1602

34
+9  Q:

## Array Searching code challenge

Here's my (code golf) challenge: Take two arrays of bytes and determine if the second array is a substring of the first. If it is, output the index at which the contents of the second array appear in the first. If you do not find the second array in the first, then output -1.

Example Input: { 63, 101, 245, 215, 0 } { 245, 215 }

Expected Output: 2

Example Input 2: { 24, 55, 74, 3, 1 } { 24, 56, 74 }

Expected Output 2: -1

Edit: Someone has pointed out that the bool is redundant, so all your function has to do is return an int representing the index of the value or -1 if not found.

+4  A:

In Python:

def test(large, small):
for i in range(len(large)):
if large[i:i+len(small)] == small:
return i
return -1

But since people want terse, not elegant:

def f(l,s):
for i in range(len(l)):
if l[i:i+len(s)]==s:return i
return -1

Which is 75 characters, counting whitespace.

You beat me to it.
What's the length?
Shrinking indentation and joining lines (where possible) makes this solution 121 characters long.
and renaming l = large and s = small you get 94 chars :P
And some additional tricks get it down to 73 characters: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1078770/array-searching-code-challenge/1084787#1084787
Thanks for the help. I also trimmed the function name and the whitespace to get it down to 75 chars. Not bad for a solution that (a) is relatively readable and (b) doesn't call a library function to do the heavy lifting. :)
+1  A:

In Python:

def SearchArray(input, search):
found = -1
for i in range(0, len(input) - len(search)):
for j in range(0, len(search)):
if input[i+j] == search[j]:
found = i
else:
found = -1
break
if found >= 0:
return True, found
else:
return False, -1

To test

print SearchArray([ 63, 101, 245, 215, 0 ], [ 245, 215 ])
print SearchArray([ 24, 55, 74, 3, 1 ], [ 24, 56, 74 ])

Which prints:

(True, 2)
(False, -1)

Note there is a shorter solution, but it uses python language features that aren't really portable.

+1  A:

In C#:

private object[] test(byte[] a1, byte[] a2)
{
string s1 = System.Text.Encoding.ASCII.GetString(a1);
string s2 = System.Text.Encoding.ASCII.GetString(a2);
int pos = s1.IndexOf(s2, StringComparison.Ordinal);
return new object[] { (pos >= 0), pos };
}

Usage example:

byte[] a1 = new byte[] { 24, 55, 74, 3, 1 };
byte[] a2 = new byte[] { 24, 56, 74 };
object[] result = test(a1, a2);
Console.WriteLine("{0}, {1}", result[0], result[1]); // prints "False, -1"
It looks like this returns a string. It should return a bool and an int. I'll go specify that in the question.
we came up with the same solution :)
@RCIX: I updated to return array with separate bool and int values. @Nick D: yes, I found that to be rather straight-forward :o)
do you get to cut the chars if you do 'using system.text.encoding' and use 'var' instead of 'string'?
+3  A:

Another one in Python:

def subarray(large, small):
strsmall = ' '.join([str(c).zfill(3) for c in small])
strlarge = ' '.join([str(c).zfill(3) for c in large])
pos = strlarge.find(strsmall)
return  ((pos>=0), pos//4)
I like this idea, but the returned position is incorrect, because it returns the position in the 'hexed' string.
I gave it some more thought: this idea does work when using bytes. See http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1078770/array-searching-code-challenge/1084787#1084787
You are right Stephan, thanks. I can't use bytes in my example, but I fixed it with some other way, a bit ugly :)
Unfortunately your code now fails for another reason. Try subarray([123, 123], [231])... (the concatenation of 123 and 123 causes 231 to be matched, and hence index '0.333' is returned.)
Ah, that's why I used in my 1st fix the `hex()`. Ok, now I place a zero between numbers to separate them.
Sorry, still wrong, for two reasons: subarray([1, 200], [102]) will yield a false positive, and pos should only be divided by four if it is != -1. (Also, you may want to use // instead of / to force integer division, to make sure the function also returns an int when using Python 3+)
thank you Stephan :) That's the `results` when you *fix* code, without testing it, early in the morning and have not drunk a cup of coffee. About integer division, I haven't worked Python 3+ but I followed your advice. -1/4 returns -1. Isn't that true in Python 3?
Indeed it isn't. In Python 3+, -1/4 == -0.25 and -1//4 == -1. As for how to fix your code: would .zfill(6) work, together with pos//6? (It's easy to see that .zfill(5) will not work.)
...scratch those last remarks. I now notice you now intersperse the numbers with a space. This is correct, I think. I'll +1 now :)
*As for how to...*, what do you mean? I already fixed it. Or are there more bugs? :)
I think our comments crossed. To be clear: it appears bug-free to me now :)
+4  A:

Ruby, using Array#pack (41 chars body):

def bytearray_search(a,b)
(i=b.pack('C*').index(b.pack('C*')))?i:-1
end

Perl (36 chars body, excluding parameter handling):

sub bytearray_search {
(\$a,\$b) = @_;
index(pack('C*',@\$a),pack('C*',@\$b))
}
I was writing something similar (def t(a,b)(i=a.to_s.index(b.to_s))?[true, i]:[false, -1]end), but you beat me to it. +1!
Thought about using to_s as well, but that would make bytearray_search([123],[1,2,3]) result in [true,0].
Array#inspect is also too cumbersome, as you'd have to strip off the brackets before indexing.
Not to mention the hassle of calculating the correct offset...
`(\$i=index(pack('C*',@\$a1),pack('C*',@\$a2)))>=0||0,\$i` would also work, and be shorter.
Updated/shortened to no longer return boolean value.
a1.pack(c='C*').index(a2.pack c)||-1
A:

As Fredrik has already posted the code using the STRING conversion way. Here's another way it could be done using C#.

jwoolard beat me to it, btw. I too have used the same algorithm as he has. This was one of the problems that we had to solve using C++, in college.

public static bool Contains(byte[] parent, byte[] child, out int index)
{
index = -1;

for (int i = 0; i < parent.Length - child.Length; i++)
{
for (int j = 0; j < child.Length; j++)
{
if (parent[i + j] == child[j])
index = i;
else
{
index = -1;
break;
}
}
}

return (index >= 0);
}
+1  A:
public class SubArrayMatch
{
private bool _IsMatch;
private int _ReturnIndex = -1;
private List<byte> _Input;
private List<byte> _SubArray;
private bool _Terminate = false;
#region "Public Properties"
public List<byte> Input {
set { _Input = value; }
}

public List<byte> SubArray {
set { _SubArray = value; }
}

public bool IsMatch {
get { return _IsMatch; }
}

public int ReturnIndex {
get { return _ReturnIndex; }
}
#endregion
#region "Constructor"
public SubArrayMatch(List<byte> parmInput, List<byte> parmSubArray)
{
this.Input = parmInput;
this.SubArray = parmSubArray;
}
#endregion
#region "Main Method"
public void MatchSubArry()
{
int _MaxIndex;
int _Index = -1;
_MaxIndex = _Input.Count - 1;

_IsMatch = false;

foreach (byte itm in _Input) {
_Index += 1;

if (_Terminate == false) {
if (SubMatch(_Index, _MaxIndex) == true) {
_ReturnIndex = _Index;
_IsMatch = true;
return;
}
}
else {
return;
}
}
}

private bool SubMatch(int BaseIndex, int MaxIndex)
{
int _MaxSubIndex;
byte _cmpByte;
int _itr = -1;

_MaxSubIndex = _SubArray.Count - 1;
_MaxSubIndex += 1;

if (_MaxSubIndex > MaxIndex) {
_Terminate = true;
return false;
}

foreach (byte itm in _SubArray) {
_itr += 1;

_cmpByte = _Input(BaseIndex + _itr);

if (!itm == _cmpByte) {
return false;
}
}

return true;
}
#endregion

}

By Anhar Hussain Miah 'Edited by: Anhar.Miah @: 03/07/2009

TO use this Class:private void TestMatch(){ List<byte> inp = new List<byte>(); List<byte> p = new List<byte>(); inp.Add(63); inp.Add(101); inp.Add(245); inp.Add(215); inp.Add(0); p.Add(245); p.Add(215); SubArrayMatch fx0 = new SubArrayMatch(inp, p); fx0.MatchSubArry(); if (fx0.IsMatch == true) { Console.WriteLine("True " + fx0.ReturnIndex); } else { Console.WriteLine("False"); }}'Edited by: Anhar.Miah @: 03/07/2009
A:

I see, I think I totally misunderstood the concept of "Code Golf" :)

Anhar

Golfing with Java means you're playing with a rather high handicap. ;)
It was C# :P Anhar
Shouldn't this belong as a comment or edit to http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1078770/1078895#1078895 ?
+6  A:

PostScript, 149 146 170 166 167 159 characters (in the "do the work" part):

% define data
/A [63 101 245 215 0] def
/S [245 215] def

% do the work
/d{def}def/i{ifelse}d/l S length 1 sub d/p l d[/C{dup[eq{pop -1}{dup S p
get eq{pop p 0 eq{]length}{/p p 1 sub d C}i}{p l eq{pop}if/p l d C}i}i}d

% The stack now contains -1 or the position

Note that this find the last occurance of the subarray if it is contained more than once.

Revision history:

• Replace false by [[ne and true by [[eq to save three characters
• Removed a bug that could cause a false negative if the last element of S appears twice in A. Unfortunately, this bugfix has 24 characters.
• Made the bugfix a little cheaper, saving four chars
• Had to insert a space again because a dash is a legal character in a name. This syntax error wasn't caught because the test case didn't reach this point.
• Stopped returning the bools as the OP doesn't require them anymore. Saves 8 chars.

Explained version:

Unfortunately, the SO syntax highlighter doesn't know PostScript so readability is still limited.

/A [63 101 245 215 0] def
/S [245 215 ] def

/Slast S length 1 sub def % save the index of the last element of S,
% i.e. length-1
/Spos Slast def % our current position in S; this will vary
[ % put a mark on the bottom of the stack, we need this later.

/check % This function recursively removes values from the stack
% and compares them to the values in S
{
dup [
eq
{ % we found the mark on the bottom, i.e. we have no match
pop -1 % remove the mark and push the results
}
{ % we're not at the mark yet
dup % save the top value (part of the bugfix)
S Spos get
eq
{  % the top element of the stack is equal to S[Spos]
pop % remove the saved value, we don't need it
Spos 0
eq
{ % we are at the beginning of S, so the whole thing matched.
] length % Construct an array from the remaining values
% on the stack. This is the part of A before the match,
% so its length is equal to the position of the match.
% Hence we push the result and we're done.
}
{ % we're not at the beginning of S yet, so we have to keep comparing
/Spos Spos 1 sub def % decrease Spos
check % recurse
}
ifelse
}
{ % the top element of the stack is different from S[Spos]
Spos Slast eq {pop} if % leave the saved top value on the stack
% unless we're at the end of S, because in
% this case, we have to compare it to the
% last element of S (rest of the bugfix)
/Spos Slast def % go back to the end of S
check % recurse
}
ifelse
}
ifelse
}
def % end of the definition of check

A aload % put the contents of A onto the stack; this will also push A again,
% so we have to ...
pop % ...remove it again
check % And here we go!
Oh Em Gee, that must be the most unreadable thing I've seen outside of a Brainfuck program.
:-) Then you haven't seen the J solution to the skyline code golf: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1066234/the-skyline-problem/1073337#1073337
Actually, basic PostScript as a programming language (i.e. leaving out all the graphics / page description operators) is not terribly hard to grasp as soon as you are familiar with the stack-based operation and the RPN.
A:

Here's a C# version using string comparison. It works correctly but feels a bit hacky to me.

int FindSubArray(byte[] super, byte[] sub)
{
int i = BitConverter.ToString(super).IndexOf(BitConverter.ToString(sub));
return i < 0 ? i : i / 3;
}

// 106 characters
int F(byte[]x,byte[]y){int i=BitConverter.ToString(x)
.IndexOf(BitConverter.ToString(y));return i<0?i:i/3;}

Here's a slightly longer version that performs a true comparison of each individual array element.

int FindSubArray(byte[] super, byte[] sub)
{
int i, j;
for (i = super.Length - sub.Length; i >= 0; i--)
{
for (j = 0; j < sub.Length && super[i + j] == sub[j]; j++);
if (j >= sub.Length) break;
}
return i;
}

// 135 characters
int F(byte[]x,byte[]y){int i,j;for(i=x.Length-y.Length;i>=0;i--){for
(j=0;j<y.Length&&x[i+j]==y[j];j++);if(j>=y.Length)break;}return i;}
+6  A:

C99

#include <string.h>

void find_stuff(void const * const array1, const size_t array1length, /* Length in bytes, not elements */
void const * const array2, const size_t array2length, /* Length in bytes, not elements */
char * bReturnBool,
int * bReturnIndex)
{
void * found = memmem(array1, array1length, array2, array2length);
*bReturnBool = found != NULL;
*bReturnIndex = *bReturnBool ? found - array1 : -1;
}

In shorthand, and a bit a LOT messier:

#include <string.h>
#define f(a,b,c,d,e,f) { void * g = memmem(a, b, c, d); f = (e = !!g) ? g - a : -1; }
Interesting, but what's the length?
+1 for the short solution
I thought memmem was GNU specific ... hence this would only work for GNUC99 not C99?
A:

Lisp v1

(defun byte-array-subseqp (subarr arr)
(let ((found (loop
for start from 0 to (- (length arr) (length subarr))
when (loop
for item across subarr
for index from start below (length arr)
for same = (= item (aref arr index))
while same
finally (return same))
do (return start))))
(values (when found t) ; "real" boolean
(or found -1))))

Lisp v2 (NB, subseq creates a copy

(defun byte-array-subseqp (subarr arr)
(let* ((alength (length arr))
(slength (length subarr))
(found (loop
for start from 0 to (- alength slength)
when (equalp subarr (subseq arr start (+ start slength)))
do (return start))))
(values (when found t)
(or found -1))))
Why not use <a href="http://www.lispworks.com/documentation/lw50/CLHS/Body/f_search.htm#search">SEARCH</a>?
A:

C#:

public static object[] isSubArray(byte[] arr1, byte[] arr2) {
int o = arr1.TakeWhile((x, i) => !arr1.Skip(i).Take(arr2.Length).SequenceEqual(arr2)).Count();
return new object[] { o < arr1.Length, (o < arr1.Length) ? o : -1 };
}
+12  A:

Common lisp:

(defun golf-code (master-seq sub-seq)
(search sub-seq master-seq))
+1, the shortest so far (even shorter than Python!)
I think my brain just melted. Functional code can be very impressive...
It could even beat J with some renaming :O Very impressive :P
It certainly helps to have a built-in function...
A:

In Ruby:

def subset_match(array_one, array_two)
0.upto(array_one.length - 1) do |line|
right_hand = []
line.upto(line + array_two.length - 1) do |inner|
right_hand << array_one[inner]
end
if right_hand == array_two then answer = [true, line] end
end
end

Example: irb(main):151:0> subset_match([24, 55, 74, 3, 1], [24, 56, 74]) => [false, -1]

irb(main):152:0> subset_match([63, 101, 245, 215, 0], [245, 215]) => [true, 2]

A:

C#, works with any type that has equality operator:

first
.Select((index, item) =>
first
.Skip(index)
.Take(second.Count())
.SequenceEqual(second)
? index : -1)
.FirstOrDefault(i => i >= 0)
.Select(i => i => 0 ?
new { Found = true, Index = i }
:
new { Found = false, Index - 1 });
A:
(defun golf-code (master-seq sub-seq)
(let ((x (search sub-seq master-seq)))
(values (not (null x)) (or x -1))))
A:

C#

For Lists:

public static int IndexOf<T>( List<T> list1, List<T> list2 )
{
return !list2.Except( list1 ).Any() ? list1.IndexOf( list2[0] ) : -1;
}

For Arrays:

public static int IndexOf<T>( T[] arr1, T[] arr2 )
{
return !arr2.Except( arr1 ).Any() ? Array.IndexOf( arr1, arr2[0] ) : -1;
}
I think you misunderstand the problem: the question asks for a substring match, so [1,2,3] does not contain [1,3].
@ephemiement - the original question asked: "if the second array is a subset of the first" - not a substring. This should not be down voted as it does answer the original question as it does indeed return the expected result.
I didn't vote it down, I would just like to see it fixed up... especially since all the other answers have been fixed too.
A:

import Data.List
import Data.Maybe
g a b | elem b \$ subsequences a = fromJust \$ elemIndex (head b) a | otherwise = -1
A trivial port of my J solution is 75 characters: import List;g a=map fst.filter snd.zip[0..].map((==a).take(length a)).tails
+8  A:

# J

37 characters for even more functionality than requested: it returns a list of all matching indices.

[email protected](([-:#@[{.>@])"_ 0(<@}."0 [email protected]#))

Usage:

NB. Give this function a name
i =: [email protected](([-:#@[{.>@])"_ 0(<@}."0 [email protected]#))
NB. Test #1
245 215 i 63 101 245 215 0
2
24 56 74 i 24 55 74 3 1

NB. Test #3: matches in multiple locations
1 1 i 1 1 1 2 1 1 3
0 1 4
NB. Test #4: only exact substring matches
1 2 i 0 1 2 3 1 0 2 1 2 0
1 7

NB. list[0 to end], list[1 to end], list[2 to end], ...
<@}."0 [email protected]#

NB. Does the LHS completely match the RHS (truncated to match LHS)?
[-:#@[{.>@]

NB. boolean list of match/no match
([-:#@[{.>@])"_ 0(<@}."0 [email protected]#)

NB. indices of *true* elements
[email protected](([-:#@[{.>@])"_ 0(<@}."0 [email protected]#))
hang on: does this check if the second array is present as a substring of the first?
The first array exists contiguously in the second array starting at a returned index.
ooohhhh... so what you're saying is in addition to the starting index of the substring, it outputs all matching indices?
Exactly. I can add a few more examples to make that clear...
J shouldn't be allowed in code golf challenges. :P
Holy cow! Its worse than Perl!
A:

Ruby, i feel ashamed after seeing Lar's code

def contains(a1, a2)
0.upto(a1.length-a2.length) { |i| return i if a1[i, a2.length] == a2 }
-1
end
+3  A:

I feel that I'm cheating, but using Perl this would do what the OP wants:

sub byte_substr {
use bytes;
index shift,shift
}

Normally index() in Perl works on strings with character semantics, but the "use bytes" pragma makes it use byte segmantics instead. From the manpage:

When "use bytes" is in effect, the encoding is temporarily ignored, and each string is treated as a series of bytes.

i checked, and even if i remove most of the whitespace, it's 44 characters. So close!
This only work if you start with two strings, but the challenge was to start with two arrays of bytes. Good point with use bytes though, probably need to add that one to my Perl suggestion as well for it to return the correct index in all situations.
A:

PHP AIR CODE 285 CHARACTERS

function f(\$a,\$b){
if ( count(\$a) < 1 ) return -1;
if ( count(\$b) < 1 ) return -1;
if ( count(\$a) < count(\$b) ) return -1;

\$x = array_shift(\$a);
\$z = array_shift(\$b);

if (\$x != \$z){
\$r = f( \$x, array_unshift(\$z, \$b) );
return (-1 == \$r) ? -1 : 1 + \$r;
}

\$r = f(\$a, \$b);
return (-1 == \$r) ? -1 : 0;

}

+3  A:

Ruby 1.9 (44B)

_=->a,b{[*a.each_cons(b.size)].index(b)||-1}

p _[[63, 101, 245, 215, 0], [245, 215]]
p _[[24, 55, 74, 3, 1], [24, 56, 74]]

goruby (29B)

_=->a,b{a.e_(b.sz).dx(b)||-1}
If you can shave a mere 3 characters off of this, it will beat the J implementation that is currently on top.
That J implementation doesn't return the index or -1 if not found. If that's not a requirement then you can shave some more bytes off the Ruby implementations here as well.
Unfortunately, you will need to replace each_cons(2) with each_cons(b.size) for this to work, which adds another 5 characters.
Returning nil instead of -1 if it's more natural seems perfectly fine to me; there's a comment suggesting that the question be modified. Now that I look up what Ruby's `Enumerable#each_cons` is, I don't see how `2` it fails the second example; it really should be `b.size`.
> each_cons(b.size)Hoops. Thanks!
+5  A:

# Python 2 & 3, 7368 58 Characters

>>> t=lambda l,s:''.join(map(chr,l)).find(''.join(map(chr,s)))
>>> t([63, 101, 245, 215, 0], [245, 215])
2
>>> t([24, 55, 74, 3, 1], [24, 56, 74])
-1

# Python 3, 41 36 Characters

Thanks in part to gnibbler:

>>> t=lambda l,s:bytes(l).find(bytes(s))
>>> t([63, 101, 245, 215, 0], [245, 215])
2
>>> t([24, 55, 74, 3, 1], [24, 56, 74])
-1

Argument order as specified by the OP:

import List;t l s=maybe(-1)id\$findIndex id\$map(isPrefixOf s)\$tails l

As ephemient points out, we can switch the arguments and reduce the code by four characters:

import List;t s=maybe(-1)id.findIndex id.map(isPrefixOf s).tails
+1, very good pythonic solutions.
I shortened the Haskell. If you flip the argument order, you can cut 4 more characters: `t s=maybe(-1)id.findIndex id.map(isPrefixOf s).tails` (point-free removal of `l`)
@ephemient: nice!
you can use lambda for python3 to get 36 `t=lambda l,s:bytes(l).find(bytes(s))` Note that bytes works differently for python2
+1  A:

Ruby. Not exactly the shortest in the world, but cool since it's an extension to Array.

class Array
def contains other=[]
index = 0
begin
matched = 0
ndx = index
while other[matched] == self[ndx]
return index if (matched+1) == other.length
matched += 1
ndx += 1
end
end until (index+=1) == length
-1
end
end

puts [ 63, 101, 245, 215, 0 ].contains [245, 215]
# 2
puts [ 24, 55, 74, 3, 1 ].contains [24, 56, 74 ]
# -1
+1 slick implementation!
Yeah, but for 'A.contains B' it would be inefficient for large values of A where there are partial leading matches of B, but only a full match near the end of A. Many of the other algorithms are much better.
+1  A:

PHP

In 105...

function a_m(\$h,\$n){\$m=strstr(join(",",\$h),join(",",\$n));return\$m?(count(\$h)-substr_count(\$m,",")-1):-1;}

or more explicitly,

function array_match(\$haystack,\$needle){
\$match = strstr (join(",",\$haystack), join(",",\$needle));
return \$match?(count(\$haystack)-substr_count(\$match,",")-1):-1;
}
+1  A:

GNU C:

int memfind(const char * haystack, size_t haystack_size, const char * needle,
size_t needle_size)
{
const char * match = memmem(haystack, hasystack_size, needle, needle_size);
return match ? match - haystack : -1;
}

ANSI C, without library:

int memfind(const char * haystack, size_t haystack_size, const char * needle,
size_t needle_size)
{
size_t pos = 0;
for(; pos < haystack_size; ++pos)
{
size_t i = 0;
while(pos + i < haystack_size && i < needle_size &&
haystack[pos + i] == needle[i]) ++i;

if(i == needle_size) return pos;
}

return -1;
}
+1  A:

C#, lists called "a" and "b":

Enumerable.Range(-1, a.Count).Where(n => n == -1
|| a.Skip(n).Take(b.Count).SequenceEqual(b)).Take(2).Last();

If you don't care about returning the first instance, you can just do:

Enumerable.Range(-1, a.Count).Last(n => n == -1
|| a.Skip(n).Take(b.Count).SequenceEqual(b));
+2  A:

Python: 84 characters

def f(a,b):
l=[a[i:i+len(b)]for i in range(len(a))]
return b in l and l.index(b)or-1

Prolog: 84 characters (says "no" instead of returning -1):

s(X,[]).
s([H|T],[H|U]):-s(T,U).
f(X,Y,0):-s(X,Y).
f([_|T],Y,N):-f(T,Y,M),N is M+1.
+2  A:

Python oneliner function definition in 64 characters

def f(l,s): return ''.join(map(chr,l)).find(''.join(map(chr,s)))

Since we are explicitly passed an array of bytes we can transform that to Python's native byte array str and use str.find

+1 for novel use of language features.
+1  A:
int m(byte[]a,int i,int y,byte[]b,int j,int z){return i<y?j<z?a[i]==b[j++]?m(a,++i,y,b,j,z):m(a,0,y,b,j,z):-1:j-y;}

Java, 116 characters. Has a little bit of extra functionality thrown in. OK, so it's a kludge to push start condition and array lengths into the caller. Call it like: m(byte[] substring, int substart, int sublength, byte[] bigstring, int bigstart, int biglength)

+2  A:

Python3 36 bytes

based on Stephan202

>>> t=lambda l,s:bytes(l).find(bytes(s))
...
>>> t([63, 101, 245, 215, 0], [245, 215])
2
>>> t([24, 55, 74, 3, 1], [24, 56, 74])
-1
+1. Hadn't noticed that you posted this separately when I updated my answer.
A:

# Golfscript - 35 bytes

Only 32 bytes for the actual function if we count the same as for J

{:b;:a,,{[email protected]>b,<b={}{;}if}%-1or}:f;

#Test cases (same as J)               output
[63 110 245 215 0] [245 215] f p   #  [2]
[22 55 74 3 1] [24 56 74] f p      #  -1
[1 1 1 2 1 1 3] [1 1]f p           #  [0 1 4]
[0 1 2 3 1 0 2 1 2 0] [1 2] f p    #  [1 7]