JRough wrote:
> Jake Jarvis wrote:
>> JRough wrote
>>> I get the error : unexpected end of input, there is some logic
>>> error before it joins the words.
>>>
[ ... note: sentences here reduced from original ...]
>>> var sentences = [
>>> "I now took ... with a chair.",
>>> "But it was ... no yoking them.",
>>> "I then placed ... settle down in.",
>>> "But I ... the window, ... the night.",
>>> "The devil ... violent knockings? ... dismissed it.",
>>> "For who could tell ... knock me down!"
>>> ];
>>>
>>> var badwords = ['window', 'chair', 'knockings'];
>>>
>>>
>>> // Fill in function body here
>>> var hasBadwords = function (message, index) {
[ ... implementation from OP removed ... ]
>>> };
>>> // Tell us what the output is from running this code:
>>> console.log(sentences.map(function (sentence, index) {
>>> return hasBadwords(sentence) ? index : '';
>>> }).join(''));
>>>
>> The error message apparently is "Uncaught SyntaxError: Unexpected end
>> of input" and it is used by at least Chrome.
>>
>> In Firefox the message is different: "SyntaxError: missing } after
>> function body".
>>
>> Do you use an editor with syntax highlighting?
> I would still like this to work either way, Thomas' way or my way.
Does this have anything to do with Jake's comment? Please, you've been
around here plenty long enough to know how to reduce quotes to the
relevant minimum, to ask questions better than "it doesn't work --
help!", to note actual attempts to help and distinguish them from noisy
attempts to prove a point. Please contribute to the dialogue.
> It may be bogus but its an exercise of using the map function.
The outer wrapper is certainly an appropriate use of `map`. But for the
function you've presumably been asked to write ("Fill in function body
here") `map` makes little sense. `map` is about applying a function to
the value(s) of a container and returning a new container of the same
shape. In the case of `Array.prototype.map`, that container is always an
array, but the concept is more general. [1] However, all you want out of
the function is a boolean that reports whether any of the bad words are
included in the message. `map` makes no sense. After a little
manipulation of the message string, you will have an array of words to
test, but you do not want back an array of that same size as a result.
There are other functions more related to what you're doing here.
Perhaps most fundamental is `reduce`, which fits the bill in one way, as
the point of `reduce` is to take a container and fold it down into a
single value, which sounds like what you want to do. But `reduce` is
bringing out the big guns. It's overkill for this simple problem.
`filter` is somewhat more helpful, as it would allow you to find all the
words which match a given predicate. You *could* use this, and then
check if the resulting length is positive. But that is still overkill,
because you are only asked to find the sentences that contain the
forbidden words, not to document all the places in those sentences where
the words occur.
There would also be ways to do this with `find`. But I won't go into
them, because there is clearly a right function for this: `some`. All
you want to know is whether there is some word in the list contained in
the excluded set. If you find one, you're done, and shouldn't need to
test the rest. While `find` would similarly stop when it finds a value,
`find` returns the value; `some` returns a boolean to say that it has
found something; that latter is precisely what's desired here. `some`
is also supported by more implementations than `find`.
So here is one solution:
var hasBadwords = function (message) {
var words = message.replace(/[^\w\s]/g, '').split(/\s+/);
return words.some(function(word) {
return badwords.includes(word);
});
};
(Note that I dropped the unnecessary `index` parameter here.)
`includes` may not be supported where you need it, so you could use this
work-around:
var hasBadwords = function (message) {
var words = message.replace(/[^\w\s]/g, '').split(/\s+/);
return words.some(function(word) {
return badwords.indexOf(word) > -1;
});
};
I would suggest that this is not wonderful code, as this function is not
referentially transparent, depending on it does on the global `badwords`
list. I would prefer to see that as a parameter to this, or to see a
function which accepted that and returned the equivalent of this function.
This is not to say that there is anything wrong with the regex solution
proposed. To my eyes this looks much closer to what's asked for in the
problem. However, if this is supposed to be an exercise in how to use
`map`, then I think it's poorly designed.
[1]:
https://github.com/fantasyland/fantasy-land#functor
-- Scott