Related
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
class MyClass
extend Forwardable
def_delegators :#broker, :add
def subscribe_in_broker
#subscribers.map(&method(:add))
end
end
In this example #subscribers is a Hash and #broker.add takes two arguments: def broker(k,v).
This causes ArgumentError: wrong number of arguments (given 1, expected 2)
Is there a way to use Forwardable or a similar solution without this problem? How can I easily delegate an Array with 2 elements to a method which takes two arguments? What would be the equivalent of writing:
def subscribe_in_broker
#subscribers.map{|k,v| add(k,v) }
end
but using delegation?
It might seem like the block is receiving 2 arguments, but it is actually receiving only a single argument (a 2-element array). Ruby is interpreting the |x, y| as if it was |(x, y)|. The parentheses (which can be omitted here) destructure the single argument into its two pieces.
When you use a & with a method, it also only gets only 1 argument, and if you want to destructure it, you have to be explicit by using a set of parentheses around x and y:
def add((x,y))
end
To be clear, this is a single-argument method that expects the argument to be an array. For example, you call it like this: add([1, 2])
Note: this has nothing to do with delegation, just the fact that Ruby assumes you intend to destructure in one place, while not in another.
It is possible to yield more than one argument to a block (or a method turned into a proc with '&'), but that is not what map does.
It's not obvious to me why hash.map { |x,y| add(x, y) } is not adequate for your purposes. To work around that, you'd need to define your own map function that yields 2 arguments instead of 1, and that seems like overkill for this.
Ruby provides the #tap method, which allows you to take in a variable and run code on it, but then return the original variable rather than the result of your expression, ie:
def number
5.tap { |x| print x } # Prints 5, and returns 5
end
Is there any function built into Clojure that can provide this functionality?
You're looking for doto. Here's your example, rewritten using it:
(doto 5
println)
It works similarly to the -> macro in that it passes the value through a series of functions. A key difference is that it returns the initial value you passed in, rather than what is returned by the final function.
I am trying to understand why do we really need lambda or proc in ruby (or any other language for that matter)?
#method
def add a,b
c = a+b
end
#using proc
def add_proc a,b
f = Proc.new {|x,y| x + y }
f.call a,b
end
#using lambda function
def add_lambda a,b
f = lambda {|x,y| x + y}
f.call a,b
end
puts add 1,1
puts add_proc 1,2
puts add_lambda 1,3
I can do a simple addition using: 1. normal function def, 2. using proc and 3. using lambda.
But why and where use lambda in the real world? Any examples where functions cannot be used and lambda should be used.
It's true, you don't need anonymous functions (or lambdas, or whatever you want to call them). But there are a lot of things you don't need. You don't need classes—just pass all the instance variables around to ordinary functions. Then
class Foo
attr_accessor :bar, :baz
def frob(x)
bar = baz*x
end
end
would become
def new_Foo(bar,baz)
[bar,baz]
end
def bar(foo)
foo[0]
end
# Other attribute accessors stripped for brevity's sake
def frob(foo,x)
foo[0] = foo[1]*x
end
Similarly, you don't need any loops except for loop...end with if and break. I could go on and on.1 But you want to program with classes in Ruby. You want to be able to use while loops, or maybe even array.each { |x| ... }, and you want to be able to use unless instead of if not.
Just like these features, anonymous functions are there to help you express things elegantly, concisely, and sensibly. Being able to write some_function(lambda { |x,y| x + f(y) }) is much nicer than having to write
def temp(x,y)
x + f(y)
end
some_function temp
It's much bulkier to have to break off the flow of code to write out a deffed function, which then has to be given a useless name, when it's just as clear to write the operation in-line. It's true that there's nowhere you must use a lambda, but there are lots of places I'd much rather use a lambda.
Ruby solves a lot of the lambda-using cases with blocks: all the functions like each, map, and open which can take a block as an argument are basically taking a special-cased anonymous function. array.map { |x| f(x) + g(x) } is the same as array.map(&lambda { |x| f(x) + g(x) }) (where the & just makes the lambda "special" in the same way that the bare block is). Again, you could write out a separate deffed function every time—but why would you want to?
Languages other than Ruby which support that style of programming don't have blocks, but often support a lighter-weight lambda syntax, such as Haskell's \x -> f x + g x, or C#'s x => f(x) + g(x);2. Any time I have a function which needs to take some abstract behavior, such as map, or each, or on_clicked, I'm going to be thankful for the ability to pass in a lambda instead of a named function, because it's just that much easier. Eventually, you stop thinking of them as somehow special—they're about as exciting as literal syntax for arrays instead of empty().append(1).append(2).append(3). Just another useful part of the language.
1: In the degenerate case, you really only need eight instructions: +-<>[].,. <> move an imaginary "pointer" along an array; +- increment and decrement the integer in the current cell; [] perform a loop-while-non-zero; and ., do input and output. In fact, you really only need just one instruction, such as subleq a b c (subtract a from b and jump to c if the result is less than or equal to zero).
2: I've never actually used C#, so if that syntax is wrong, feel free to correct it.
Blocks are more-or-less the same thing
Well, in Ruby, one doesn't usually use lambda or proc, because blocks are about the same thing and much more convenient.
The uses are infinite, but we can list some typical cases. One normally thinks of functions as lower-level blocks performing a piece of the processing, perhaps written generally and made into a library.
But quite often one wants to automate the wrapper and provide a custom library. Imagine a function that makes an HTTP or HTTPS connection, or a straight TCP one, feeds the I/O to its client, and then closes the connection. Or perhaps just does the same thing with a plain old file.
So in Ruby we would put the function in a library and have it take a block for the user .. the client .. the "caller" to write his application logic.
In another language this would have to be done with a class that implements an interface, or a function pointer. Ruby has blocks, but they are all examples of a lambda-style design pattern.
1) It is just a convenience. You don't need to name certain blocks
special_sort(array, :compare_proc => lambda { |left, right| left.special_param <=> right.special_param }
(imagine if you had to name all these blocks)
2) #lambda is usually used to create clojures:
def generate_multiple_proc(cofactor)
lambda { |element| element * cofactor }
end
[1, 2, 3, 4].map(&generate_multiple_proc(2)) # => [2, 3, 5, 8]
[1, 2, 3, 4].map(&generate_multiple_proc(3)) # => [3, 6, 9, 12]
It comes down to style. Lambdas are a a declarative style, methods are an imperative style. Consider this:
Lambda, blocks, procs, are all different types of closure. Now the question is, when and why to use an anonymous closure. I can answer that - at least in ruby!
Closures contain the lexical context of where they were called from. If you call a method from within a method, you do not get the context of where the method was called. This is due to the way the object chain is stored in the AST.
A Closure (lambda) on the other hand, can be passed WITH lexical context through a method, allowing for lazy evaluation.
Also lambdas naturally lend themselves to recursion and enumeration.
In case of OOP, you should create a function in a class only if there should be such an operation on the class according to your domain modeling.
If you need a quick function which can be written inline such as for comparison etc, use a lambda
Also check these SO posts -
When to use lambda, when to use Proc.new?
C# Lambda expressions: Why should I use them?
When to use a lambda in Ruby on Rails?
They're used as "higher-order" functions. Basically, for cases where you pass one function to another, so that the receiving function can call the passed-in one according to its own logic.
This is common in Ruby for iteration, e.g. some_list.each { |item| ... } to do something to each item of some_list. Although notice here that we don't use the keyword lambda; as noted, a block is basically the same thing.
In Python (since we have a language-agnostic tag on this question) you can't write anything quite like a Ruby block, so the lambda keyword comes up more often. However, you can get a similar "shortcut" effect from list comprehensions and generator expressions.
I found this helpful in understanding the differences:
http://www.robertsosinski.com/2008/12/21/understanding-ruby-blocks-procs-and-lambdas/
But in general the point is sometimes your writing a method but you don't know what you're going to want to do at a certain point in that method, so you let the caller decide.
E.g.:
def iterate_over_two_arrays(arr1, arr2, the_proc)
arr1.each do |x|
arr2.each do |y|
# ok I'm iterating over two arrays, but I could do lots of useful things now
# so I'll leave it up to the caller to decide by passing in a proc
the_proc.call(x,y)
end
end
end
Then instead of writing a iterate_over_two_arrays_and_print_sum method and a iterate_over_two_arrays_and_print_product method you just call:
iterate_over_two_arrays([1,2,3], [4,5,6], Proc.new {|x,y| puts x + y }
or
iterate_over_two_arrays([1,2,3], [4,5,6], Proc.new {|x,y| puts x * y }
so it's more flexible.
I'm new to Ruby, and I'm trying the following:
mySet = numOfCuts.times.map{ rand(seqLength) }
but I get the 'yield called out of block' error. I'm not sure what his means. BTW, this question is part of a more general question I asked here.
The problem is that the times method expects to get a block that it will yield control to. However you haven't passed a block to it. There are two ways to solve this. The first is to not use times:
mySet = (1..numOfCuts).map{ rand(seqLength) }
or else pass a block to it:
mySet = []
numOfCuts.times {mySet.push( rand(seqLength) )}
if "numOfCuts" is an integer,
5.times.foo
is invalid
"times" expects a block.
5.times{ code here }
You're combining functions that don't seem to make sense -- if numOfCuts is an integer, then just using times and a block will run the block that many times (though it only returns the original integer:
irb(main):089:0> 2.times {|x| puts x}
0
1
2
map is a function that works on ranges and arrays and returns an array:
irb(main):092:0> (1..3).map { |x| puts x; x+1 }
1
2
3
[2, 3, 4]
I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve with the code - what are you trying to do? (as opposed to asking specifically about what appears to be invalid syntax)
Bingo, I just found out what this is. Its a JRuby bug.
Under MRI
>> 3.times.map
=> [0, 1, 2]
>>
Under JRuby
irb(main):001:0> 3.times.map
LocalJumpError: yield called out of block
from (irb):2:in `times'
from (irb):2:in `signal_status'
irb(main):002:0>
Now, I don't know if MRI (the standard Ruby implementation) is doing the right thing here. It probably should complain that this does not make sense, but when n.times is called in MRI it returns an Enumerator, whereas Jruby complains that it needs a block.
Integer.times expects a block. The error message means the yield statement inside the times method can not be called because you did not give it a block.
As for your code, I think what you are looking for is a range:
(1..5).map{ do something }
Here is thy rubydoc for the Integer.times and Range.