Generate list of items with 0 prefix using padStart

Generate list of items with 0 prefix using padStart



I implemented the way to generate a list of items with iterable counts with prefix 0. What is the best way to generate such kind of list?



Current behaviour:


const generateList = (length, n, i) =>
let b = n+i

return b.toString().padStart(length.toString().length + n.toString.length, 0)


Array(10).fill(null).map((x, i) => generateList(10,2, i))



Output result:


["002", "003", "004", "005", "006", "007", "008", "009", "010", "011"]



Do u have any idea to make it another way?






codereview.stackexchange.com?

– deceze
Sep 10 '18 at 13:14






You can use Math.floor((length+n)/)+2 , 0 inside padStart

– cemsina güzel
Sep 10 '18 at 13:35






I don't think you meant n.toString.length which is 1 for any number n.

– Bergi
Sep 10 '18 at 13:43



n.toString.length


1


n






Is the current output the expected output?

– Bergi
Sep 10 '18 at 13:43






stackoverflow.com/questions/1267283/… stackoverflow.com/questions/10073699/…

– epascarello
Sep 10 '18 at 13:46





3 Answers
3



You could determine the number of characters needed at the start and used the predetermined value to format the output for the array.




function createList(startValue, endValue)
let
// The minimum output length, for a single digit number, is 2 chars.
outputLength = 2,
testValue = 10,
// Create an empty array which has as many items as numbers we need to
// generate for the output. Add 1 to the end value as this is to be
// inclusive of the range to create. If the +1 is not done the resulting
// array is 1 item too small.
emptyArray = Array(endValue - startValue + 1);

// As long as test value is less than the end value, keep increasing the
// output size by 1 and continue to the next multiple of 10.
while (testValue <= endValue)
outputLength++;
testValue = testValue * 10;


// Create a new array, with the same length as the empty array created
// earlier. For each position place a padded number into the output array.
return Array.from(emptyArray, (currentValue, index) =>
// Pad the current value to the determined max length.
return (startValue + index).toString().padStart(outputLength, '0');
);


function createListWithLength(length, startValue = 0)
return createList(startValue, startValue + length);


console.log(createList(2,10));
console.log(createListWithLength(30));
console.log(createListWithLength(10, 995));






the parens are redundant here -> (endValue + 1) - startValue

– marzelin
Sep 10 '18 at 14:28


(endValue + 1) - startValue






and use Array.from(Array(length), fillerFn) instead filling with nulls and then mapping over.

– marzelin
Sep 10 '18 at 14:29



Array.from(Array(length), fillerFn)


null






Yeah, I have a things with adding parenthesis where not absolutely necessary. I guess I find it easier to read. I'd actually prefer a good old for-loop, have the feeling it would give better performance.

– Thijs
Sep 10 '18 at 14:31


for






Didn't know about that second param for the Array.from method, thanks!

– Thijs
Sep 10 '18 at 14:32


Array.from






I prefer for..of cause it can work with iterables (i.e. node lists)

– marzelin
Sep 10 '18 at 14:32


for..of



Have a look at generators:


function* range(from, to)
for (var i=from; i<to; i++)
yield i;

function* paddedRange(from, to)
const length = (to-1).toString(10) + 1 /* at least one pad */;
for (const i of range(from, to))
yield i.padStart(length, '0');


console.log(Array.from(paddedRange(2, 12)));



You can also inline the loop from range into paddedRange, or you can make it return an array directly:


range


paddedRange


function paddedRange(from, to)
const length = (to-1).toString(10) + 1 /* at least one pad */;
return Array.from(range(from, to), i => i.padStart(length, '0'));


console.log(paddedRange(2, 12));



The main simplification is that you should compute the padding length only once and give it a denotative name, instead of computing it for every number again. Also ranges are usually given by their lower and upper end instead of their begin and a length, but you can easily switch back if you need the latter for some reason.






generators, nice. But I see also good old var still used ;)

– marzelin
Sep 10 '18 at 14:39


var






@marzelin There's no advantage in using let here, as we don't need a block scope.

– Bergi
Sep 10 '18 at 14:40


let






so you prefer var over let, and use let only when needed?

– marzelin
Sep 10 '18 at 14:42


var


let


let






@marzelin I tend use var for all function-scoped variables, and let when I need a block scope for a closure or don't want to use the variable after the loop. If it doesn't matter (like here) I'll flip a coin or check which side of the bed I got up today :-)

– Bergi
Sep 10 '18 at 14:45


var


let






haha, I prefer being concise in this matter ;)

– marzelin
Sep 10 '18 at 14:48



Not sure, but maybe something like this




const generateList = length => Array(length).fill('0').map((item, index) => item + index);

console.log(generateList(20));






That only work for lists up to and including 9…

– deceze
Sep 10 '18 at 13:26



Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!



But avoid



To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.



Required, but never shown



Required, but never shown




By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

Popular posts from this blog

𛂒𛀶,𛀽𛀑𛂀𛃧𛂓𛀙𛃆𛃑𛃷𛂟𛁡𛀢𛀟𛁤𛂽𛁕𛁪𛂟𛂯,𛁞𛂧𛀴𛁄𛁠𛁼𛂿𛀤 𛂘,𛁺𛂾𛃭𛃭𛃵𛀺,𛂣𛃍𛂖𛃶 𛀸𛃀𛂖𛁶𛁏𛁚 𛂢𛂞 𛁰𛂆𛀔,𛁸𛀽𛁓𛃋𛂇𛃧𛀧𛃣𛂐𛃇,𛂂𛃻𛃲𛁬𛃞𛀧𛃃𛀅 𛂭𛁠𛁡𛃇𛀷𛃓𛁥,𛁙𛁘𛁞𛃸𛁸𛃣𛁜,𛂛,𛃿,𛁯𛂘𛂌𛃛𛁱𛃌𛂈𛂇 𛁊𛃲,𛀕𛃴𛀜 𛀶𛂆𛀶𛃟𛂉𛀣,𛂐𛁞𛁾 𛁷𛂑𛁳𛂯𛀬𛃅,𛃶𛁼

Crossroads (UK TV series)

ữḛḳṊẴ ẋ,Ẩṙ,ỹḛẪẠứụỿṞṦ,Ṉẍừ,ứ Ị,Ḵ,ṏ ṇỪḎḰṰọửḊ ṾḨḮữẑỶṑỗḮṣṉẃ Ữẩụ,ṓ,ḹẕḪḫỞṿḭ ỒṱṨẁṋṜ ḅẈ ṉ ứṀḱṑỒḵ,ḏ,ḊḖỹẊ Ẻḷổ,ṥ ẔḲẪụḣể Ṱ ḭỏựẶ Ồ Ṩ,ẂḿṡḾồ ỗṗṡịṞẤḵṽẃ ṸḒẄẘ,ủẞẵṦṟầṓế