defp contains?(_, _, [], _), do: true
  defp contains?([], _, _, _), do: false
  defp contains?([x | a], b, [x | c], nil), do: contains?(a, b, c, a)
  defp contains?([x | a], b, [x | c], restore_a), do: contains?(a, b, c, restore_a)
  defp contains?([_ | a], b, _, nil), do: contains?(a, b, b, nil)
  defp contains?(_, b, _, restore_a), do: contains?(restore_a, b, b, nil)
end

To clarify I enjoy creating solutions, and having to think, and play, but there is border.

Marked As Solved

mudasobwa

mudasobwa

Creator of Cure

Create your own wrapper my_contains?/4 which would print the intermediate results and run it for several different inputs.

  def compare(a, b) when is_list(a) and is_list(b) do
    case {my_contains?(a, b), my_contains?(b,a)} do
      {true, true} -> :equal
      {true, false} -> :superlist
      {false, true} -> :sublist
      {false, false} -> :unequal
    end
  end

  defp my_contains?(a, b, current_b \\ :initial, restore_a \\ nil) do
    IO.inspect(a: a, b: b, current_b: current_b, restore_a: restore_a)
    contains?(a, b, current_b, restore_a)
  end

  defp contains?(a, b, current_b \\ :initial, restore_a \\ nil)
  defp contains?(a, b, :initial, nil), do: my_contains?(a, b, b, nil)
  defp contains?(_, _, [], _), do: true
  defp contains?([], _, _, _), do: false
  defp contains?([x | a], b, [x | c], nil), do: my_contains?(a, b, c, a)
  defp contains?([x | a], b, [x | c], restore_a), do: my_contains?(a, b, c, restore_a)
  defp contains?([_ | a], b, _, nil), do: my_contains?(a, b, b, nil)
  defp contains?(_, b, _, restore_a), do: my_contains?(restore_a, b, b, nil)```

Also Liked

derek-zhou

derek-zhou

The code you cited seems fine to me, pretty clever use of tail recursion. I am not sure what do you mean. do you mean:

  • You don’t like this code. Of course you can have a opinion and choose to use your own code. or:
  • You like this code but wish some one to explain to you in digestible pieces. Then you did not say which part you do not understand. Or:
  • You don’t care about this code at all, all you care is to win the competition to provide the best solution. Then it is a matter of skill issue, right?
derek-zhou

derek-zhou

The correct reading order is from the top to bottom. If you want to improve your skill on tail recursion, write with it. Can you implement the enumerating functions in Enum, starting with Enum.reverse/1, with tail recursion? If you can write comfortably in tail recursion, it will click for you.

przemyxe0p

przemyxe0p

  @spec flatten(list) :: list
  def flatten(list), do: fl(list) |> Enum.reverse()

  defp fl(list, acc \\ [])

  defp fl([], acc), do: acc

  defp fl([[_|_] = el | tail], acc), do: fl(el, acc) |> then(&fl(tail, &1))
  defp fl([nil | tail], acc), do: fl(tail, acc)
  defp fl([el | tail], acc),do: fl(tail, [el | acc])

I guess we should reverse at the end, not on intermediate states, and your suggestion would not work (I tested it).

How to tell if my above solution is proper tail-call recursion?

Where Next?

Popular in Challenges Top

bjorng
Note: This topic is to talk about Day 1 of the Advent of Code 2019.
New
bjorng
Note: This topic is to talk about Day 4 of the Advent of Code 2019. There is a private leaderboard for elixirforum members. You can join...
New
Aetherus
This topic is about Day 7 of the Advent of Code 2020 . Thanks to @egze, we have a private leaderboard: https://adventofcode.com/2020/le...
New
code-shoily
Just did part 1. Part 2 seems to be demanding too much of my reading time so will get to that after I am done with some chores. Oh here ...
New
woolfred
It is that time of the year again: Advent of Code 2022 :christmas_tree: Day 1 Leaderboard:
New
christhekeele
Continuation of Advent of Code 2022​:christmas_tree:, Day 1: Day 2! Leaderboard:
New
rugyoga
Not the prettiest but it works https://github.com/rugyoga/aoc2023/blob/main/lib/2024/9.ex
New

Other popular topics Top

baxterw3b
Hi guys, i’m new in the Elixir world, and i have to say, that i love it! i’m having some problem to understand anonymous functions with ...
New
Qqwy
Original source of discussion: This topic on the Pragmatic Programmers’ Functional Web Development with Elixir, OTP, and Phoenix forum. ...
New
vonH
When I run the Plug and I recompile I wind up having to use Ctrl C to quit iex and start again. Witht the help of rlwrap I can use the cu...
New
Brian
What is the proper way to load a module from a file in to IEX? In the python world, doing something like this pretty standard: from ....
New
nsuchy
Hi. I’ve noticed that Windows Powershell has it’s own IEX command and you cannot access Elixir’s IEX due to the conflict. This isn’t a cr...
New
sen
Hi All, I set a environment variables in dev.exs , like below code. when i start server, how can i set the ${enable} value? thanks. d...
New

We're in Beta

About us Mission Statement