Code Golf: Parenthesis
Our previous code golf ended with an overwhelming win, so now it's time for another one.
Parenthesis Hell is a Lisp-like esoteric programming language(esolang).
As a Lisp-like language, the code consists only of nested matched pairs of opened and closed parenthesis.
Your task is to write a method that receives a string of parenthesis and returns 1
if the order of the parenthesis is valid. For example, the string of parenthesis (())()
is valid because it contains a matched pair of opened and closed parenthesis at each position. The string ()((())))
is not valid because it contains one unmatched parenthesis.
Input
"(()()())"
Output
1
Note
- Characters other than parentheses
)(
must be ignored, such as braces{}
, brackets[]
, chevrons<>
, etc. - Use this code to check the solution length
Rules
-
The signature of the contest entry MUST be:
Class codeGolf.ParenthesisHell { ClassMethod IsValid(s As %String) As %Boolean { // Your solution here } }
- It is forbidden to modify class/signature, including but not limited to:
- Adding inheritance
- Setting default argument values
- Adding class elements (Parameters, Methods, Includes, etc).
-
It is forbidden to refer to non-system code from your entry. For example, this is not a valid entry:
ClassMethod Build(f As %Integer) { W ##class(myPackage.myClass).test(a) }
-
The use of
$ZWPACK
and$ZWBPACK
is also discouraged. -
You can use this test case:
Class codeGolf.unittests.ParenthesisHell Extends %UnitTest.TestCase { Method TestValid() { Do $$$AssertEquals(##class(codeGolf.ParenthesisHell).IsValid("()"), $$$YES) Do $$$AssertEquals(##class(codeGolf.ParenthesisHell).IsValid("(()())"), $$$YES) Do $$$AssertEquals(##class(codeGolf.ParenthesisHell).IsValid("(((())))"), $$$YES) Do $$$AssertEquals(##class(codeGolf.ParenthesisHell).IsValid("()(())((()))(())()"), $$$YES) Do $$$AssertEquals(##class(codeGolf.ParenthesisHell).IsValid("(]{)"), $$$YES) Do $$$AssertEquals(##class(codeGolf.ParenthesisHell).IsValid("(()()(()()(()()()()((()()(()(()((()((()()()((()((()()()((()((((()()(()()()()()()(((()(((()((()((((()(((()()(()()((()((()()()((()()(()()()()(()()()()(()()()()(()(())))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))"), $$$YES) } Method TestInValid() { Do $$$AssertEquals(##class(codeGolf.ParenthesisHell).IsValid("(]"), $$$NO) Do $$$AssertEquals(##class(codeGolf.ParenthesisHell).IsValid("()(()(()))(()()"), $$$NO) Do $$$AssertEquals(##class(codeGolf.ParenthesisHell).IsValid(")("), $$$NO) Do $$$AssertEquals(##class(codeGolf.ParenthesisHell).IsValid("()()("), $$$NO) Do $$$AssertEquals(##class(codeGolf.ParenthesisHell).IsValid("((())"), $$$NO) Do $$$AssertEquals(##class(codeGolf.ParenthesisHell).IsValid("())(()"), $$$NO) Do $$$AssertEquals(##class(codeGolf.ParenthesisHell).IsValid(")()"), $$$NO) Do $$$AssertEquals(##class(codeGolf.ParenthesisHell).IsValid(")"), $$$NO) Do $$$AssertEquals(##class(codeGolf.ParenthesisHell).IsValid("(()()(()()(()()()()((()()(()(()((()((()()()((()((()()()((()((((()()(()()()()()()(((()(((()((()((((()(((()()(()()((()((()()()((()()(()()()()(()()()()(()()()()(()(()))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))"), $$$NO) } }
Python
ClassMethod IsValid(w As %String) As %Boolean [ Language = python ] { import re;p=r'\([^()]*\)' while re.search(p,w):w=re.sub(p,'',w) return len(w)==0 }
I'd argue this breaks rule #2 by switching language (it says "including but not limited to").
I just offer an alternative, how to make it with Python
You can make it even easier:
Unfortunately, RegExp ICU does not support recursive patterns, otherwise it would be possible to write
Yeah, this module regexp, supports recursive, but it's not out of the box solution, and requires to be installed first, unfortunately
Class codeGolf.ParenthesisHell { ClassMethod IsValid(s As %String) As %Boolean
{
f{s t=s,s=$replace(s,"()","") ret:t=s s=""}
}
Looks a bit like mine :)
ClassMethod IsValid(s As %String) As %Boolean { f i=1:1:2E6 { s s=$REPLACE($ZSTRIP(s,"*E",,"()"),"()","") } q s="" }
Since length was more important than speed I put the $ZSTRIP in the loop, and make it run 2M times (3.6M MAXLEN, that should be enough 😂
Sorry I meant to post this under the solution of @Alex Woodhead
OK, I start with 47 chars... unfortunately, I have to add 20 chars more for that (stupid) extra requirement of ignoring characters like {, [, <, etc. therefore end up with 67 chars
ClassMethod IsHalfValid(x) { 1 s z=x,x=$replace(x,"()","") g 1:x'=z q x="" } ClassMethod IsFullValid(x) { 1 s z=x,x=$replace($zstrip(x,"*e",,"()"),"()","") g 1:x'=z q x="" }
Speed was'n asked...
OK, one can short down those 20 bytes into 17 and we end up with 64 bytes.
ClassMethod IsValid(x) { 1 s z=x,x=$replace($tr(x,$tr(x,"()")),"()","") g 1:x'=z q x="" }
Again, speed wasn't asked
61 bytes. Could an AI machine ever beat a human at code golf? Don't they just use brute force?
{
f{s z=x,x=$replace($tr(x,$tr(x,"()")),"()",9) ret:x=z x=""}
}
It seems, that will be hard to underbid... Congratulations!
It's strange, according to approved method of calculating the length of the solution, your code shows a length of 62, not 61.
Have you measured the length of your solution using this method?
You are correct. implementation.size sees $c(13,10) as the end of line character. I counted manually and added 1, not 2.
most of the solutions don't cater for the ")(" case being not valid
here is mine size 92
ClassMethod IsValid(s As %String) As %Boolean { s r=1 f {s c=$e(s,$i(i)) q:c="" d:c="(" $i(r) d:c=")" $i(r,-1) q:r<1} ret $s(r=1:1,1:0) }
your 2nd solution shows )((()) as valid which is not true
Thanks for the comment. I tested only on the provided data. The second option requires improvement.
Nice logic!
//57?
ClassMethod IsValid(s As %String) As %Boolean {
q +$$zTestSearchString^%iFind.Utils.1($$$URLENCODE(s))
}
No.
This code will not work in IRIS 2023.1 because changes have been made for security reasons: Improvements to how IRIS classes are generated and called
That article is an interesting read for anyone who has written code that goes directly to the generated INT code. I will need to re-think some of my older code that finds lines of code from $ZE and then displays and diagnoses the source of errors based on the variable names it finds there. I might also have to start using a mainstream debugger.
Another solution, 82 bytes:
/// ( -> -0.5 /// ) -> 0.5 ClassMethod IsValid(s As %String) As %Boolean { s z=0,s=$zstrip(s,"*E",,"()") f s c=$a(s,$i(i)) ret:c<0 'z ret:$i(z,c-40.5)>0 0 }
Variant 69 bytes:
ClassMethod IsValid(s As %String) As %Boolean { 1 s c=$a(s,$i(i)) q:c<0 '$g(z) g:"()"'[$c(c) 1 q:$i(z,c-40.5)>0 0 g 1 }
If my aging brain me do not misleads, you could save two more bytes
g:"()"'[$c(c) // instead of this (13 bytes) g:c=41-c+40 // use this (11 bytes)
Well done! Don't worry about your brain 😉
; 67 bytes improvement by Julius Kavay 1 s c=$a(s,$i(i)) q:c<0 '$g(z) g:c=41-c+40 1 q:$i(z,c-40.5)>0 0 g 1
ClassMethod IsValid(s As %String) As %Boolean { f{s a=s,s=$change($zstrip(s,"*E",,"()"),"()",1) ret:a=s s=""} }
Ah yes, $Change can save a character on $Replace. And nested $TR saves on $zstrip.
f{s z=x,x=$change($tr(x,$tr(x,"()")),"()",9) ret:x=z x=""}
I just saw your nested $TR approach in an earlier comment. Very creative, I liked it! I guess together we made it to 61ch?
Team effort. Credit where it is due, @Julius Kavay introduced the nested $TR, I changed his "" to a single character that didn't need a quote.
After I put all the solutions in a pot, salting them with some own ideas then filtering, I got a really nice solution with 55 bytes. Works for all the examples given by @Eduard Lebedyuk.
The best idea-donors where, among others, @Stuart.Strickland and @Lorenzo Scalese, thank you.
ClassMethod IsValid(s) { f{s c=$a(s_0,$i(i))+1 ret:$i(z,c=42-(c=41))>0!'c 'z} }
Wonderful!
Your contribution is included too...
I just saw now, I published the next to last version instead of the last... sorry. I end up 53 bytes. This "s_0" was a work-around for not to use $g(z) by getting at least one loop for case, someone calls the method with an empty string
ClassMethod IsValid(s) { f{s c=$a(s,$i(i))+1 ret:$i(z,c=42-(c=41))>0!'c 'z} }
Very nice.
I'm late to the party, but it looks like several had similar approaches.