views:

179

answers:

3

I have the following set of sets. I don't know ahead of time how long it will be.

val sets = Set(Set("a","b","c"), Set("1","2"), Set("S","T"))

I would like to expand it into a cartesian product:

Set("a&1&S", "a&1&T", "a&2&S", ..., "c&2&T")

How would you do that?

+12  A: 

I think I figured out how to do that.

def combine(acc:Set[String], set:Set[String]) = for (a <- acc; s <- set) yield {
  a + "&" + s 
}

val expanded = sets.reduceLeft(combine)

expanded: scala.collection.immutable.Set[java.lang.String] = Set(b&2&T, a&1&S, 
  a&1&T, b&1&S, b&1&T, c&1&T, a&2&T, c&1&S, c&2&T, a&2&S, c&2&S, b&2&S)
huynhjl
Synchronicity! In my solution, deferred construction of the Strings until the last step, but they are basically the same.
retronym
+9  A: 

Nice question. Here's one way:

scala> val seqs = Seq(Seq("a","b","c"), Seq("1","2"), Seq("S","T"))                  
seqs: Seq[Seq[java.lang.String]] = List(List(a, b, c), List(1, 2), List(S, T))

scala> val seqs2 = seqs.map(_.map(Seq(_)))
seqs2: Seq[Seq[Seq[java.lang.String]]] = List(List(List(a), List(b), List(c)), List(List(1), List(2)), List(List(S), List(T)))

scala> val combined = seqs2.reduceLeft((xs, ys) => for {x <- xs; y <- ys} yield x ++ y)
combined: Seq[Seq[java.lang.String]] = List(List(a, 1, S), List(a, 1, T), List(a, 2, S), List(a, 2, T), List(b, 1, S), List(b, 1, T), List(b, 2, S), List(b, 2, T), List(c, 1, S), List(c, 1, T), List(c, 2, S), List(c, 2, T))

scala> combined.map(_.mkString("&"))             
res11: Seq[String] = List(a&1&S, a&1&T, a&2&S, a&2&T, b&1&S, b&1&T, b&2&S, b&2&T, c&1&S, c&1&T, c&2&S, c&2&T)
retronym
Thanks. I first tried with foldLeft and eventually figured out I needed to use reduceLeft instead (kept getting an empty result). Is the conversion to Seq only necessary to preserve ordering?
huynhjl
huynhjl
@huynhjl The use of seq (to begin with) was probably so that retronym could avoid importing `scala.collection.immutable.Set`, and maybe to show that this could be done with the more general interface.
Ken Bloom
`Seq` vs `Set` on the first line doesn't really matter, I just found it easier to use `Seq` to preserve ordering. The choice on the second line does matter, you could use `Set` to remove duplicates, for example.
retronym
+2  A: 

Came after the batle ;) but another one:

sets.reduceLeft((s0,s1)=>s0.flatMap(a=>s1.map(a+"&"+_)))
Patrick