Python copy files to a new directory and rename if file name already exists
Sometimes it is just easier to start over… I apologize if there is any typo, I haven’t had the time to test it thoroughly.
Sometimes it is just easier to start over… I apologize if there is any typo, I haven’t had the time to test it thoroughly.
For example:
Perhaps you should consider using a HashSet. From the MSDN link:
How about with some es6 magic? Reference URL A more generic solution would be: Using the above property strategy instead of JSON.stringify: You can add a wrapper if you want the propNames property to be either an array or a value: allowing both getUniqueItemsByProperties(‘a’) and getUniqueItemsByProperties([‘a’]); Stackblitz Example Explanation Start by understanding the two methods used: filter, findIndex Next take your idea of what … Read more
Simply use a new array for the shuffled cards and fill it using random cards removed from the prior array. Or just use Collections.shuffle():
A really easy way to do this is to add a UNIQUE index on the 3 columns. When you write the ALTER statement, include the IGNORE keyword. Like so: This will drop all the duplicate rows. As an added benefit, future INSERTs that are duplicates will error out. As always, you may want to take a backup before running something like this…
I agree with R. Pate and Todd Gardner; a std::set might be a good idea here. Even if you’re stuck using vectors, if you have enough duplicates, you might be better off creating a set to do the dirty work. Let’s compare three approaches: Just using vector, sort + unique Convert to set (manually) Convert to set (using a constructor) … Read more
Quick and dirty using jQuery:
Use set() to remove duplicates if all values are hashable:
To remove duplicates use set(a). To print duplicates, something like: Note that Counter is not particularly efficient (timings) and probably overkill here. set will perform better. This code computes a list of unique elements in the source order: or, more concisely: I don’t recommend the latter style, because it is not obvious what not seen.add(x) is doing (the set add() method always returns None, hence … Read more