I'm unclear on why there is a need to pass block arguments when calling a function.
why not just pass in as function arguments and what happens to the block arguments, how are they passed and used?
m.call(somevalue) {|_k, v| v['abc'] = 'xyz'}
module m
def call ( arg1, *arg2, &arg3)
end
end
Ruby, like almost all mainstream programming languages, is a strict language, meaning that arguments are fully evaluated before being passed into the method.
Now, imagine you want to implement (a simplified version of) Integer#times. The implementation would look a little bit like this:
class Integer
def my_times(action_to_be_executed)
raise ArgumentError, "`self` must be non-negative but is `#{inspect}`" if negative?
return if zero?
action_to_be_executed
pred.my_times(action_to_be_executed)
end
end
3.my_times(puts "Hello")
# Hello
0.my_times(puts "Hello")
# Hello
-1.my_times(puts "Hello")
# Hello
# ArgumentError (`self` must be non-negative but is `-1`)
As you can see, 3.my_times(puts "Hello") printed Hello exactly once, instead of thrice, as it should do. Also, 0.my_times(puts "Hello") printed Hello exactly once, instead of not at all, as it should do, despite the fact that it returns in the second line of the method, and thus action_to_be_executed is never even evaluated. Even -1.my_times(puts "Hello") printed Hello exactly once, despite that fact that it raises an ArgumentError exception as the very first thing in the method and thus the entire rest of the method body is never evaluated.
Why is that? Because Ruby is strict! Again, strict means that arguments are fully evaluated before being passed. So, what this means is that before my_times even gets called, the puts "Hello" is evaluated (which prints Hello to the standard output stream), and the result of that evaluation (which is just nil because Kernel#puts always returns nil) is passed into the method.
So, what we need to do, is somehow delay the evaluation of the argument. One way we know how to delay evaluation, is by using a method: methods are only evaluated when they are called.
So, we take a page out of Java's playbook, and define a Single Abstract Method Protocol: the argument that is being passed to my_each must be an object which implements a method with a specific name. Let's call it call, because, well, we are going to call it.
This would look a little bit like this:
class Integer
def my_times(action_to_be_executed)
raise ArgumentError, "`self` must be non-negative but is `#{inspect}`" if negative?
return if zero?
action_to_be_executed.call
pred.my_times(action_to_be_executed)
end
end
def (hello = Object.new).call
puts "Hello"
end
3.my_times(hello)
# Hello
# Hello
# Hello
0.my_times(hello)
-1.my_times(hello)
# ArgumentError (`self` must be non-negative but is `-1`)
Nice! It works! The argument that is passed is of course still strictly evaluated before being passed (we can't change the fundamental nature of Ruby from within Ruby itself), but this evaluation only results in the object that is bound by the local variable hello. The code that we want to run is another layer of indirection away and will only be executed at the point where we actually call it.
It also has another advantage: Integer#times actually makes the index of the current iteration available to the action as an argument. This was impossible to implement with our first solution, but here we can do it, because we are using a method and methods can take arguments:
class Integer
def my_times(action_to_be_executed)
raise ArgumentError, "`self` must be non-negative but is `#{inspect}`" if negative?
__my_times_helper(action_to_be_executed)
end
protected
def __my_times_helper(action_to_be_executed, index = 0)
return if zero?
action_to_be_executed.call(index)
pred.__my_times_helper(action_to_be_executed, index + 1)
end
end
def (hello = Object.new).call(i)
puts "Hello from iteration #{i}"
end
3.my_times(hello)
# Hello from iteration 0
# Hello from iteration 1
# Hello from iteration 2
0.my_times(hello)
-1.my_times(hello)
# ArgumentError (`self` must be non-negative but is `-1`)
However, this is not actually very readable. If you didn't want to give a name to this action that we are trying to pass but instead simply literally write it down inside the argument list, it would look something like this:
3.my_times(Object.new.tap do |obj|
def obj.call(i)
puts "Hello from iteration #{i}"
end
end)
# Hello from iteration 0
# Hello from iteration 1
# Hello from iteration 2
or on one line:
3.my_times(Object.new.tap do |obj| def obj.call; puts "Hello from iteration #{i}" end end)
# Hello from iteration 0
# Hello from iteration 1
# Hello from iteration 2
# or:
3.my_times(Object.new.tap {|obj| def obj.call; puts "Hello from iteration #{i}" end })
# Hello from iteration 0
# Hello from iteration 1
# Hello from iteration 2
Now, I don't know about you, but I find that pretty ugly.
In Ruby 1.9, Ruby added Proc literals aka stabby lambda literals to the language. Lambda literals are a concise literal syntax for writing objects with a call method, specifically Proc objects with Proc#call.
Using lambda literals, and without any changes to our existing code, it looks something like this:
3.my_times(-> i { puts "Hello from iteration #{i}" })
# Hello from iteration 0
# Hello from iteration 1
# Hello from iteration 2
This does not look bad!
When Yukihiro "matz" Matsumoto designed Ruby almost thirty years ago in early 1993, he did a survey of the core libraries and standard libraries of languages like Smalltalk, Scheme, and Common Lisp to figure out how such methods that take a piece of code as an argument are actually used, and he found that the overwhelming majority of such methods take exactly one code argument and all they do with that argument is call it.
So, he decided to add special language support for a single argument that contains code and can only be called. This argument is both syntactically and semantically lightweight, in particular, it looks syntactically exactly like any other control structure, and it is semantically not an object.
This special language feature, you probably guessed it, are blocks.
Every method in Ruby has an optional block parameter. I can always pass a block to a method. It's up to the method to do anything with the block. Here, for example, the block is useless because Kernel#puts doesn't do anything with a block:
puts("Hello") { puts "from the block" }
# Hello
Because blocks are not objects, you cannot call methods on them. Also, because there can be only one block argument, there is no need to give it a name: if you refer to a block, it's always clear which block because there can be only one. But, if the block doesn't have methods and doesn't have a name, how can we call it?
That's what the yield keyword is for. It temporarily "yields" control flow to the block, or, in other words, it calls the block.
With blocks, our solution would look like this:
class Integer
def my_times(&action_to_be_executed)
raise ArgumentError, "`self` must be non-negative but is `#{inspect}`" if negative?
return enum_for(__callee__) unless block_given?
__my_times_helper(&action_to_be_executed)
end
protected
def __my_times_helper(&action_to_be_executed, index = 0)
return if zero?
yield index
pred.__my_times_helper(&action_to_be_executed, index + 1)
end
end
3.my_times do
puts "Hello from iteration #{i}"
end
# Hello from iteration 0
# Hello from iteration 1
# Hello from iteration 2
0.my_times do
puts "Hello from iteration #{i}"
end
-1.my_times do
puts "Hello from iteration #{i}"
end
# ArgumentError (`self` must be non-negative but is `-1`)
Okay, you might notice that I simplified a bit when I wrote above that the only thing you can do with a block is call it. There are two other things you can do with it:
You can check whether a block argument was passed using Kernel#block_given?. Since blocks are always optional, and blocks have no names, there must be a way to check whether a block was passed or not.
You can "roll up" a block (which is not an object and doesn't have a name) into a Proc object (which is an object) and bind it to a parameter (which gives it a name) using the & ampersand unary prefix sigil in the parameter list of the method. Now that we have an object, and a way to refer to it, we can store it in a variable, return it from a method, or (as we are doing here) pass it along as an argument to a different method, which otherwise wouldn't be possible.
There is also the opposite operation: with the & ampersand unary prefix operator, you can "unroll" a Proc object into a block in an argument list; this makes it so that the method behaves as if you had passed the code that is stored inside the Proc as a literal block argument to the method.
And there you have it! That's what blocks are for: a semantically and syntactically lightweight form of passing code to a method.
There are other possible approaches, of course. The approach that is closest to Ruby is probably Smalltalk. Smalltalk also has a concept called blocks (in fact, that is where Ruby got both the idea and the name from). Similarly to Ruby, Smalltalk blocks have a syntactically light-weight literal form, but they are objects, and you can pass more than one to a method. Thanks to Smalltalk's generally light-weight and simple syntax, especially the keyword method syntax which intersperses parts of the method name with the arguments, even passing multiple blocks to a method call is very concise and readable.
For example, Smalltalk actually does not have an if / then / else conditional expression, in fact, Smalltalk has no control structures at all. Everything is done with methods. So, the way that a conditional works, is that the two boolean classes TrueClass and FalseClass each have a method named ifTrue:ifFalse: which takes two block arguments, and the two implementations will simply either evaluate the first or the second block. For example, the implementation in TrueClass might look a little bit like this (note that Smalltalk has no syntax for classes or methods, instead classes and methods are created in the IDE by creating class objects and method objects via the GUI):
True>>ifTrue: trueBlock ifFalse: falseBlock
"Answer with the value of `trueBlock`."
↑trueBlock value
The corresponding implementation in FalseClass would then look like this:
FalseClass>>ifTrue: trueBlock ifFalse: falseBlock
"Answer with the value of `falseBlock`."
↑falseBlock value
And you would call it like this:
2 < 3 ifTrue: [ Transcript show: 'yes' ] ifFalse: [ Transcript show: 'no' ].
"yes"
4 < 3 ifTrue: [ Transcript show: 'yes' ] ifFalse: [ Transcript show: 'no' ].
"no"
In ECMAScript, you can simply use function definitions as expressions, and there is also lightweight syntax for functions.
In the various Lisps, code is just data, and data is code, so you can just pass the code as an argument as data, then inside the function, treat that data as code again.
Scala has call-by-name parameters which are only evaluated when you use their name, and they are evaluated every time you use their name. It would look something like this:
implicit class IntegerTimes(val i: Int) extends AnyVal {
#scala.annotation.tailrec
def times(actionToBeExecuted: => Unit): Unit = {
if (i < 0) throw new Error()
if (i == 0) () else { actionToBeExecuted; (i - 1).times(actionToBeExecuted) }
}
}
3.times { println("Hello") }
// Hello
// Hello
// Hello
I was wondering why loop is a Kernel method rather than a keyword like while and until. There are cases where I want to do unconditional loop, but since loop, being a method, is slower than while true, I chose to do the latter when performance is important. But writing true here looks ugly, and is not Rubish; loop looks better. Here is a dilemma.
My guess is that it is because there is a usage of loop that does not take a block and returns an enumerator. But to me, it looks that an unconditional loop can easily be created on the spot, and does not make sense to create such an instance of Enumerator and later use it. I cannot think of a use case.
Is my guess regarding my wonder correct? If not, why is loop a method rather than a keyword?
What is the use case for an enumerator created by loop without a block?
Only Ruby's developers can answer your first question, but your guess seems reasonable. As to your second question, sure there are use cases. The whole point of Enumerables is that you can pass them around, which, as you know, you can't do with a while or for structure.
As a trivial example, here's a Fibonacci sequence method that takes an Enumerable as an argument:
def fib(enum)
a, b = nil, nil
enum.each do
a, b = b || 0, a ? a + b : 1
puts a
end
puts "DONE"
end
Now suppose you want to print out the first seven Fibonacci numbers. You can use any Enumerable that yields seven times, like the one returned by 7.times:
fib 7.times
# => 0
# 1
# 1
# 2
# 3
# 5
# 8
# DONE
But what if you want to print out Fibonacci numbers forever? Well, just pass it the Enumerable returned by loop:
fib loop
# => 0
# 1
# ...
# (Never stops)
Like I said, this is a silly example that clearly is a terrible way to generate Fibonacci numbers, but hopefully it helps you understand that there are times—albeit perhaps rarely—when it's useful to have an Enumerable that never ends, and why loop is a nice convenience for those cases.
I'd like to write the method (define_variables) which can get a block and use the variables defined in it. Is it possible? For example, I'd like to get 5 in output:
module A
def self.define_variables
yield
puts a # not 5 :(
end
end
A::define_variables do
a = 5
end
Maybe there is some tricks with eval, but haven't found anyone yet.
In short, no. After you've called yield those variables defined in the block are gone (sort of, as we shall see), except for what is returned—that's just how scope works. In your example, the 5 is still there in that it is returned by the block, and thus puts yield would print 5. Using this you could return a hash from the block {:a => 5}, and then access multiple "variables" that way. In Ruby 1.8 (in IRb only) you can do:
eval "a = 5"
a # => 5
Though I don't know of anyway to eval the contents of a block. Regardless, in Ruby 1.9 the scope of eval was isolated and this will give you a NameError. You can do an eval within the context of a Binding though:
def foo
b = yield
eval(a, b) + 2
end
foo do
a = 5
binding
end # => 7
It seems to me that what you're trying to do is emulate macros in Ruby, which is just not possible (at least not pure Ruby), and I discourage the use of any of the "workarounds" I've mentioned above.
Agreed that this is a bit backwards, and Andrew's explanation is correct. If your use case is defining variables, however, there are already class_variable_set and instance_variable_set methods that are great for this:
module A
def self.define_variables(vars = {})
vars.each { |n, v| class_variable_set n, v }
puts ##a
end
end
A::define_variables :##a => 5
The above is more of an example of how it would work within the code you've posted rather than a recommendation.
Locked. This question and its answers are locked because the question is off-topic but has historical significance. It is not currently accepting new answers or interactions.
Continuing the "Hidden features of ..." meme, let's share the lesser-known but useful features of Ruby programming language.
Try to limit this discussion with core Ruby, without any Ruby on Rails stuff.
See also:
Hidden features of C#
Hidden features of Java
Hidden features of JavaScript
Hidden features of Ruby on Rails
Hidden features of Python
(Please, just one hidden feature per answer.)
Thank you
From Ruby 1.9 Proc#=== is an alias to Proc#call, which means Proc objects can be used in case statements like so:
def multiple_of(factor)
Proc.new{|product| product.modulo(factor).zero?}
end
case number
when multiple_of(3)
puts "Multiple of 3"
when multiple_of(7)
puts "Multiple of 7"
end
Peter Cooper has a good list of Ruby tricks. Perhaps my favorite of his is allowing both single items and collections to be enumerated. (That is, treat a non-collection object as a collection containing just that object.) It looks like this:
[*items].each do |item|
# ...
end
Don't know how hidden this is, but I've found it useful when needing to make a Hash out of a one-dimensional array:
fruit = ["apple","red","banana","yellow"]
=> ["apple", "red", "banana", "yellow"]
Hash[*fruit]
=> {"apple"=>"red", "banana"=>"yellow"}
One trick I like is to use the splat (*) expander on objects other than Arrays. Here's an example on a regular expression match:
match, text, number = *"Something 981".match(/([A-z]*) ([0-9]*)/)
Other examples include:
a, b, c = *('A'..'Z')
Job = Struct.new(:name, :occupation)
tom = Job.new("Tom", "Developer")
name, occupation = *tom
Wow, no one mentioned the flip flop operator:
1.upto(100) do |i|
puts i if (i == 3)..(i == 15)
end
One of the cool things about ruby is that you can call methods and run code in places other languages would frown upon, such as in method or class definitions.
For instance, to create a class that has an unknown superclass until run time, i.e. is random, you could do the following:
class RandomSubclass < [Array, Hash, String, Fixnum, Float, TrueClass].sample
end
RandomSubclass.superclass # could output one of 6 different classes.
This uses the 1.9 Array#sample method (in 1.8.7-only, see Array#choice), and the example is pretty contrived but you can see the power here.
Another cool example is the ability to put default parameter values that are non fixed (like other languages often demand):
def do_something_at(something, at = Time.now)
# ...
end
Of course the problem with the first example is that it is evaluated at definition time, not call time. So, once a superclass has been chosen, it stays that superclass for the remainder of the program.
However, in the second example, each time you call do_something_at, the at variable will be the time that the method was called (well, very very close to it)
Another tiny feature - convert a Fixnum into any base up to 36:
>> 1234567890.to_s(2)
=> "1001001100101100000001011010010"
>> 1234567890.to_s(8)
=> "11145401322"
>> 1234567890.to_s(16)
=> "499602d2"
>> 1234567890.to_s(24)
=> "6b1230i"
>> 1234567890.to_s(36)
=> "kf12oi"
And as Huw Walters has commented, converting the other way is just as simple:
>> "kf12oi".to_i(36)
=> 1234567890
Hashes with default values! An array in this case.
parties = Hash.new {|hash, key| hash[key] = [] }
parties["Summer party"]
# => []
parties["Summer party"] << "Joe"
parties["Other party"] << "Jane"
Very useful in metaprogramming.
Another fun addition in 1.9 Proc functionality is Proc#curry which allows you to turn a Proc accepting n arguments into one accepting n-1. Here it is combined with the Proc#=== tip I mentioned above:
it_is_day_of_week = lambda{ |day_of_week, date| date.wday == day_of_week }
it_is_saturday = it_is_day_of_week.curry[6]
it_is_sunday = it_is_day_of_week.curry[0]
case Time.now
when it_is_saturday
puts "Saturday!"
when it_is_sunday
puts "Sunday!"
else
puts "Not the weekend"
end
Download Ruby 1.9 source, and issue make golf, then you can do things like this:
make golf
./goruby -e 'h'
# => Hello, world!
./goruby -e 'p St'
# => StandardError
./goruby -e 'p 1.tf'
# => 1.0
./goruby19 -e 'p Fil.exp(".")'
"/home/manveru/pkgbuilds/ruby-svn/src/trunk"
Read the golf_prelude.c for more neat things hiding away.
Boolean operators on non boolean values.
&& and ||
Both return the value of the last expression evaluated.
Which is why the ||= will update the variable with the value returned expression on the right side if the variable is undefined. This is not explicitly documented, but common knowledge.
However the &&= isn't quite so widely known about.
string &&= string + "suffix"
is equivalent to
if string
string = string + "suffix"
end
It's very handy for destructive operations that should not proceed if the variable is undefined.
The Symbol#to_proc function that Rails provides is really cool.
Instead of
Employee.collect { |emp| emp.name }
You can write:
Employee.collect(&:name)
One final one - in ruby you can use any character you want to delimit strings. Take the following code:
message = "My message"
contrived_example = "<div id=\"contrived\">#{message}</div>"
If you don't want to escape the double-quotes within the string, you can simply use a different delimiter:
contrived_example = %{<div id="contrived-example">#{message}</div>}
contrived_example = %[<div id="contrived-example">#{message}</div>]
As well as avoiding having to escape delimiters, you can use these delimiters for nicer multiline strings:
sql = %{
SELECT strings
FROM complicated_table
WHERE complicated_condition = '1'
}
Use a Range object as an infinite lazy list:
Inf = 1.0 / 0
(1..Inf).take(5) #=> [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
More info here: http://banisterfiend.wordpress.com/2009/10/02/wtf-infinite-ranges-in-ruby/
I find using the define_method command to dynamically generate methods to be quite interesting and not as well known. For example:
((0..9).each do |n|
define_method "press_#{n}" do
#number = #number.to_i * 10 + n
end
end
The above code uses the 'define_method' command to dynamically create the methods "press1" through "press9." Rather then typing all 10 methods which essentailly contain the same code, the define method command is used to generate these methods on the fly as needed.
module_function
Module methods that are declared as module_function will create copies of themselves as private instance methods in the class that includes the Module:
module M
def not!
'not!'
end
module_function :not!
end
class C
include M
def fun
not!
end
end
M.not! # => 'not!
C.new.fun # => 'not!'
C.new.not! # => NoMethodError: private method `not!' called for #<C:0x1261a00>
If you use module_function without any arguments, then any module methods that comes after the module_function statement will automatically become module_functions themselves.
module M
module_function
def not!
'not!'
end
def yea!
'yea!'
end
end
class C
include M
def fun
not! + ' ' + yea!
end
end
M.not! # => 'not!'
M.yea! # => 'yea!'
C.new.fun # => 'not! yea!'
Short inject, like such:
Sum of range:
(1..10).inject(:+)
=> 55
Warning: this item was voted #1 Most Horrendous Hack of 2008, so use with care. Actually, avoid it like the plague, but it is most certainly Hidden Ruby.
Superators Add New Operators to Ruby
Ever want a super-secret handshake operator for some unique operation in your code? Like playing code golf? Try operators like
-~+~-
or
<---
That last one is used in the examples for reversing the order of an item.
I have nothing to do with the Superators Project beyond admiring it.
I'm late to the party, but:
You can easily take two equal-length arrays and turn them into a hash with one array supplying the keys and the other the values:
a = [:x, :y, :z]
b = [123, 456, 789]
Hash[a.zip(b)]
# => { :x => 123, :y => 456, :z => 789 }
(This works because Array#zip "zips" up the values from the two arrays:
a.zip(b) # => [[:x, 123], [:y, 456], [:z, 789]]
And Hash[] can take just such an array. I've seen people do this as well:
Hash[*a.zip(b).flatten] # unnecessary!
Which yields the same result, but the splat and flatten are wholly unnecessary--perhaps they weren't in the past?)
Auto-vivifying hashes in Ruby
def cnh # silly name "create nested hash"
Hash.new {|h,k| h[k] = Hash.new(&h.default_proc)}
end
my_hash = cnh
my_hash[1][2][3] = 4
my_hash # => { 1 => { 2 => { 3 =>4 } } }
This can just be damn handy.
Destructuring an Array
(a, b), c, d = [ [:a, :b ], :c, [:d1, :d2] ]
Where:
a #=> :a
b #=> :b
c #=> :c
d #=> [:d1, :d2]
Using this technique we can use simple assignment to get the exact values we want out of nested array of any depth.
Class.new()
Create a new class at run time. The argument can be a class to derive from, and the block is the class body. You might also want to look at const_set/const_get/const_defined? to get your new class properly registered, so that inspect prints out a name instead of a number.
Not something you need every day, but quite handy when you do.
create an array of consecutive numbers:
x = [*0..5]
sets x to [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
A lot of the magic you see in Rubyland has to do with metaprogramming, which is simply writing code that writes code for you. Ruby's attr_accessor, attr_reader, and attr_writer are all simple metaprogramming, in that they create two methods in one line, following a standard pattern. Rails does a whole lot of metaprogramming with their relationship-management methods like has_one and belongs_to.
But it's pretty simple to create your own metaprogramming tricks using class_eval to execute dynamically-written code.
The following example allows a wrapper object to forwards certain methods along to an internal object:
class Wrapper
attr_accessor :internal
def self.forwards(*methods)
methods.each do |method|
define_method method do |*arguments, &block|
internal.send method, *arguments, &block
end
end
end
forwards :to_i, :length, :split
end
w = Wrapper.new
w.internal = "12 13 14"
w.to_i # => 12
w.length # => 8
w.split('1') # => ["", "2 ", "3 ", "4"]
The method Wrapper.forwards takes symbols for the names of methods and stores them in the methods array. Then, for each of those given, we use define_method to create a new method whose job it is to send the message along, including all arguments and blocks.
A great resource for metaprogramming issues is Why the Lucky Stiff's "Seeing Metaprogramming Clearly".
use anything that responds to ===(obj) for case comparisons:
case foo
when /baz/
do_something_with_the_string_matching_baz
when 12..15
do_something_with_the_integer_between_12_and_15
when lambda { |x| x % 5 == 0 }
# only works in Ruby 1.9 or if you alias Proc#call as Proc#===
do_something_with_the_integer_that_is_a_multiple_of_5
when Bar
do_something_with_the_instance_of_Bar
when some_object
do_something_with_the_thing_that_matches_some_object
end
Module (and thus Class), Regexp, Date, and many other classes define an instance method :===(other), and can all be used.
Thanks to Farrel for the reminder of Proc#call being aliased as Proc#=== in Ruby 1.9.
The "ruby" binary (at least MRI's) supports a lot of the switches that made perl one-liners quite popular.
Significant ones:
-n Sets up an outer loop with just "gets" - which magically works with given filename or STDIN, setting each read line in $_
-p Similar to -n but with an automatic puts at the end of each loop iteration
-a Automatic call to .split on each input line, stored in $F
-i In-place edit input files
-l Automatic call to .chomp on input
-e Execute a piece of code
-c Check source code
-w With warnings
Some examples:
# Print each line with its number:
ruby -ne 'print($., ": ", $_)' < /etc/irbrc
# Print each line reversed:
ruby -lne 'puts $_.reverse' < /etc/irbrc
# Print the second column from an input CSV (dumb - no balanced quote support etc):
ruby -F, -ane 'puts $F[1]' < /etc/irbrc
# Print lines that contain "eat"
ruby -ne 'puts $_ if /eat/i' < /etc/irbrc
# Same as above:
ruby -pe 'next unless /eat/i' < /etc/irbrc
# Pass-through (like cat, but with possible line-end munging):
ruby -p -e '' < /etc/irbrc
# Uppercase all input:
ruby -p -e '$_.upcase!' < /etc/irbrc
# Same as above, but actually write to the input file, and make a backup first with extension .bak - Notice that inplace edit REQUIRES input files, not an input STDIN:
ruby -i.bak -p -e '$_.upcase!' /etc/irbrc
Feel free to google "ruby one-liners" and "perl one-liners" for tons more usable and practical examples. It essentially allows you to use ruby as a fairly powerful replacement to awk and sed.
The send() method is a general-purpose method that can be used on any Class or Object in Ruby. If not overridden, send() accepts a string and calls the name of the method whose string it is passed. For example, if the user clicks the “Clr” button, the ‘press_clear’ string will be sent to the send() method and the ‘press_clear’ method will be called. The send() method allows for a fun and dynamic way to call functions in Ruby.
%w(7 8 9 / 4 5 6 * 1 2 3 - 0 Clr = +).each do |btn|
button btn, :width => 46, :height => 46 do
method = case btn
when /[0-9]/: 'press_'+btn
when 'Clr': 'press_clear'
when '=': 'press_equals'
when '+': 'press_add'
when '-': 'press_sub'
when '*': 'press_times'
when '/': 'press_div'
end
number.send(method)
number_field.replace strong(number)
end
end
I talk more about this feature in Blogging Shoes: The Simple-Calc Application
Fool some class or module telling it has required something that it really hasn't required:
$" << "something"
This is useful for example when requiring A that in turns requires B but we don't need B in our code (and A won't use it either through our code):
For example, Backgroundrb's bdrb_test_helper requires 'test/spec', but you don't use it at all, so in your code:
$" << "test/spec"
require File.join(File.dirname(__FILE__) + "/../bdrb_test_helper")
Defining a method that accepts any number of parameters and just discards them all
def hello(*)
super
puts "hello!"
end
The above hello method only needs to puts "hello" on the screen and call super - but since the superclass hello defines parameters it has to as well - however since it doesn't actually need to use the parameters itself - it doesn't have to give them a name.
private unless Rails.env == 'test'
# e.g. a bundle of methods you want to test directly
Looks like a cool and (in some cases) nice/useful hack/feature of Ruby.