I have an idea. Let's call the "associative array" a "map" just so we don't
have so many "array" words.
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 12:44 PM, Rolf Huehne <rhue...@fli-leibniz.de>
wrote:
> On 09/28/2015 06:46 PM, Robert Hanson wrote:
> Implemented are now the following combinations (among others), if I
> understood it correctly:
>
> A) associative + no brackets
> -> Searches in the first-level keys of the associative array. Returns
> a complete subset of the first-level array with the matching keys.
>
>
A) map + keys
-> Returns the specified subset of key/value pairs.
> B) associative + brackets
> -> Searches in the first-level keys of the associative array. Returns
> only the values (which can be scalars or arrays) behind the matching keys.
>
> B) map + (keys)
-> Same as (A), but returns an array of values instead of a map.
> C) standard/associative + no brackets
> -> Searches the second-level keys. Returns a subset of the
> first-level array with the named second-level keys only.
>
C) any array or array of arrays of maps + keys
-> returns a flat array of maps containing only the specified key/value
pairs.
> D) standard/associative + brackets
> -> Searches the second-level keys. Returns the values behind the
> named second-level keys.
>
D) any array or array of arrays of maps + (keys)
-> returns a flat array of values of the specified keys.
> E) standard/associative + WHERE + no brackets
> -> Searches keys from 2) and of phrase from 3) in the second-level
> keys of the associative arrays. Returns a complete subset of the
> first-level array with the matching second-level keys, restricted by the
> 'WHERE' phrase.
>
E) array or array of arrays of maps + keys + WHERE clause
-> same as C, but only for maps that match the specified clause
> F) standard/associative + WHERE + brackets
> -> Searches keys from 2) and of phrase from 3) in the second-level keys
> of the associative arrays. Returns only the values of the second-level
> array with the matching second-level keys, restricted by the 'WHERE'
> phrase.
>
>
F) array or array of arrays of maps + (keys) + WHERE clause
-> same as E, but returns values instead maps.
> G) associative/associative + WHEREIN + no brackets
> -> Searches keys from 2) in the first-level keys and keys of phrase from
> 3) in the second-level keys of the associative arrays. Returns a subset
> of the first-level array with the matching first-level keys, restricted
> by the 'WHERE' phrase.
>
>
G) map where values are maps + keys + WHEREIN clause
-> same as A, but only returns the key/value pairs for which the value (a
map as well) matches the clause.
> H) associative/associative + WHEREIN + brackets
> -> Searches keys from 2) in the first-level keys and keys of phrase from
> 3) in the second-level keys of the associative arrays. Returns a subset
> of the values of the first-level array with the matching first-level
> keys, restricted by the 'WHERE' phrase.
>
>
H) map where values are maps + (keys) + WHEREIN clause
-> same as B, but only returns the key/value pairs for which the value (a
map as well) matches the clause.
The multi-level combinations C) to F) have in common that the key
> restrictions from 1) act on the same level as the keys of the phrase
> from 3). In contrast in the multi-level combinations G) and H) the
> levels are mixed. This doesn't seem to be very consistent to me. At
> least it seems to be counterintuitive.
>
>
G and H simply look one level deeper into a map
> Even if you don't agree, there are two missing cases where the levels
> are not mixed. Assuming a "consistent" behaviour they would look like this:
>
> ---- Example Code ------------
> snpInfo = {"rs1229984": [resno: 48,
> from: "R",
> to: "H"],
> "rs1041969": [resno: 57,
> from: "N",
> to: "K"]
> };
>
> print "=== Case 1 ====";
> print snpInfo.select("from,to WHEREIN to='H'").format("JSON");
>
>
The keys are always for the top-level map. Here you are trying to bypass a
map level with the keys.That's not in the schema and should not be
intuitive. The closest you can come is
print snpInfo.select("* WHEREIN to='H' ")
and just accept that resno is still there.
> print "=== Case 2 ====";
> print snpInfo.select("(resno) WHEREIN to='H'");
>
>
Same here -- You are trying to bypass a map level with (resno). No one has
suggested doing that.
>
> For my usual use of multi-level associative arrays these two cases would
> be the standard. But of course also the currently implemented two cases
> do make sense. I have no idea yet, how a good syntax for them could look
> like.
>
I'm not sure why it would be important to filter out those extra keys.
The way to do it is to go to a more database-like structure:
snpInfo = [ [ id: "rs1229984",
resno: 48,
from: "R",
to: "H"
],
[ id: "rs1041969",
resno: 57,
from: "N",
to: "K"
]
]
Then you could use
print snpInfo.select("resno,from,to WHERE to='H')
It might be an idea to be able to go back and forth from map to array using
something like:
a = snpInfo.array("id")
snpInfo = a.array("id")
Then you could do what you want like this:
print "=== Case 1 ====";
print snpInfo.array("id").select("id,from,to WHERE
to='H'").array("id").format("JSON");
Bob
--
Robert M. Hanson
Larson-Anderson Professor of Chemistry
Chair, Department of Chemistry
St. Olaf College
Northfield, MN
http://www.stolaf.edu/people/hansonr
If nature does not answer first what we want,
it is better to take what answer we get.
-- Josiah Willard Gibbs, Lecture XXX, Monday, February 5, 1900
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Jmol-users mailing list
Jmol-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jmol-users
