I have [3, 16, 120]
. when I do [3, 16, 120].map(mapper)
, I want to achieve, for example [4,5, 17,18, 121,122]
i.e. each element map to n
You can use reduce() and add to array e+1, e+2
of each element.
var ar = [3, 16, 120];
var result = ar.reduce(function(r, e) {
r.push(e+1, e+2);
return r;
}, []);
console.log(result)
This is ES6 version with arrow function
var ar = [3, 16, 120];
var result = ar.reduce((r, e) => r.push(e+1, e+2) && r, []);
console.log(result)
PS: Array.push seems to be faster and has no Maximum call stack..
error, see below:
a = Array(1000000).fill(1); st = Date.now(); Array.prototype.concat.apply([], a.map(function (n) { return [n+1, n+2]; })); console.log(`${Date.now() - st}ms `);
> RangeError: Maximum call stack size exceeded
a = Array(1000000).fill(1); st = Date.now(); a.reduce((r, e) => r.push(e+1, e+2) && r, []); console.log(`${Date.now() - st}ms `);
> 180ms
So .push is preferable comparing to accepted solution.
You could use Array#reduce in combination with Array#concat.
console.log([3, 16, 120].reduce(function (r, a) {
return r.concat(a + 1, a + 2);
}, []));
ES6
console.log([3, 16, 120].reduce((r, a) => r.concat(a + 1, a + 2), []));
using Array#concat
and Array#map
Array.prototype.concat.apply([], [3, 16, 120].map(x => [x+1, x+2] ));
Not particularly nice, but it is a possible solution:
var arr = [3, 16, 120];
console.log([].concat.apply([], arr.map(function (n) { return [n+1, n+2]; })));
Just for fun, an ES6 solution with a generator:
var arr = [3, 16, 120];
var [...result] = (function*() { for( i of arr){ yield ++i; yield ++i; }})();
console.log(result);
Immutable solution, with the spread operator:
[3, 16, 120].reduce((a, v) => [...a, v+1, v+2], [])