Clockwise rotate a matrix in Scala












0














Given a matrix, clockwise rotate elements in it.
Examples:



Input
1 2 3
4 5 6
7 8 9

Output:
4 1 2
7 5 3
8 9 6


Input:
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16

Output:
5 1 2 3
9 10 6 4
13 11 7 8
14 15 16 12


Scala Implementation is below. I do feel that I do not need to have a rotatedMatrix predefined (which I am filling with -1) and I can build it up during my recursive calls, but I am not able to do it.
Thanks in advance for helping me on this.



import scala.util.Random

object MatrixRotate extends App {

def getCol(c: Int, m: Array[Array[Int]]): Seq[Int] = (0 to (m(0).length - 1)) map ( r => m(r)(c))
def getRow(r: Int, m: Array[Array[Int]]): Seq[Int] = m(r).toSeq
def innerMatrix(m: Array[Array[Int]]): Array[Array[Int]] = {
if (m.length == 0) Array.empty
else {
val rows = m.length - 1
val cols = m(0).length - 1

(1 until rows).map { r =>
(1 until cols).map { c =>
m(r)(c)
}.toArray
}.toArray
}
}

val rotatedMatrix = Array.fill(6)(Array.fill(6)(-1))
def rotateByOne(m: Array[Array[Int]], startRow: Int, startCol: Int,
endRow: Int, endCol: Int): Unit = {
m.size match {
case 0 =>
case _ =>
getRow(0, m) match {
case Nil =>
case x => x.init.zipWithIndex foreach { case (e, index) => rotatedMatrix(startRow)(startCol+index+1) = e }
}
getCol(m(0).length - 1, m) match {
case Nil =>
case x => x.init.zipWithIndex foreach { case (e, index) => rotatedMatrix(startRow+index+1)(endCol) = e }
}
getRow(m.length - 1, m) match {
case x :: Nil =>
case x => x.tail.zipWithIndex foreach { case (e, index) => rotatedMatrix(endRow)(startCol+index) = e }
}
getCol(0, m) match {
case x :: Nil =>
case x => x.tail.zipWithIndex foreach { case (e, index) => rotatedMatrix(startRow+index)(startCol) = e }
}
rotateByOne(innerMatrix(m), startRow + 1, startCol + 1, endRow - 1, endCol - 1)
}

}


val matrix = Array.fill(6)(Array.fill(6)(Random.nextInt(100)))
matrix foreach(row => println(row.mkString(",")))

println("----------")

rotateByOne(matrix, 0, 0, 5, 5)
rotatedMatrix foreach (row => println(row.mkString(",")))
}


Update



I realize that this code seems to be failing for rectangular matrix. I still need to solve it for that case.










share|improve this question





























    0














    Given a matrix, clockwise rotate elements in it.
    Examples:



    Input
    1 2 3
    4 5 6
    7 8 9

    Output:
    4 1 2
    7 5 3
    8 9 6


    Input:
    1 2 3 4
    5 6 7 8
    9 10 11 12
    13 14 15 16

    Output:
    5 1 2 3
    9 10 6 4
    13 11 7 8
    14 15 16 12


    Scala Implementation is below. I do feel that I do not need to have a rotatedMatrix predefined (which I am filling with -1) and I can build it up during my recursive calls, but I am not able to do it.
    Thanks in advance for helping me on this.



    import scala.util.Random

    object MatrixRotate extends App {

    def getCol(c: Int, m: Array[Array[Int]]): Seq[Int] = (0 to (m(0).length - 1)) map ( r => m(r)(c))
    def getRow(r: Int, m: Array[Array[Int]]): Seq[Int] = m(r).toSeq
    def innerMatrix(m: Array[Array[Int]]): Array[Array[Int]] = {
    if (m.length == 0) Array.empty
    else {
    val rows = m.length - 1
    val cols = m(0).length - 1

    (1 until rows).map { r =>
    (1 until cols).map { c =>
    m(r)(c)
    }.toArray
    }.toArray
    }
    }

    val rotatedMatrix = Array.fill(6)(Array.fill(6)(-1))
    def rotateByOne(m: Array[Array[Int]], startRow: Int, startCol: Int,
    endRow: Int, endCol: Int): Unit = {
    m.size match {
    case 0 =>
    case _ =>
    getRow(0, m) match {
    case Nil =>
    case x => x.init.zipWithIndex foreach { case (e, index) => rotatedMatrix(startRow)(startCol+index+1) = e }
    }
    getCol(m(0).length - 1, m) match {
    case Nil =>
    case x => x.init.zipWithIndex foreach { case (e, index) => rotatedMatrix(startRow+index+1)(endCol) = e }
    }
    getRow(m.length - 1, m) match {
    case x :: Nil =>
    case x => x.tail.zipWithIndex foreach { case (e, index) => rotatedMatrix(endRow)(startCol+index) = e }
    }
    getCol(0, m) match {
    case x :: Nil =>
    case x => x.tail.zipWithIndex foreach { case (e, index) => rotatedMatrix(startRow+index)(startCol) = e }
    }
    rotateByOne(innerMatrix(m), startRow + 1, startCol + 1, endRow - 1, endCol - 1)
    }

    }


    val matrix = Array.fill(6)(Array.fill(6)(Random.nextInt(100)))
    matrix foreach(row => println(row.mkString(",")))

    println("----------")

    rotateByOne(matrix, 0, 0, 5, 5)
    rotatedMatrix foreach (row => println(row.mkString(",")))
    }


    Update



    I realize that this code seems to be failing for rectangular matrix. I still need to solve it for that case.










    share|improve this question



























      0












      0








      0







      Given a matrix, clockwise rotate elements in it.
      Examples:



      Input
      1 2 3
      4 5 6
      7 8 9

      Output:
      4 1 2
      7 5 3
      8 9 6


      Input:
      1 2 3 4
      5 6 7 8
      9 10 11 12
      13 14 15 16

      Output:
      5 1 2 3
      9 10 6 4
      13 11 7 8
      14 15 16 12


      Scala Implementation is below. I do feel that I do not need to have a rotatedMatrix predefined (which I am filling with -1) and I can build it up during my recursive calls, but I am not able to do it.
      Thanks in advance for helping me on this.



      import scala.util.Random

      object MatrixRotate extends App {

      def getCol(c: Int, m: Array[Array[Int]]): Seq[Int] = (0 to (m(0).length - 1)) map ( r => m(r)(c))
      def getRow(r: Int, m: Array[Array[Int]]): Seq[Int] = m(r).toSeq
      def innerMatrix(m: Array[Array[Int]]): Array[Array[Int]] = {
      if (m.length == 0) Array.empty
      else {
      val rows = m.length - 1
      val cols = m(0).length - 1

      (1 until rows).map { r =>
      (1 until cols).map { c =>
      m(r)(c)
      }.toArray
      }.toArray
      }
      }

      val rotatedMatrix = Array.fill(6)(Array.fill(6)(-1))
      def rotateByOne(m: Array[Array[Int]], startRow: Int, startCol: Int,
      endRow: Int, endCol: Int): Unit = {
      m.size match {
      case 0 =>
      case _ =>
      getRow(0, m) match {
      case Nil =>
      case x => x.init.zipWithIndex foreach { case (e, index) => rotatedMatrix(startRow)(startCol+index+1) = e }
      }
      getCol(m(0).length - 1, m) match {
      case Nil =>
      case x => x.init.zipWithIndex foreach { case (e, index) => rotatedMatrix(startRow+index+1)(endCol) = e }
      }
      getRow(m.length - 1, m) match {
      case x :: Nil =>
      case x => x.tail.zipWithIndex foreach { case (e, index) => rotatedMatrix(endRow)(startCol+index) = e }
      }
      getCol(0, m) match {
      case x :: Nil =>
      case x => x.tail.zipWithIndex foreach { case (e, index) => rotatedMatrix(startRow+index)(startCol) = e }
      }
      rotateByOne(innerMatrix(m), startRow + 1, startCol + 1, endRow - 1, endCol - 1)
      }

      }


      val matrix = Array.fill(6)(Array.fill(6)(Random.nextInt(100)))
      matrix foreach(row => println(row.mkString(",")))

      println("----------")

      rotateByOne(matrix, 0, 0, 5, 5)
      rotatedMatrix foreach (row => println(row.mkString(",")))
      }


      Update



      I realize that this code seems to be failing for rectangular matrix. I still need to solve it for that case.










      share|improve this question















      Given a matrix, clockwise rotate elements in it.
      Examples:



      Input
      1 2 3
      4 5 6
      7 8 9

      Output:
      4 1 2
      7 5 3
      8 9 6


      Input:
      1 2 3 4
      5 6 7 8
      9 10 11 12
      13 14 15 16

      Output:
      5 1 2 3
      9 10 6 4
      13 11 7 8
      14 15 16 12


      Scala Implementation is below. I do feel that I do not need to have a rotatedMatrix predefined (which I am filling with -1) and I can build it up during my recursive calls, but I am not able to do it.
      Thanks in advance for helping me on this.



      import scala.util.Random

      object MatrixRotate extends App {

      def getCol(c: Int, m: Array[Array[Int]]): Seq[Int] = (0 to (m(0).length - 1)) map ( r => m(r)(c))
      def getRow(r: Int, m: Array[Array[Int]]): Seq[Int] = m(r).toSeq
      def innerMatrix(m: Array[Array[Int]]): Array[Array[Int]] = {
      if (m.length == 0) Array.empty
      else {
      val rows = m.length - 1
      val cols = m(0).length - 1

      (1 until rows).map { r =>
      (1 until cols).map { c =>
      m(r)(c)
      }.toArray
      }.toArray
      }
      }

      val rotatedMatrix = Array.fill(6)(Array.fill(6)(-1))
      def rotateByOne(m: Array[Array[Int]], startRow: Int, startCol: Int,
      endRow: Int, endCol: Int): Unit = {
      m.size match {
      case 0 =>
      case _ =>
      getRow(0, m) match {
      case Nil =>
      case x => x.init.zipWithIndex foreach { case (e, index) => rotatedMatrix(startRow)(startCol+index+1) = e }
      }
      getCol(m(0).length - 1, m) match {
      case Nil =>
      case x => x.init.zipWithIndex foreach { case (e, index) => rotatedMatrix(startRow+index+1)(endCol) = e }
      }
      getRow(m.length - 1, m) match {
      case x :: Nil =>
      case x => x.tail.zipWithIndex foreach { case (e, index) => rotatedMatrix(endRow)(startCol+index) = e }
      }
      getCol(0, m) match {
      case x :: Nil =>
      case x => x.tail.zipWithIndex foreach { case (e, index) => rotatedMatrix(startRow+index)(startCol) = e }
      }
      rotateByOne(innerMatrix(m), startRow + 1, startCol + 1, endRow - 1, endCol - 1)
      }

      }


      val matrix = Array.fill(6)(Array.fill(6)(Random.nextInt(100)))
      matrix foreach(row => println(row.mkString(",")))

      println("----------")

      rotateByOne(matrix, 0, 0, 5, 5)
      rotatedMatrix foreach (row => println(row.mkString(",")))
      }


      Update



      I realize that this code seems to be failing for rectangular matrix. I still need to solve it for that case.







      interview-questions functional-programming matrix scala






      share|improve this question















      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited Dec 28 '18 at 20:05

























      asked Dec 27 '18 at 20:19









      vikrant

      787




      787






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          1














          Functional programming



          Since you've tagged this post with functional-programming I guess that the goal of this exercise may have been to practice functional programming or to present you skills in functional programming. This way or another, I'll stick to the assumption that it was supposed to be written in the functional programming paradigm.



          When working with functional code, a function returning a Unit is a huge warning sign. In functional programming we compose programs of functions which are (quoting John De Goes):





          1. Total: They return an output for every input.

          2. Deterministic: They return the same output for the same input.

          3. Pure: Their only effect is computing the output.




          In FP, if a function returns a Unit, it basically means that the function does nothing, as the only thing a function can do is to return a result.



          rotatedMatrix



          In FP preallocating the rotatedMatrix doesn't make sens, because in order to stay Pure rotateByOne is disallowed to mutate the rotatedMatrix. And the solution is simple, the rotateByOne should allocate and return a rotated matrix.



          rotateByOne



          While moving the allocation of rotatedMatrix into the rotateByOne would make rotateByOne a pure function, the implementation of the function would still be clattered with state mutations, and generally much more complex than it needs to be.



          So let's have a look at how it can be improved.



          Edge-case/error handling aside, I would expect the problem to be solved with a def rotateByOne(in: Array[Array[Int]]): Array[Array[Int]]. That function would have to create a new matrix of the same dimensions, finding a new value of each cell in the matrix. It's implementation could look like



            def rotateByOne(in: Array[Array[Int]]): Array[Array[Int]] = {
          val size = in.length
          (0 until size).map { i =>
          (0 until size).map { j =>
          newValueAt(in, i, j)
          }.toArray
          }.toArray
          }


          Now all that's left is to implement the def newValueAt(in: Array[Array[Int]], i: Int, j: Int): Int which is again - a pure function - doing nothing but returning an Int. There are 5 cases to be considered, in newValueAt. Using the value of the cell:
          below, above, on the right, on the left, and the same cell.



          For 3 x 3 matrix it's:



          b l l
          b s a
          r r a


          For 4 x 4 matrix it's:



          b l l l
          b b l a
          b r a a
          r r r a


          After a few minutes of trial and error, I've ended up with the following implementation:



            def newValueAt(in: Array[Array[Int]], i: Int, j: Int): Int = {
          val s = in.size - 1
          if (i >= j && s - i > j) in(i + 1)(j) // 'b'
          else if (i < j && s - i >= j) in(i)(j - 1) // 'l'
          else if (i <= j && s - i < j) in(i - 1)(j) // 'a'
          else if (i > j && s - i <= j) in(i)(j + 1) // 'r'
          else in(i)(j) // 's'
          }





          share|improve this answer





















          • Thanks for explaining it so well. rotateByOne not returning new matrix was troubling me as well (as I observed in my question), but I was not for the right reasons. Your guidelines will help me in thinking it right way. I do think that identifying new value for each position is a difficult approach for this problem and the current solution handles it in a different way (with recursion). Approach is inspired by this answer codereview.stackexchange.com/a/210390/37522 .
            – vikrant
            Dec 28 '18 at 20:03













          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%2f210450%2fclockwise-rotate-a-matrix-in-scala%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














          Functional programming



          Since you've tagged this post with functional-programming I guess that the goal of this exercise may have been to practice functional programming or to present you skills in functional programming. This way or another, I'll stick to the assumption that it was supposed to be written in the functional programming paradigm.



          When working with functional code, a function returning a Unit is a huge warning sign. In functional programming we compose programs of functions which are (quoting John De Goes):





          1. Total: They return an output for every input.

          2. Deterministic: They return the same output for the same input.

          3. Pure: Their only effect is computing the output.




          In FP, if a function returns a Unit, it basically means that the function does nothing, as the only thing a function can do is to return a result.



          rotatedMatrix



          In FP preallocating the rotatedMatrix doesn't make sens, because in order to stay Pure rotateByOne is disallowed to mutate the rotatedMatrix. And the solution is simple, the rotateByOne should allocate and return a rotated matrix.



          rotateByOne



          While moving the allocation of rotatedMatrix into the rotateByOne would make rotateByOne a pure function, the implementation of the function would still be clattered with state mutations, and generally much more complex than it needs to be.



          So let's have a look at how it can be improved.



          Edge-case/error handling aside, I would expect the problem to be solved with a def rotateByOne(in: Array[Array[Int]]): Array[Array[Int]]. That function would have to create a new matrix of the same dimensions, finding a new value of each cell in the matrix. It's implementation could look like



            def rotateByOne(in: Array[Array[Int]]): Array[Array[Int]] = {
          val size = in.length
          (0 until size).map { i =>
          (0 until size).map { j =>
          newValueAt(in, i, j)
          }.toArray
          }.toArray
          }


          Now all that's left is to implement the def newValueAt(in: Array[Array[Int]], i: Int, j: Int): Int which is again - a pure function - doing nothing but returning an Int. There are 5 cases to be considered, in newValueAt. Using the value of the cell:
          below, above, on the right, on the left, and the same cell.



          For 3 x 3 matrix it's:



          b l l
          b s a
          r r a


          For 4 x 4 matrix it's:



          b l l l
          b b l a
          b r a a
          r r r a


          After a few minutes of trial and error, I've ended up with the following implementation:



            def newValueAt(in: Array[Array[Int]], i: Int, j: Int): Int = {
          val s = in.size - 1
          if (i >= j && s - i > j) in(i + 1)(j) // 'b'
          else if (i < j && s - i >= j) in(i)(j - 1) // 'l'
          else if (i <= j && s - i < j) in(i - 1)(j) // 'a'
          else if (i > j && s - i <= j) in(i)(j + 1) // 'r'
          else in(i)(j) // 's'
          }





          share|improve this answer





















          • Thanks for explaining it so well. rotateByOne not returning new matrix was troubling me as well (as I observed in my question), but I was not for the right reasons. Your guidelines will help me in thinking it right way. I do think that identifying new value for each position is a difficult approach for this problem and the current solution handles it in a different way (with recursion). Approach is inspired by this answer codereview.stackexchange.com/a/210390/37522 .
            – vikrant
            Dec 28 '18 at 20:03


















          1














          Functional programming



          Since you've tagged this post with functional-programming I guess that the goal of this exercise may have been to practice functional programming or to present you skills in functional programming. This way or another, I'll stick to the assumption that it was supposed to be written in the functional programming paradigm.



          When working with functional code, a function returning a Unit is a huge warning sign. In functional programming we compose programs of functions which are (quoting John De Goes):





          1. Total: They return an output for every input.

          2. Deterministic: They return the same output for the same input.

          3. Pure: Their only effect is computing the output.




          In FP, if a function returns a Unit, it basically means that the function does nothing, as the only thing a function can do is to return a result.



          rotatedMatrix



          In FP preallocating the rotatedMatrix doesn't make sens, because in order to stay Pure rotateByOne is disallowed to mutate the rotatedMatrix. And the solution is simple, the rotateByOne should allocate and return a rotated matrix.



          rotateByOne



          While moving the allocation of rotatedMatrix into the rotateByOne would make rotateByOne a pure function, the implementation of the function would still be clattered with state mutations, and generally much more complex than it needs to be.



          So let's have a look at how it can be improved.



          Edge-case/error handling aside, I would expect the problem to be solved with a def rotateByOne(in: Array[Array[Int]]): Array[Array[Int]]. That function would have to create a new matrix of the same dimensions, finding a new value of each cell in the matrix. It's implementation could look like



            def rotateByOne(in: Array[Array[Int]]): Array[Array[Int]] = {
          val size = in.length
          (0 until size).map { i =>
          (0 until size).map { j =>
          newValueAt(in, i, j)
          }.toArray
          }.toArray
          }


          Now all that's left is to implement the def newValueAt(in: Array[Array[Int]], i: Int, j: Int): Int which is again - a pure function - doing nothing but returning an Int. There are 5 cases to be considered, in newValueAt. Using the value of the cell:
          below, above, on the right, on the left, and the same cell.



          For 3 x 3 matrix it's:



          b l l
          b s a
          r r a


          For 4 x 4 matrix it's:



          b l l l
          b b l a
          b r a a
          r r r a


          After a few minutes of trial and error, I've ended up with the following implementation:



            def newValueAt(in: Array[Array[Int]], i: Int, j: Int): Int = {
          val s = in.size - 1
          if (i >= j && s - i > j) in(i + 1)(j) // 'b'
          else if (i < j && s - i >= j) in(i)(j - 1) // 'l'
          else if (i <= j && s - i < j) in(i - 1)(j) // 'a'
          else if (i > j && s - i <= j) in(i)(j + 1) // 'r'
          else in(i)(j) // 's'
          }





          share|improve this answer





















          • Thanks for explaining it so well. rotateByOne not returning new matrix was troubling me as well (as I observed in my question), but I was not for the right reasons. Your guidelines will help me in thinking it right way. I do think that identifying new value for each position is a difficult approach for this problem and the current solution handles it in a different way (with recursion). Approach is inspired by this answer codereview.stackexchange.com/a/210390/37522 .
            – vikrant
            Dec 28 '18 at 20:03
















          1












          1








          1






          Functional programming



          Since you've tagged this post with functional-programming I guess that the goal of this exercise may have been to practice functional programming or to present you skills in functional programming. This way or another, I'll stick to the assumption that it was supposed to be written in the functional programming paradigm.



          When working with functional code, a function returning a Unit is a huge warning sign. In functional programming we compose programs of functions which are (quoting John De Goes):





          1. Total: They return an output for every input.

          2. Deterministic: They return the same output for the same input.

          3. Pure: Their only effect is computing the output.




          In FP, if a function returns a Unit, it basically means that the function does nothing, as the only thing a function can do is to return a result.



          rotatedMatrix



          In FP preallocating the rotatedMatrix doesn't make sens, because in order to stay Pure rotateByOne is disallowed to mutate the rotatedMatrix. And the solution is simple, the rotateByOne should allocate and return a rotated matrix.



          rotateByOne



          While moving the allocation of rotatedMatrix into the rotateByOne would make rotateByOne a pure function, the implementation of the function would still be clattered with state mutations, and generally much more complex than it needs to be.



          So let's have a look at how it can be improved.



          Edge-case/error handling aside, I would expect the problem to be solved with a def rotateByOne(in: Array[Array[Int]]): Array[Array[Int]]. That function would have to create a new matrix of the same dimensions, finding a new value of each cell in the matrix. It's implementation could look like



            def rotateByOne(in: Array[Array[Int]]): Array[Array[Int]] = {
          val size = in.length
          (0 until size).map { i =>
          (0 until size).map { j =>
          newValueAt(in, i, j)
          }.toArray
          }.toArray
          }


          Now all that's left is to implement the def newValueAt(in: Array[Array[Int]], i: Int, j: Int): Int which is again - a pure function - doing nothing but returning an Int. There are 5 cases to be considered, in newValueAt. Using the value of the cell:
          below, above, on the right, on the left, and the same cell.



          For 3 x 3 matrix it's:



          b l l
          b s a
          r r a


          For 4 x 4 matrix it's:



          b l l l
          b b l a
          b r a a
          r r r a


          After a few minutes of trial and error, I've ended up with the following implementation:



            def newValueAt(in: Array[Array[Int]], i: Int, j: Int): Int = {
          val s = in.size - 1
          if (i >= j && s - i > j) in(i + 1)(j) // 'b'
          else if (i < j && s - i >= j) in(i)(j - 1) // 'l'
          else if (i <= j && s - i < j) in(i - 1)(j) // 'a'
          else if (i > j && s - i <= j) in(i)(j + 1) // 'r'
          else in(i)(j) // 's'
          }





          share|improve this answer












          Functional programming



          Since you've tagged this post with functional-programming I guess that the goal of this exercise may have been to practice functional programming or to present you skills in functional programming. This way or another, I'll stick to the assumption that it was supposed to be written in the functional programming paradigm.



          When working with functional code, a function returning a Unit is a huge warning sign. In functional programming we compose programs of functions which are (quoting John De Goes):





          1. Total: They return an output for every input.

          2. Deterministic: They return the same output for the same input.

          3. Pure: Their only effect is computing the output.




          In FP, if a function returns a Unit, it basically means that the function does nothing, as the only thing a function can do is to return a result.



          rotatedMatrix



          In FP preallocating the rotatedMatrix doesn't make sens, because in order to stay Pure rotateByOne is disallowed to mutate the rotatedMatrix. And the solution is simple, the rotateByOne should allocate and return a rotated matrix.



          rotateByOne



          While moving the allocation of rotatedMatrix into the rotateByOne would make rotateByOne a pure function, the implementation of the function would still be clattered with state mutations, and generally much more complex than it needs to be.



          So let's have a look at how it can be improved.



          Edge-case/error handling aside, I would expect the problem to be solved with a def rotateByOne(in: Array[Array[Int]]): Array[Array[Int]]. That function would have to create a new matrix of the same dimensions, finding a new value of each cell in the matrix. It's implementation could look like



            def rotateByOne(in: Array[Array[Int]]): Array[Array[Int]] = {
          val size = in.length
          (0 until size).map { i =>
          (0 until size).map { j =>
          newValueAt(in, i, j)
          }.toArray
          }.toArray
          }


          Now all that's left is to implement the def newValueAt(in: Array[Array[Int]], i: Int, j: Int): Int which is again - a pure function - doing nothing but returning an Int. There are 5 cases to be considered, in newValueAt. Using the value of the cell:
          below, above, on the right, on the left, and the same cell.



          For 3 x 3 matrix it's:



          b l l
          b s a
          r r a


          For 4 x 4 matrix it's:



          b l l l
          b b l a
          b r a a
          r r r a


          After a few minutes of trial and error, I've ended up with the following implementation:



            def newValueAt(in: Array[Array[Int]], i: Int, j: Int): Int = {
          val s = in.size - 1
          if (i >= j && s - i > j) in(i + 1)(j) // 'b'
          else if (i < j && s - i >= j) in(i)(j - 1) // 'l'
          else if (i <= j && s - i < j) in(i - 1)(j) // 'a'
          else if (i > j && s - i <= j) in(i)(j + 1) // 'r'
          else in(i)(j) // 's'
          }






          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered Dec 28 '18 at 13:59









          Sumik

          911




          911












          • Thanks for explaining it so well. rotateByOne not returning new matrix was troubling me as well (as I observed in my question), but I was not for the right reasons. Your guidelines will help me in thinking it right way. I do think that identifying new value for each position is a difficult approach for this problem and the current solution handles it in a different way (with recursion). Approach is inspired by this answer codereview.stackexchange.com/a/210390/37522 .
            – vikrant
            Dec 28 '18 at 20:03




















          • Thanks for explaining it so well. rotateByOne not returning new matrix was troubling me as well (as I observed in my question), but I was not for the right reasons. Your guidelines will help me in thinking it right way. I do think that identifying new value for each position is a difficult approach for this problem and the current solution handles it in a different way (with recursion). Approach is inspired by this answer codereview.stackexchange.com/a/210390/37522 .
            – vikrant
            Dec 28 '18 at 20:03


















          Thanks for explaining it so well. rotateByOne not returning new matrix was troubling me as well (as I observed in my question), but I was not for the right reasons. Your guidelines will help me in thinking it right way. I do think that identifying new value for each position is a difficult approach for this problem and the current solution handles it in a different way (with recursion). Approach is inspired by this answer codereview.stackexchange.com/a/210390/37522 .
          – vikrant
          Dec 28 '18 at 20:03






          Thanks for explaining it so well. rotateByOne not returning new matrix was troubling me as well (as I observed in my question), but I was not for the right reasons. Your guidelines will help me in thinking it right way. I do think that identifying new value for each position is a difficult approach for this problem and the current solution handles it in a different way (with recursion). Approach is inspired by this answer codereview.stackexchange.com/a/210390/37522 .
          – vikrant
          Dec 28 '18 at 20:03




















          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.





          Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


          Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


          • 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.


          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%2f210450%2fclockwise-rotate-a-matrix-in-scala%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