in_array

[devinemke]

this should be simple. is there a javascript equilavent to PHP's in_array() function? i simply want to see in a ceratin element is in an array.

numbers = new Array("one","two","three","four","five");
// how do i determine id "three" is in this array?

do i manually have to loop thru and test each element?

[SpirtOfGrandeur]

You miss posted. This has nothing to do with DOM.

Array.prototype.in_array = function ( obj ) {
	var len = this.length;
	for ( var x = 0 ; x <= len ; x++ ) {
		if ( this[x] == obj ) return true;
	}
	return false;
}

numbers = new Array("one","two","three","four","five");
alert(numbers.in_array("three")) // should evaluate to true

[jscheuer1]

Even simpler:

<script type="text/javascript">
numbers = new Array("one","two","three","four","five");
if (numbers.toString().indexOf('three')!==-1)
alert('Three is in numbers!')
</script>

[Bill Posters]

Originally Posted by jscheuer1

Even simpler:

<script type="text/javascript">
numbers = new Array("one","two","three","four","five");
if (numbers.toString().indexOf('three')!==-1)
alert('Three is in numbers!')
</script>

That's the method I would have gone for.
Incidentally, is !== -1 any different to != -1 ?
I ask as I'm more familiar with the latter (!= -1), but the former (!== -1) doesn't throw an error, so I'm wondering…

[Willy Duitt]

Originally Posted by jscheuer1

Even simpler:

<script type="text/javascript">
numbers = new Array("one","two","three","four","five");
if (numbers.toString().indexOf('three')!==-1)
alert('Three is in numbers!')
</script>

FWIW: The above will allow thre to pass as well as three...

<script type="text/javascript">
 var numbers = new Array("one","two","three","four","five");
  Array.prototype.in_array = function(obj){ 
    return new RegExp('(^|\,)'+obj+'(\,|$)','gi').test(this);
  } 

    alert(numbers.in_array("two")) // should evaluate to true 


</script>

.....Willy

[SpirtOfGrandeur]

bool in_array ( mixed needle, array haystack [, bool strict] )

I did not create the strict, but for the rest of it I coded to the page he provided. You can input objects, strings, numbers, arrays, what ever your heart desires. It will search for it. Not just strings and numbers.

[jkd]

Using .toString() is bad. For example:

["three,four", "five"].toString().indexOf("three") != -1

BUT, it doesn't contain the value "three".

Since it seems you're trying to write an equiv. to the PHP version, you may want to also index associative arrays:

Object.prototype.in_array = function(datum, strict) {
    if (strict) function equals(a,b) { return a === b }
    else function equals(a,b) { return a == b }

    for (var i in this) {
        if (equals(this[i], datum)) return true;
    }
    return false;
}

toString() on an array is still an O(n) operation, so you don't speed up anything at all, and in fact, you might slow it down giving the complexity of string concatenation. Using this version of in_array, you would do:

["a", "b", "c"].in_array("b") // true
{a: 1, b: 2, c: 3 }.in_array(2) // true
{ a: 1, b: 2, c: 3 }.in_array("2", true) // false

[jscheuer1]

Willy, I don't know on what planet 'thre'=='three' but, here on earth and in IE6 , NS7.2 and FF they don't and my script works without mistaking 'thre' for 'three'. It will however mistake 'threee' for 'three', except for this slight mod:

<script type="text/javascript">
numbers = new Array("one","two","three","four","five");
if ((','+numbers.toString()+',').indexOf(',three,')!==-1)
alert('Three is in numbers!')
</script>

which will prevent that error.

Bill, I've just gotten into the habit of always using == in conditionals. I saw somewhere that it is called for (certainly for testing equal) in some cases even when testing for not equal. The distinction seemed hard to remember but, since it also works when the more common != does, I figured - what will it hurt?

[Willy Duitt]

Originally Posted by jscheuer1

Willy, I don't know on what planet 'thre'=='three' but, here on earth and in IE6 , NS7.2 and FF they don't and my script works without mistaking 'thre' for 'three'.

On this planet... The planet earth... Third rock from the sun...
Try to get your head out of the clouds and ground yourself...

Did you try running your script searching for thre??
Here, run this and let me know what happens...
Your script throws the alert...
Thus, thre==three...

<script type="text/javascript">
numbers = new Array("one","two","three","four","five");
if (numbers.toString().indexOf('thre')!==-1)
alert('Three is in numbers!')
</script>

.....Willy

[Willy Duitt]

BTW: Your planets must not be properly aligned...
Your latest revision is even more problematic...

<script type="text/javascript">
numbers = new Array("one","two","three","four","five");
if ((','+numbers.toString()+',').indexOf(',three,')!==-1)
alert('Three is in numbers!')
</script>

Your inclusion of the comma's before and after assumes that the string to match will appear in the middle between the beginning and the end of the array... Try searching for one or five...

Have a nice day;
.....Willy

[jscheuer1]

Have a closer look, I've added commas before and after the array to string to take care of just such an eventuality.

[Willy Duitt]

Originally Posted by jscheuer1

Have a closer look, I've added commas before and after the array to string to take care of just such an eventuality.

Oh, I see said the blind man...

[jscheuer1]

Yeah, about the thre/three thing. I thought you were putting 'thre' in the array not in the index search. In any case the new method takes care of all eventualities so far mentioned and is still quite simple compared to parsing out the array contents with a 'for i' loop.

[SpirtOfGrandeur]

jscheuer1 yours only does strings or numbers. It does not adhear to jdk or mine which are coded to the in_array() spec.

[Willy Duitt]

I haven't read the in_array spec but...
I do not see the need to loop thru the array if, as the O/P originally requested, the intention is to merely check for a match that the search data is present in the array...

However, if the intention is to match and manipulate the array in some way such as using push, pop, splice or slice... I would agree that looping thru the array would be benificial since it will provide the index to the match's place in the array for further manipulation...

.....Willy