Sorting an assortment of strings and integers together, while keeping them separate












0












$begingroup$


I put a solution to this coding problem together. The problem is this:




Create a function that takes an array, finds the most often repeated element(s) within it and returns it/them in an array. The function should work for both integers and strings mixed together within the input list (e.g. [1, 1, "a"]).



If there is a tie for highest occurrence, return both.



Separate integers and strings in the result.



If returning multiple elements, sort result alphabetically with numbers coming before strings.




This is the solution I came up with:



def highest_occurrence(arr)

# Separate the unique values into individual sub-arrays
x = rand(2**32).to_s(16)
result = arr.sort do |a, b|
a = a.to_s + x if a.is_a?(Numeric)
b = b.to_s + x if b.is_a?(Numeric)
a <=> b
end.chunk_while {|a, b| a == b }.to_a

# Get an array of all of the individual values with the max size,
# Sort them by integers first, strings second
result = result.select do |a2|
a2.size == result.max_by(&:size).size
end.map(&:uniq).flatten.sort_by { |v| v.class.to_s }

end


It passes these tests:



p highest_occurrence(["a","a","b","b"]) == ["a","b"]
p highest_occurrence([1,"a","b","b"]) == ["b"]
p highest_occurrence([1,2,2,3,3,3,4,4,4,4]) == [4]
p highest_occurrence(["ab","ab","b"]) == ["ab"]
p highest_occurrence(["ab","ab","b","bb","b"]) == ["ab","b"]
p highest_occurrence([3,3,3,4,4,4,4,2,3,6,7,6,7,6,7,6,"a","a","a","a"]) == [3,4,6,"a"]
p highest_occurrence([2,2,"2","2",4,4]) == [2,4,"2"]


I'd like to know whether there are better ways to solve some of the specific problems in this exercise. In particular, the requirement to sort strings and integers together without being able to convert the integers to strings in the sort block was an interesting one. I managed this by appending a random hex value (the same value) to each integer during the sort process. This seems a bit hackish, and I have the feeling it could be improved upon.



I would also appreciate any other suggestions for how to do a cleaner job.










share|improve this question











$endgroup$

















    0












    $begingroup$


    I put a solution to this coding problem together. The problem is this:




    Create a function that takes an array, finds the most often repeated element(s) within it and returns it/them in an array. The function should work for both integers and strings mixed together within the input list (e.g. [1, 1, "a"]).



    If there is a tie for highest occurrence, return both.



    Separate integers and strings in the result.



    If returning multiple elements, sort result alphabetically with numbers coming before strings.




    This is the solution I came up with:



    def highest_occurrence(arr)

    # Separate the unique values into individual sub-arrays
    x = rand(2**32).to_s(16)
    result = arr.sort do |a, b|
    a = a.to_s + x if a.is_a?(Numeric)
    b = b.to_s + x if b.is_a?(Numeric)
    a <=> b
    end.chunk_while {|a, b| a == b }.to_a

    # Get an array of all of the individual values with the max size,
    # Sort them by integers first, strings second
    result = result.select do |a2|
    a2.size == result.max_by(&:size).size
    end.map(&:uniq).flatten.sort_by { |v| v.class.to_s }

    end


    It passes these tests:



    p highest_occurrence(["a","a","b","b"]) == ["a","b"]
    p highest_occurrence([1,"a","b","b"]) == ["b"]
    p highest_occurrence([1,2,2,3,3,3,4,4,4,4]) == [4]
    p highest_occurrence(["ab","ab","b"]) == ["ab"]
    p highest_occurrence(["ab","ab","b","bb","b"]) == ["ab","b"]
    p highest_occurrence([3,3,3,4,4,4,4,2,3,6,7,6,7,6,7,6,"a","a","a","a"]) == [3,4,6,"a"]
    p highest_occurrence([2,2,"2","2",4,4]) == [2,4,"2"]


    I'd like to know whether there are better ways to solve some of the specific problems in this exercise. In particular, the requirement to sort strings and integers together without being able to convert the integers to strings in the sort block was an interesting one. I managed this by appending a random hex value (the same value) to each integer during the sort process. This seems a bit hackish, and I have the feeling it could be improved upon.



    I would also appreciate any other suggestions for how to do a cleaner job.










    share|improve this question











    $endgroup$















      0












      0








      0





      $begingroup$


      I put a solution to this coding problem together. The problem is this:




      Create a function that takes an array, finds the most often repeated element(s) within it and returns it/them in an array. The function should work for both integers and strings mixed together within the input list (e.g. [1, 1, "a"]).



      If there is a tie for highest occurrence, return both.



      Separate integers and strings in the result.



      If returning multiple elements, sort result alphabetically with numbers coming before strings.




      This is the solution I came up with:



      def highest_occurrence(arr)

      # Separate the unique values into individual sub-arrays
      x = rand(2**32).to_s(16)
      result = arr.sort do |a, b|
      a = a.to_s + x if a.is_a?(Numeric)
      b = b.to_s + x if b.is_a?(Numeric)
      a <=> b
      end.chunk_while {|a, b| a == b }.to_a

      # Get an array of all of the individual values with the max size,
      # Sort them by integers first, strings second
      result = result.select do |a2|
      a2.size == result.max_by(&:size).size
      end.map(&:uniq).flatten.sort_by { |v| v.class.to_s }

      end


      It passes these tests:



      p highest_occurrence(["a","a","b","b"]) == ["a","b"]
      p highest_occurrence([1,"a","b","b"]) == ["b"]
      p highest_occurrence([1,2,2,3,3,3,4,4,4,4]) == [4]
      p highest_occurrence(["ab","ab","b"]) == ["ab"]
      p highest_occurrence(["ab","ab","b","bb","b"]) == ["ab","b"]
      p highest_occurrence([3,3,3,4,4,4,4,2,3,6,7,6,7,6,7,6,"a","a","a","a"]) == [3,4,6,"a"]
      p highest_occurrence([2,2,"2","2",4,4]) == [2,4,"2"]


      I'd like to know whether there are better ways to solve some of the specific problems in this exercise. In particular, the requirement to sort strings and integers together without being able to convert the integers to strings in the sort block was an interesting one. I managed this by appending a random hex value (the same value) to each integer during the sort process. This seems a bit hackish, and I have the feeling it could be improved upon.



      I would also appreciate any other suggestions for how to do a cleaner job.










      share|improve this question











      $endgroup$




      I put a solution to this coding problem together. The problem is this:




      Create a function that takes an array, finds the most often repeated element(s) within it and returns it/them in an array. The function should work for both integers and strings mixed together within the input list (e.g. [1, 1, "a"]).



      If there is a tie for highest occurrence, return both.



      Separate integers and strings in the result.



      If returning multiple elements, sort result alphabetically with numbers coming before strings.




      This is the solution I came up with:



      def highest_occurrence(arr)

      # Separate the unique values into individual sub-arrays
      x = rand(2**32).to_s(16)
      result = arr.sort do |a, b|
      a = a.to_s + x if a.is_a?(Numeric)
      b = b.to_s + x if b.is_a?(Numeric)
      a <=> b
      end.chunk_while {|a, b| a == b }.to_a

      # Get an array of all of the individual values with the max size,
      # Sort them by integers first, strings second
      result = result.select do |a2|
      a2.size == result.max_by(&:size).size
      end.map(&:uniq).flatten.sort_by { |v| v.class.to_s }

      end


      It passes these tests:



      p highest_occurrence(["a","a","b","b"]) == ["a","b"]
      p highest_occurrence([1,"a","b","b"]) == ["b"]
      p highest_occurrence([1,2,2,3,3,3,4,4,4,4]) == [4]
      p highest_occurrence(["ab","ab","b"]) == ["ab"]
      p highest_occurrence(["ab","ab","b","bb","b"]) == ["ab","b"]
      p highest_occurrence([3,3,3,4,4,4,4,2,3,6,7,6,7,6,7,6,"a","a","a","a"]) == [3,4,6,"a"]
      p highest_occurrence([2,2,"2","2",4,4]) == [2,4,"2"]


      I'd like to know whether there are better ways to solve some of the specific problems in this exercise. In particular, the requirement to sort strings and integers together without being able to convert the integers to strings in the sort block was an interesting one. I managed this by appending a random hex value (the same value) to each integer during the sort process. This seems a bit hackish, and I have the feeling it could be improved upon.



      I would also appreciate any other suggestions for how to do a cleaner job.







      ruby sorting






      share|improve this question















      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited 15 mins ago









      Jamal

      30.4k11121227




      30.4k11121227










      asked 6 hours ago









      BobRodesBobRodes

      1234




      1234






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          1












          $begingroup$

          Your test cases should include lexical sort of integers; that is, [9,11] must return [11,9]. (Your implementation does pass this test since you're converting everything to a string).



          As you suspected, mangling the input is hacky. This is better accomplished with a multi-criteria sort. This technique maps each individual value to an array of sort criteria. Ruby will compare the arrays only until it finds unequal elements; this means you can mix integers and strings in the second field, so long as the first field distinguishes them.



          For our problem, the first field will be 0 for integers else 1. The second field is the value itself.



          Although this approach will never compare integers to strings—if the first criteria distinguishes the two elements, the comparison is done—the second criteria must be a string anyway, to satisfy the "sort alphabetically" requirement.



          It's not necessary to sort the entire array or store a full copy of it. Instead, count duplicates in a hash table. Traverse the values of the hash to find a maximum. Traverse again to extract the corresponding keys.



          def highest_occurrence(arr)
          return unless arr.length
          count = Hash.new(0)
          arr.each { |k| count[k] += 1 }
          max = count.max_by{|k,n| n}[1]
          return count.select { |k,n| n==max }.keys.sort_by { |k| [ k.is_a?(Integer)?0:1, k.to_s ] }
          end





          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Thanks for your answer and your very helpful example. I've stepped through it, and it's entirely clear. Very nice upgrade to mine! Two things I don't quite understand: the spec says to return integers sorted in ascending order, followed by strings sorted in ascending order. Why, then, should [9,11] return 11,9]? Also, why can't you just do .sort_by { |k| k.is_a?(Integer)?0:1 }? What test cases would fail to that? None of miine do.
            $endgroup$
            – BobRodes
            1 hour ago












          • $begingroup$
            I answered my second question, once I went to the trouble of reading the link that you posted and doing a few other test cases. All my test cases happen to have the max values in the proper sorted order already! I switched them around and they failed. So, that's how you do a nested sort: put the criteria in an array. I'll put that in the file. Also, now that I look at it, I think that's what you were trying to tell me up front. Is it possible that you intended to say that [11, 9] should return '[9,11]`?
            $endgroup$
            – BobRodes
            52 mins ago












          • $begingroup$
            One more thing. I don't think that return unless arr.length will ever return a , since 0 evaluates to true in Ruby. Is this a carry-over pattern from some other language such as JS? I would put return if arr.size.zero? myself.
            $endgroup$
            – BobRodes
            45 mins ago













          Your Answer





          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["\$", "\$"]]);
          });
          });
          }, "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
          StackExchange.snippets.init();
          });
          });
          }, "code-snippets");

          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "196"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: false,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: null,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });














          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fcodereview.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f215294%2fsorting-an-assortment-of-strings-and-integers-together-while-keeping-them-separ%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          1












          $begingroup$

          Your test cases should include lexical sort of integers; that is, [9,11] must return [11,9]. (Your implementation does pass this test since you're converting everything to a string).



          As you suspected, mangling the input is hacky. This is better accomplished with a multi-criteria sort. This technique maps each individual value to an array of sort criteria. Ruby will compare the arrays only until it finds unequal elements; this means you can mix integers and strings in the second field, so long as the first field distinguishes them.



          For our problem, the first field will be 0 for integers else 1. The second field is the value itself.



          Although this approach will never compare integers to strings—if the first criteria distinguishes the two elements, the comparison is done—the second criteria must be a string anyway, to satisfy the "sort alphabetically" requirement.



          It's not necessary to sort the entire array or store a full copy of it. Instead, count duplicates in a hash table. Traverse the values of the hash to find a maximum. Traverse again to extract the corresponding keys.



          def highest_occurrence(arr)
          return unless arr.length
          count = Hash.new(0)
          arr.each { |k| count[k] += 1 }
          max = count.max_by{|k,n| n}[1]
          return count.select { |k,n| n==max }.keys.sort_by { |k| [ k.is_a?(Integer)?0:1, k.to_s ] }
          end





          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Thanks for your answer and your very helpful example. I've stepped through it, and it's entirely clear. Very nice upgrade to mine! Two things I don't quite understand: the spec says to return integers sorted in ascending order, followed by strings sorted in ascending order. Why, then, should [9,11] return 11,9]? Also, why can't you just do .sort_by { |k| k.is_a?(Integer)?0:1 }? What test cases would fail to that? None of miine do.
            $endgroup$
            – BobRodes
            1 hour ago












          • $begingroup$
            I answered my second question, once I went to the trouble of reading the link that you posted and doing a few other test cases. All my test cases happen to have the max values in the proper sorted order already! I switched them around and they failed. So, that's how you do a nested sort: put the criteria in an array. I'll put that in the file. Also, now that I look at it, I think that's what you were trying to tell me up front. Is it possible that you intended to say that [11, 9] should return '[9,11]`?
            $endgroup$
            – BobRodes
            52 mins ago












          • $begingroup$
            One more thing. I don't think that return unless arr.length will ever return a , since 0 evaluates to true in Ruby. Is this a carry-over pattern from some other language such as JS? I would put return if arr.size.zero? myself.
            $endgroup$
            – BobRodes
            45 mins ago


















          1












          $begingroup$

          Your test cases should include lexical sort of integers; that is, [9,11] must return [11,9]. (Your implementation does pass this test since you're converting everything to a string).



          As you suspected, mangling the input is hacky. This is better accomplished with a multi-criteria sort. This technique maps each individual value to an array of sort criteria. Ruby will compare the arrays only until it finds unequal elements; this means you can mix integers and strings in the second field, so long as the first field distinguishes them.



          For our problem, the first field will be 0 for integers else 1. The second field is the value itself.



          Although this approach will never compare integers to strings—if the first criteria distinguishes the two elements, the comparison is done—the second criteria must be a string anyway, to satisfy the "sort alphabetically" requirement.



          It's not necessary to sort the entire array or store a full copy of it. Instead, count duplicates in a hash table. Traverse the values of the hash to find a maximum. Traverse again to extract the corresponding keys.



          def highest_occurrence(arr)
          return unless arr.length
          count = Hash.new(0)
          arr.each { |k| count[k] += 1 }
          max = count.max_by{|k,n| n}[1]
          return count.select { |k,n| n==max }.keys.sort_by { |k| [ k.is_a?(Integer)?0:1, k.to_s ] }
          end





          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Thanks for your answer and your very helpful example. I've stepped through it, and it's entirely clear. Very nice upgrade to mine! Two things I don't quite understand: the spec says to return integers sorted in ascending order, followed by strings sorted in ascending order. Why, then, should [9,11] return 11,9]? Also, why can't you just do .sort_by { |k| k.is_a?(Integer)?0:1 }? What test cases would fail to that? None of miine do.
            $endgroup$
            – BobRodes
            1 hour ago












          • $begingroup$
            I answered my second question, once I went to the trouble of reading the link that you posted and doing a few other test cases. All my test cases happen to have the max values in the proper sorted order already! I switched them around and they failed. So, that's how you do a nested sort: put the criteria in an array. I'll put that in the file. Also, now that I look at it, I think that's what you were trying to tell me up front. Is it possible that you intended to say that [11, 9] should return '[9,11]`?
            $endgroup$
            – BobRodes
            52 mins ago












          • $begingroup$
            One more thing. I don't think that return unless arr.length will ever return a , since 0 evaluates to true in Ruby. Is this a carry-over pattern from some other language such as JS? I would put return if arr.size.zero? myself.
            $endgroup$
            – BobRodes
            45 mins ago
















          1












          1








          1





          $begingroup$

          Your test cases should include lexical sort of integers; that is, [9,11] must return [11,9]. (Your implementation does pass this test since you're converting everything to a string).



          As you suspected, mangling the input is hacky. This is better accomplished with a multi-criteria sort. This technique maps each individual value to an array of sort criteria. Ruby will compare the arrays only until it finds unequal elements; this means you can mix integers and strings in the second field, so long as the first field distinguishes them.



          For our problem, the first field will be 0 for integers else 1. The second field is the value itself.



          Although this approach will never compare integers to strings—if the first criteria distinguishes the two elements, the comparison is done—the second criteria must be a string anyway, to satisfy the "sort alphabetically" requirement.



          It's not necessary to sort the entire array or store a full copy of it. Instead, count duplicates in a hash table. Traverse the values of the hash to find a maximum. Traverse again to extract the corresponding keys.



          def highest_occurrence(arr)
          return unless arr.length
          count = Hash.new(0)
          arr.each { |k| count[k] += 1 }
          max = count.max_by{|k,n| n}[1]
          return count.select { |k,n| n==max }.keys.sort_by { |k| [ k.is_a?(Integer)?0:1, k.to_s ] }
          end





          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          Your test cases should include lexical sort of integers; that is, [9,11] must return [11,9]. (Your implementation does pass this test since you're converting everything to a string).



          As you suspected, mangling the input is hacky. This is better accomplished with a multi-criteria sort. This technique maps each individual value to an array of sort criteria. Ruby will compare the arrays only until it finds unequal elements; this means you can mix integers and strings in the second field, so long as the first field distinguishes them.



          For our problem, the first field will be 0 for integers else 1. The second field is the value itself.



          Although this approach will never compare integers to strings—if the first criteria distinguishes the two elements, the comparison is done—the second criteria must be a string anyway, to satisfy the "sort alphabetically" requirement.



          It's not necessary to sort the entire array or store a full copy of it. Instead, count duplicates in a hash table. Traverse the values of the hash to find a maximum. Traverse again to extract the corresponding keys.



          def highest_occurrence(arr)
          return unless arr.length
          count = Hash.new(0)
          arr.each { |k| count[k] += 1 }
          max = count.max_by{|k,n| n}[1]
          return count.select { |k,n| n==max }.keys.sort_by { |k| [ k.is_a?(Integer)?0:1, k.to_s ] }
          end






          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered 1 hour ago









          Oh My GoodnessOh My Goodness

          1,289214




          1,289214












          • $begingroup$
            Thanks for your answer and your very helpful example. I've stepped through it, and it's entirely clear. Very nice upgrade to mine! Two things I don't quite understand: the spec says to return integers sorted in ascending order, followed by strings sorted in ascending order. Why, then, should [9,11] return 11,9]? Also, why can't you just do .sort_by { |k| k.is_a?(Integer)?0:1 }? What test cases would fail to that? None of miine do.
            $endgroup$
            – BobRodes
            1 hour ago












          • $begingroup$
            I answered my second question, once I went to the trouble of reading the link that you posted and doing a few other test cases. All my test cases happen to have the max values in the proper sorted order already! I switched them around and they failed. So, that's how you do a nested sort: put the criteria in an array. I'll put that in the file. Also, now that I look at it, I think that's what you were trying to tell me up front. Is it possible that you intended to say that [11, 9] should return '[9,11]`?
            $endgroup$
            – BobRodes
            52 mins ago












          • $begingroup$
            One more thing. I don't think that return unless arr.length will ever return a , since 0 evaluates to true in Ruby. Is this a carry-over pattern from some other language such as JS? I would put return if arr.size.zero? myself.
            $endgroup$
            – BobRodes
            45 mins ago




















          • $begingroup$
            Thanks for your answer and your very helpful example. I've stepped through it, and it's entirely clear. Very nice upgrade to mine! Two things I don't quite understand: the spec says to return integers sorted in ascending order, followed by strings sorted in ascending order. Why, then, should [9,11] return 11,9]? Also, why can't you just do .sort_by { |k| k.is_a?(Integer)?0:1 }? What test cases would fail to that? None of miine do.
            $endgroup$
            – BobRodes
            1 hour ago












          • $begingroup$
            I answered my second question, once I went to the trouble of reading the link that you posted and doing a few other test cases. All my test cases happen to have the max values in the proper sorted order already! I switched them around and they failed. So, that's how you do a nested sort: put the criteria in an array. I'll put that in the file. Also, now that I look at it, I think that's what you were trying to tell me up front. Is it possible that you intended to say that [11, 9] should return '[9,11]`?
            $endgroup$
            – BobRodes
            52 mins ago












          • $begingroup$
            One more thing. I don't think that return unless arr.length will ever return a , since 0 evaluates to true in Ruby. Is this a carry-over pattern from some other language such as JS? I would put return if arr.size.zero? myself.
            $endgroup$
            – BobRodes
            45 mins ago


















          $begingroup$
          Thanks for your answer and your very helpful example. I've stepped through it, and it's entirely clear. Very nice upgrade to mine! Two things I don't quite understand: the spec says to return integers sorted in ascending order, followed by strings sorted in ascending order. Why, then, should [9,11] return 11,9]? Also, why can't you just do .sort_by { |k| k.is_a?(Integer)?0:1 }? What test cases would fail to that? None of miine do.
          $endgroup$
          – BobRodes
          1 hour ago






          $begingroup$
          Thanks for your answer and your very helpful example. I've stepped through it, and it's entirely clear. Very nice upgrade to mine! Two things I don't quite understand: the spec says to return integers sorted in ascending order, followed by strings sorted in ascending order. Why, then, should [9,11] return 11,9]? Also, why can't you just do .sort_by { |k| k.is_a?(Integer)?0:1 }? What test cases would fail to that? None of miine do.
          $endgroup$
          – BobRodes
          1 hour ago














          $begingroup$
          I answered my second question, once I went to the trouble of reading the link that you posted and doing a few other test cases. All my test cases happen to have the max values in the proper sorted order already! I switched them around and they failed. So, that's how you do a nested sort: put the criteria in an array. I'll put that in the file. Also, now that I look at it, I think that's what you were trying to tell me up front. Is it possible that you intended to say that [11, 9] should return '[9,11]`?
          $endgroup$
          – BobRodes
          52 mins ago






          $begingroup$
          I answered my second question, once I went to the trouble of reading the link that you posted and doing a few other test cases. All my test cases happen to have the max values in the proper sorted order already! I switched them around and they failed. So, that's how you do a nested sort: put the criteria in an array. I'll put that in the file. Also, now that I look at it, I think that's what you were trying to tell me up front. Is it possible that you intended to say that [11, 9] should return '[9,11]`?
          $endgroup$
          – BobRodes
          52 mins ago














          $begingroup$
          One more thing. I don't think that return unless arr.length will ever return a , since 0 evaluates to true in Ruby. Is this a carry-over pattern from some other language such as JS? I would put return if arr.size.zero? myself.
          $endgroup$
          – BobRodes
          45 mins ago






          $begingroup$
          One more thing. I don't think that return unless arr.length will ever return a , since 0 evaluates to true in Ruby. Is this a carry-over pattern from some other language such as JS? I would put return if arr.size.zero? myself.
          $endgroup$
          – BobRodes
          45 mins ago




















          draft saved

          draft discarded




















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Code Review Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fcodereview.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f215294%2fsorting-an-assortment-of-strings-and-integers-together-while-keeping-them-separ%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          Popular posts from this blog

          Сан-Квентин

          Алькесар

          Josef Freinademetz