Terse Method to Swap Lowest for Highest?Efficient method for Inserting arrays into arraysSwap elements in list without copyBetter method to swap the values of two 2-D arraysHow to get this list with a terse methodBuilt-in (or Terse) Method to Combine and Transpose DatasetsAre there more readable and terse method can get this listefficiently method for generating a sequenceSimple method to sort versionsFunction for SortBySwap Elements of a continuous List, possible?

If I readied a spell with the trigger "When I take damage", do I have to make a constitution saving throw to avoid losing Concentration?

String won't reverse using reverse_copy

Why do people keep telling me that I am a bad photographer?

Building a list of products from the elements in another list

Why wasn't the Night King naked in S08E03?

How to convert a MULTIPOLYGON field stored as text to geometry data type in postGIS so that it can be plotted in QGIS

Can a nothic's Weird Insight action discover secrets about a player character that the character doesn't know about themselves?

Is latino sine flexione dead?

As matter approaches a black hole, does it speed up?

Pressure inside an infinite ocean?

Why is Arya visibly scared in the library in S8E3?

I need a disease

Multi-channel audio upsampling interpolation

Shantae Dance Matching

How can I get a job without pushing my family's income into a higher tax bracket?

Purpose of のは in this sentence?

How did Kirk identify Gorgan in "And the Children Shall Lead"?

Randomness of Python's random

Make some Prime Squares!

Why do only some White Walkers shatter into ice chips?

How do I tell my manager that his code review comment is wrong?

Can Infinity Stones be retrieved more than once?

Independent, post-Brexit Scotland - would there be a hard border with England?

Double or Take game



Terse Method to Swap Lowest for Highest?


Efficient method for Inserting arrays into arraysSwap elements in list without copyBetter method to swap the values of two 2-D arraysHow to get this list with a terse methodBuilt-in (or Terse) Method to Combine and Transpose DatasetsAre there more readable and terse method can get this listefficiently method for generating a sequenceSimple method to sort versionsFunction for SortBySwap Elements of a continuous List, possible?













12












$begingroup$


I have built a solution to swap the lowest values with the highest values in a list.



With



SeedRandom[987]
test = RandomSample@*Join @@ Range @@@ 6, 10, 56, 60, 1, 5, -5, -1



-1, 2, 7, 8, 60, 57, 58, 10, 9, 4, -5, -3, 3, 59, 1, 5, -4, 6, -2, 56



Then



swapPositions =
PermutationReplace[
Ordering@Ordering@test,
With[len = Length@test,
Cycles@
Transpose@Range @@ 1, Floor[len/2], Reverse@*Range @@ Ceiling[len/2] + 1, len
]
];

Sort[test][[swapPositions]]



56, 9, 4, 3, -5, -2, -3, 1, 2, 7, 60, 58, 8, -4, 10, 6, 59, 5, 57, -1



The largest half of the numbers have had their positions swapped with lowest half of the numbers.



However, it feels too verbose and I think Sort might be expensive in this case. Is there a built-in function or more terse method to achieve this. Of course with no loss in speed. The actual case is for list of length 100000 and more.










share|improve this question











$endgroup$
















    12












    $begingroup$


    I have built a solution to swap the lowest values with the highest values in a list.



    With



    SeedRandom[987]
    test = RandomSample@*Join @@ Range @@@ 6, 10, 56, 60, 1, 5, -5, -1



    -1, 2, 7, 8, 60, 57, 58, 10, 9, 4, -5, -3, 3, 59, 1, 5, -4, 6, -2, 56



    Then



    swapPositions =
    PermutationReplace[
    Ordering@Ordering@test,
    With[len = Length@test,
    Cycles@
    Transpose@Range @@ 1, Floor[len/2], Reverse@*Range @@ Ceiling[len/2] + 1, len
    ]
    ];

    Sort[test][[swapPositions]]



    56, 9, 4, 3, -5, -2, -3, 1, 2, 7, 60, 58, 8, -4, 10, 6, 59, 5, 57, -1



    The largest half of the numbers have had their positions swapped with lowest half of the numbers.



    However, it feels too verbose and I think Sort might be expensive in this case. Is there a built-in function or more terse method to achieve this. Of course with no loss in speed. The actual case is for list of length 100000 and more.










    share|improve this question











    $endgroup$














      12












      12








      12





      $begingroup$


      I have built a solution to swap the lowest values with the highest values in a list.



      With



      SeedRandom[987]
      test = RandomSample@*Join @@ Range @@@ 6, 10, 56, 60, 1, 5, -5, -1



      -1, 2, 7, 8, 60, 57, 58, 10, 9, 4, -5, -3, 3, 59, 1, 5, -4, 6, -2, 56



      Then



      swapPositions =
      PermutationReplace[
      Ordering@Ordering@test,
      With[len = Length@test,
      Cycles@
      Transpose@Range @@ 1, Floor[len/2], Reverse@*Range @@ Ceiling[len/2] + 1, len
      ]
      ];

      Sort[test][[swapPositions]]



      56, 9, 4, 3, -5, -2, -3, 1, 2, 7, 60, 58, 8, -4, 10, 6, 59, 5, 57, -1



      The largest half of the numbers have had their positions swapped with lowest half of the numbers.



      However, it feels too verbose and I think Sort might be expensive in this case. Is there a built-in function or more terse method to achieve this. Of course with no loss in speed. The actual case is for list of length 100000 and more.










      share|improve this question











      $endgroup$




      I have built a solution to swap the lowest values with the highest values in a list.



      With



      SeedRandom[987]
      test = RandomSample@*Join @@ Range @@@ 6, 10, 56, 60, 1, 5, -5, -1



      -1, 2, 7, 8, 60, 57, 58, 10, 9, 4, -5, -3, 3, 59, 1, 5, -4, 6, -2, 56



      Then



      swapPositions =
      PermutationReplace[
      Ordering@Ordering@test,
      With[len = Length@test,
      Cycles@
      Transpose@Range @@ 1, Floor[len/2], Reverse@*Range @@ Ceiling[len/2] + 1, len
      ]
      ];

      Sort[test][[swapPositions]]



      56, 9, 4, 3, -5, -2, -3, 1, 2, 7, 60, 58, 8, -4, 10, 6, 59, 5, 57, -1



      The largest half of the numbers have had their positions swapped with lowest half of the numbers.



      However, it feels too verbose and I think Sort might be expensive in this case. Is there a built-in function or more terse method to achieve this. Of course with no loss in speed. The actual case is for list of length 100000 and more.







      list-manipulation performance-tuning sorting permutation






      share|improve this question















      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited Mar 23 at 2:15









      J. M. is away

      99k10311470




      99k10311470










      asked Mar 22 at 20:57









      EdmundEdmund

      26.9k330103




      26.9k330103




















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          15












          $begingroup$

          How about:



          Module[tmp = test,
          With[ord=Ordering[tmp],
          tmp[[ord]] = Reverse @ tmp[[ord]]];
          tmp
          ]



          56, 9, 4, 3, -5, -2, -3, 1, 2, 7, 60, 58, 8, -4, 10, 6, 59, 5, 57, -1







          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$








          • 1




            $begingroup$
            That is so obvious I want to cry. Thanks (+1).
            $endgroup$
            – Edmund
            Mar 22 at 21:15


















          7












          $begingroup$

          This is equivalent to Carl's procedure, except that it uses one less scratch list:



          With[ord = Ordering[test],
          test[[PermutationProduct[Reverse[ord], InversePermutation[ord]]]]]
          56, 9, 4, 3, -5, -2, -3, 1, 2, 7, 60, 58, 8, -4, 10, 6, 59, 5, 57, -1


          Recall that list[[perm]] = list is equivalent to list = list[[InversePermutation[perm]]], where perm is a permutation list. (The situation is equivalent to list.pmat being the same as Transpose[pmat].list if pmat is a permutation matrix.) You can then use PermutationProduct[] to compose successive permutations.



          (This was supposed to be a comment, but it got too long.)






          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$












          • $begingroup$
            This solution doesn't copy the list so may be faster than Carl's. (+1).
            $endgroup$
            – Edmund
            Mar 23 at 3:38










          • $begingroup$
            FWIW, I consistently get 56, -2, 6, -4, 5, 1, 59, 3, -3, -5, 4, 9, 10, 58, 57, 60, 8, 7, 2, -1 from this.
            $endgroup$
            – Christopher Lamb
            Mar 23 at 16:01











          • $begingroup$
            @Rabbit, what version number of Mathematica is giving that result?
            $endgroup$
            – J. M. is away
            Mar 23 at 16:10










          • $begingroup$
            11.3.0.0 (5944644, 2018030701) Win 10. I did a trace, which might have had the needed info but I didn't catch it. Started w/ fresh kernel, & repeated, w/ same result. Baffled.
            $endgroup$
            – Christopher Lamb
            Mar 23 at 16:16






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            At least on my machine, the questioner's original (very verbose) proposed solution is faster than any other proposal. In order of presentation: 0.0000114366 v. 0.0000357762 v. 0.0000164219 (AbsoluteTiming in seconds).
            $endgroup$
            – CElliott
            Apr 3 at 14:10












          Your Answer








          StackExchange.ready(function()
          var channelOptions =
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "387"
          ;
          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%2fmathematica.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f193790%2fterse-method-to-swap-lowest-for-highest%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes








          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          15












          $begingroup$

          How about:



          Module[tmp = test,
          With[ord=Ordering[tmp],
          tmp[[ord]] = Reverse @ tmp[[ord]]];
          tmp
          ]



          56, 9, 4, 3, -5, -2, -3, 1, 2, 7, 60, 58, 8, -4, 10, 6, 59, 5, 57, -1







          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$








          • 1




            $begingroup$
            That is so obvious I want to cry. Thanks (+1).
            $endgroup$
            – Edmund
            Mar 22 at 21:15















          15












          $begingroup$

          How about:



          Module[tmp = test,
          With[ord=Ordering[tmp],
          tmp[[ord]] = Reverse @ tmp[[ord]]];
          tmp
          ]



          56, 9, 4, 3, -5, -2, -3, 1, 2, 7, 60, 58, 8, -4, 10, 6, 59, 5, 57, -1







          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$








          • 1




            $begingroup$
            That is so obvious I want to cry. Thanks (+1).
            $endgroup$
            – Edmund
            Mar 22 at 21:15













          15












          15








          15





          $begingroup$

          How about:



          Module[tmp = test,
          With[ord=Ordering[tmp],
          tmp[[ord]] = Reverse @ tmp[[ord]]];
          tmp
          ]



          56, 9, 4, 3, -5, -2, -3, 1, 2, 7, 60, 58, 8, -4, 10, 6, 59, 5, 57, -1







          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          How about:



          Module[tmp = test,
          With[ord=Ordering[tmp],
          tmp[[ord]] = Reverse @ tmp[[ord]]];
          tmp
          ]



          56, 9, 4, 3, -5, -2, -3, 1, 2, 7, 60, 58, 8, -4, 10, 6, 59, 5, 57, -1








          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered Mar 22 at 21:11









          Carl WollCarl Woll

          76.8k3101201




          76.8k3101201







          • 1




            $begingroup$
            That is so obvious I want to cry. Thanks (+1).
            $endgroup$
            – Edmund
            Mar 22 at 21:15












          • 1




            $begingroup$
            That is so obvious I want to cry. Thanks (+1).
            $endgroup$
            – Edmund
            Mar 22 at 21:15







          1




          1




          $begingroup$
          That is so obvious I want to cry. Thanks (+1).
          $endgroup$
          – Edmund
          Mar 22 at 21:15




          $begingroup$
          That is so obvious I want to cry. Thanks (+1).
          $endgroup$
          – Edmund
          Mar 22 at 21:15











          7












          $begingroup$

          This is equivalent to Carl's procedure, except that it uses one less scratch list:



          With[ord = Ordering[test],
          test[[PermutationProduct[Reverse[ord], InversePermutation[ord]]]]]
          56, 9, 4, 3, -5, -2, -3, 1, 2, 7, 60, 58, 8, -4, 10, 6, 59, 5, 57, -1


          Recall that list[[perm]] = list is equivalent to list = list[[InversePermutation[perm]]], where perm is a permutation list. (The situation is equivalent to list.pmat being the same as Transpose[pmat].list if pmat is a permutation matrix.) You can then use PermutationProduct[] to compose successive permutations.



          (This was supposed to be a comment, but it got too long.)






          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$












          • $begingroup$
            This solution doesn't copy the list so may be faster than Carl's. (+1).
            $endgroup$
            – Edmund
            Mar 23 at 3:38










          • $begingroup$
            FWIW, I consistently get 56, -2, 6, -4, 5, 1, 59, 3, -3, -5, 4, 9, 10, 58, 57, 60, 8, 7, 2, -1 from this.
            $endgroup$
            – Christopher Lamb
            Mar 23 at 16:01











          • $begingroup$
            @Rabbit, what version number of Mathematica is giving that result?
            $endgroup$
            – J. M. is away
            Mar 23 at 16:10










          • $begingroup$
            11.3.0.0 (5944644, 2018030701) Win 10. I did a trace, which might have had the needed info but I didn't catch it. Started w/ fresh kernel, & repeated, w/ same result. Baffled.
            $endgroup$
            – Christopher Lamb
            Mar 23 at 16:16






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            At least on my machine, the questioner's original (very verbose) proposed solution is faster than any other proposal. In order of presentation: 0.0000114366 v. 0.0000357762 v. 0.0000164219 (AbsoluteTiming in seconds).
            $endgroup$
            – CElliott
            Apr 3 at 14:10
















          7












          $begingroup$

          This is equivalent to Carl's procedure, except that it uses one less scratch list:



          With[ord = Ordering[test],
          test[[PermutationProduct[Reverse[ord], InversePermutation[ord]]]]]
          56, 9, 4, 3, -5, -2, -3, 1, 2, 7, 60, 58, 8, -4, 10, 6, 59, 5, 57, -1


          Recall that list[[perm]] = list is equivalent to list = list[[InversePermutation[perm]]], where perm is a permutation list. (The situation is equivalent to list.pmat being the same as Transpose[pmat].list if pmat is a permutation matrix.) You can then use PermutationProduct[] to compose successive permutations.



          (This was supposed to be a comment, but it got too long.)






          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$












          • $begingroup$
            This solution doesn't copy the list so may be faster than Carl's. (+1).
            $endgroup$
            – Edmund
            Mar 23 at 3:38










          • $begingroup$
            FWIW, I consistently get 56, -2, 6, -4, 5, 1, 59, 3, -3, -5, 4, 9, 10, 58, 57, 60, 8, 7, 2, -1 from this.
            $endgroup$
            – Christopher Lamb
            Mar 23 at 16:01











          • $begingroup$
            @Rabbit, what version number of Mathematica is giving that result?
            $endgroup$
            – J. M. is away
            Mar 23 at 16:10










          • $begingroup$
            11.3.0.0 (5944644, 2018030701) Win 10. I did a trace, which might have had the needed info but I didn't catch it. Started w/ fresh kernel, & repeated, w/ same result. Baffled.
            $endgroup$
            – Christopher Lamb
            Mar 23 at 16:16






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            At least on my machine, the questioner's original (very verbose) proposed solution is faster than any other proposal. In order of presentation: 0.0000114366 v. 0.0000357762 v. 0.0000164219 (AbsoluteTiming in seconds).
            $endgroup$
            – CElliott
            Apr 3 at 14:10














          7












          7








          7





          $begingroup$

          This is equivalent to Carl's procedure, except that it uses one less scratch list:



          With[ord = Ordering[test],
          test[[PermutationProduct[Reverse[ord], InversePermutation[ord]]]]]
          56, 9, 4, 3, -5, -2, -3, 1, 2, 7, 60, 58, 8, -4, 10, 6, 59, 5, 57, -1


          Recall that list[[perm]] = list is equivalent to list = list[[InversePermutation[perm]]], where perm is a permutation list. (The situation is equivalent to list.pmat being the same as Transpose[pmat].list if pmat is a permutation matrix.) You can then use PermutationProduct[] to compose successive permutations.



          (This was supposed to be a comment, but it got too long.)






          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$



          This is equivalent to Carl's procedure, except that it uses one less scratch list:



          With[ord = Ordering[test],
          test[[PermutationProduct[Reverse[ord], InversePermutation[ord]]]]]
          56, 9, 4, 3, -5, -2, -3, 1, 2, 7, 60, 58, 8, -4, 10, 6, 59, 5, 57, -1


          Recall that list[[perm]] = list is equivalent to list = list[[InversePermutation[perm]]], where perm is a permutation list. (The situation is equivalent to list.pmat being the same as Transpose[pmat].list if pmat is a permutation matrix.) You can then use PermutationProduct[] to compose successive permutations.



          (This was supposed to be a comment, but it got too long.)







          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited Mar 23 at 2:27

























          answered Mar 23 at 2:14









          J. M. is awayJ. M. is away

          99k10311470




          99k10311470











          • $begingroup$
            This solution doesn't copy the list so may be faster than Carl's. (+1).
            $endgroup$
            – Edmund
            Mar 23 at 3:38










          • $begingroup$
            FWIW, I consistently get 56, -2, 6, -4, 5, 1, 59, 3, -3, -5, 4, 9, 10, 58, 57, 60, 8, 7, 2, -1 from this.
            $endgroup$
            – Christopher Lamb
            Mar 23 at 16:01











          • $begingroup$
            @Rabbit, what version number of Mathematica is giving that result?
            $endgroup$
            – J. M. is away
            Mar 23 at 16:10










          • $begingroup$
            11.3.0.0 (5944644, 2018030701) Win 10. I did a trace, which might have had the needed info but I didn't catch it. Started w/ fresh kernel, & repeated, w/ same result. Baffled.
            $endgroup$
            – Christopher Lamb
            Mar 23 at 16:16






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            At least on my machine, the questioner's original (very verbose) proposed solution is faster than any other proposal. In order of presentation: 0.0000114366 v. 0.0000357762 v. 0.0000164219 (AbsoluteTiming in seconds).
            $endgroup$
            – CElliott
            Apr 3 at 14:10

















          • $begingroup$
            This solution doesn't copy the list so may be faster than Carl's. (+1).
            $endgroup$
            – Edmund
            Mar 23 at 3:38










          • $begingroup$
            FWIW, I consistently get 56, -2, 6, -4, 5, 1, 59, 3, -3, -5, 4, 9, 10, 58, 57, 60, 8, 7, 2, -1 from this.
            $endgroup$
            – Christopher Lamb
            Mar 23 at 16:01











          • $begingroup$
            @Rabbit, what version number of Mathematica is giving that result?
            $endgroup$
            – J. M. is away
            Mar 23 at 16:10










          • $begingroup$
            11.3.0.0 (5944644, 2018030701) Win 10. I did a trace, which might have had the needed info but I didn't catch it. Started w/ fresh kernel, & repeated, w/ same result. Baffled.
            $endgroup$
            – Christopher Lamb
            Mar 23 at 16:16






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            At least on my machine, the questioner's original (very verbose) proposed solution is faster than any other proposal. In order of presentation: 0.0000114366 v. 0.0000357762 v. 0.0000164219 (AbsoluteTiming in seconds).
            $endgroup$
            – CElliott
            Apr 3 at 14:10
















          $begingroup$
          This solution doesn't copy the list so may be faster than Carl's. (+1).
          $endgroup$
          – Edmund
          Mar 23 at 3:38




          $begingroup$
          This solution doesn't copy the list so may be faster than Carl's. (+1).
          $endgroup$
          – Edmund
          Mar 23 at 3:38












          $begingroup$
          FWIW, I consistently get 56, -2, 6, -4, 5, 1, 59, 3, -3, -5, 4, 9, 10, 58, 57, 60, 8, 7, 2, -1 from this.
          $endgroup$
          – Christopher Lamb
          Mar 23 at 16:01





          $begingroup$
          FWIW, I consistently get 56, -2, 6, -4, 5, 1, 59, 3, -3, -5, 4, 9, 10, 58, 57, 60, 8, 7, 2, -1 from this.
          $endgroup$
          – Christopher Lamb
          Mar 23 at 16:01













          $begingroup$
          @Rabbit, what version number of Mathematica is giving that result?
          $endgroup$
          – J. M. is away
          Mar 23 at 16:10




          $begingroup$
          @Rabbit, what version number of Mathematica is giving that result?
          $endgroup$
          – J. M. is away
          Mar 23 at 16:10












          $begingroup$
          11.3.0.0 (5944644, 2018030701) Win 10. I did a trace, which might have had the needed info but I didn't catch it. Started w/ fresh kernel, & repeated, w/ same result. Baffled.
          $endgroup$
          – Christopher Lamb
          Mar 23 at 16:16




          $begingroup$
          11.3.0.0 (5944644, 2018030701) Win 10. I did a trace, which might have had the needed info but I didn't catch it. Started w/ fresh kernel, & repeated, w/ same result. Baffled.
          $endgroup$
          – Christopher Lamb
          Mar 23 at 16:16




          1




          1




          $begingroup$
          At least on my machine, the questioner's original (very verbose) proposed solution is faster than any other proposal. In order of presentation: 0.0000114366 v. 0.0000357762 v. 0.0000164219 (AbsoluteTiming in seconds).
          $endgroup$
          – CElliott
          Apr 3 at 14:10





          $begingroup$
          At least on my machine, the questioner's original (very verbose) proposed solution is faster than any other proposal. In order of presentation: 0.0000114366 v. 0.0000357762 v. 0.0000164219 (AbsoluteTiming in seconds).
          $endgroup$
          – CElliott
          Apr 3 at 14:10


















          draft saved

          draft discarded
















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematica 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%2fmathematica.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f193790%2fterse-method-to-swap-lowest-for-highest%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

          Kamusi Yaliyomo Aina za kamusi | Muundo wa kamusi | Faida za kamusi | Dhima ya picha katika kamusi | Marejeo | Tazama pia | Viungo vya nje | UrambazajiKuhusu kamusiGo-SwahiliWiki-KamusiKamusi ya Kiswahili na Kiingerezakuihariri na kuongeza habari

          Swift 4 - func physicsWorld not invoked on collision? The Next CEO of Stack OverflowHow to call Objective-C code from Swift#ifdef replacement in the Swift language@selector() in Swift?#pragma mark in Swift?Swift for loop: for index, element in array?dispatch_after - GCD in Swift?Swift Beta performance: sorting arraysSplit a String into an array in Swift?The use of Swift 3 @objc inference in Swift 4 mode is deprecated?How to optimize UITableViewCell, because my UITableView lags

          Access current req object everywhere in Node.js ExpressWhy are global variables considered bad practice? (node.js)Using req & res across functionsHow do I get the path to the current script with Node.js?What is Node.js' Connect, Express and “middleware”?Node.js w/ express error handling in callbackHow to access the GET parameters after “?” in Express?Modify Node.js req object parametersAccess “app” variable inside of ExpressJS/ConnectJS middleware?Node.js Express app - request objectAngular Http Module considered middleware?Session variables in ExpressJSAdd properties to the req object in expressjs with Typescript