Nice, but functional thinking maybe give shorter result:
My first try
[..."hellwallelalheulselo"].filter(c => "hello".includes(c)) // result: ["h", "e", "l", "l", "l", "l", "e", "l", "l", "h", "e", "l", "e", "l", "o"]
lead to me loop wordToBeFound instead of lettersInHand
const canScrabbleString = (lettersInHand, wordToBeFound) => -1 < [...wordToBeFound] .reduce( (cursor, chr) => lettersInHand.indexOf(chr, cursor), 0);
Thanks for comment Peter!
Yes I did not believe my solution was the most elegant one so I'm glad you provided a functional one!
I'll have to familiarize myself more with higher order functions.
funfunfunction reduce the swish knife of coding.
Are you sure you want to hide this comment? It will become hidden in your post, but will still be visible via the comment's permalink.
Hide child comments as well
Confirm
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
Nice, but functional thinking maybe give shorter result:
My first try
lead to me loop wordToBeFound instead of lettersInHand
Thanks for comment Peter!
Yes I did not believe my solution was the most elegant one so I'm glad you provided a functional one!
I'll have to familiarize myself more with higher order functions.
funfunfunction reduce the swish knife of coding.