I invoke Ruby from my shell script like this:
ruby -n -e "print if %r($fromre)...%r($tore)" "$#"
Since Ruby 2.6, I get the warning
warning: flip-flop is deprecated
So it seems that i have to be prepared that the wise high priests of Ruby have decided that this (IMO useful) construct will be completely gone one day.
What would be an easy work-around? Of course I can replace
print if %r($fromre)...%r($tore)
by
inside ||= %r($fromre)
if inside
print
inside = false if %r($tore)
end
but I wonder whether there is a more concise way to write this.
Related
My question is a follow up to this question: No return on command line when running Ruby script because the answer doesn't offer an explanation:
Take the following file, script.rb:
def hello(names)
names.map {|name| "#{name} is awesome!"}
end
hello(["mark", "tony", "scott"])
When executing the file on the command line with ruby script.rb the return value of the following function does not appear. However, testing the method in IRB or by dropping into the code with PRY outputs an explicit return value. Why isn't the return value visible via script execution?
P.S. I am aware that using puts will output code into the terminal but I'm interested in why the return value doesn't output.
Because both IRB or Pry are REPL's
REPL stands for: read, evaluate, print and loop. And that's exactly what both Pry and IRB are doing.
They will first read your input, evaluate your code, print the result of the code execution and then start over.
A Ruby script can't return a value directly like you want it to, the Bash shell works in the same way, a Bash function can't return a string directly. You can return a string (with stdout) and assign it to the variable.
~:$~ cat scr.rb
~:$~ puts "Something here"
~:$~ echo $(ruby ./scr.rb)
Something here
~:$~ myvar=$(echo $(ruby ./scr.rb))
~:$~ echo $myvar
Something here
It's really simple: Bash (or whatever shell you are using) and Ruby are different programming languages. Bash doesn't know anything about Ruby. It doesn't know what a " Ruby return" is, it doesn't know what a "Ruby array" is, it doesn't know what a "Ruby string" is. Therefore, you simply cannot possibly return a Ruby object to Bash.
In fact, the shell usually just uses some operating system function to execute the Ruby script (e.g. the classical fork and exec or something like vfork or clone). If you wanted to return values this way, the operating system kernel would have to know about the semantics of every programming language ever invented plus every programming language that is going to be invented in the future. That is just not feasible.
Note that a command can return a value to the shell, namely an integer between 0 and 255 intended as a status code (with 0 meaning "success" and nonzero meaning "error"), and you can set that return value by calling Kernel#exit.
I used to have the same question myself when I started coding. If you have a closer look at your code you can see why it doesn't print anything. You are actually no asking it in your code. Imagine having a huge script of thousands of lines and you want to execute it. You would have millions of pointless outputs if ruby myscript.rb worked the same way as the REPLs.
In addition, if you do want it to work that way, you can just do require the script inside the REPL session ( require_relative 'your_script' ) and then if you call your function hello it will work the way you describe.
I can use the ruval gem. It evaluates each statement and returns its value.
$ ruval names.rb
def hello(names)
names.map {|name| "#{name} is awesome!"}
end
=> hello
hello(["mark", "tony", "scott"])
=> ["mark is awesome!", "tony is awesome!", "scott is awesome!"]
I'm new to ruby. I understand that, when I see a ruby script, it usually contains lines similar to this:
#!/usr/bin/env ruby
require 'rubyfunction1'
require 'rubyfunction2'
I understand that the require lines are basically (to put it in simple basic terms), calling other scripts. That is really all there is to it. These other scripts are functions.
Now, suppose, I put the content of the rubyfunction1 and rubyfunction2 scripts into two different variables. How do I require the content of a variable?
Or, suppose I want to be able to do something like this:
require '`/home/swenson/rubyfunction1.rb`'
I understand this is a roundabout way of requiring gems/ruby functions, but I'm curious to know if it is at all possible in this manner.
Basically, if I were to run the /home/swenson/rubyfunction1.rb script by itself on the command line, it will basically output to you the content of the script. It would be equivalent to doing "cat /home/swenson/rubyfunction1.rb".
I want to be able to do something like this:
require '`/home/swenson/rubyfunction1.rb`'
require '`/home/swenson/rubyfunction2.rb`'
or
specvar1 = `/home/swenson/rubyfunction1.rb`
specvar2 = `/home/swenson/rubyfunction2.rb`
require specvar1
require specvar2
Is this possible? Any suggestions I can apply to get it to work?
UPDATE:
So here's what I ended up doing.
Main Script called example.rb:
#!/usr/bin/env ruby
add = `./add.rb` # for my purposes, this will serve as require
subtract = `./subtract.rb` # for my purposes, this will serve as require
eval add
puts "I can add: #{add(3, 2)}"
eval subtract
puts "I can now subtract #{subtract(3, 2)}"
Content of add.rb:
#!/usr/bin/env ruby
puts <<-function
#!/usr/bin/env ruby
def add(a, b)
a + b
end
function
Content of subtract.rb:
#!/usr/bin/env ruby
puts <<-function
#!/usr/bin/env ruby
def subtract(a, b)
a - b
end
function
When run from the command line, I get no errors:
# ./example.rb
I can add: 5
I can now subtract 1
Basically, what I want done is precisely this. However, I know there's probably a optimized way of doing this (without having to directly require the relative file). So please, feel free to help me update or optimize this.
I understand that the require lines are basically (to put it in simple basic terms), calling other scripts. That is really all there is to it.
Yes. load, require, and require_relative simply run a Ruby file. That's it.
These other scripts are functions.
No. They are scripts. There is no such thing as a function in Ruby.
Now, suppose, I put the content of the rubyfunction1 and rubyfunction2 scripts into two different variables. How do I require the content of a variable?
You can't. require runs a file. It takes the name of a file (more precisely, a relative path) as an argument. Ruby code is not the name of a file.
Or, suppose i want to be able to do something like this:
require '`/home/swenson/rubyfunction1.rb`'
I understand this is a roundabout way of requiring gems/ruby functions, but im curious to know if it is at all possible in this manner.
This is possible. There's nothing special about this. It will simply run a file at the path `/home/swenson/rubyfunction1.rb`. That is a slightly unusual path, but there is nothing special about it. It's just a path like any other, with some funny characters in it.
so to iterate what im trying to do, i want to be able to do something like this:
require '`/home/swenson/rubyfunction1.rb`'
require '`/home/swenson/rubyfunction2.rb`'
or
specvar1 = `/home/swenson/rubyfunction1.rb`
specvar2 = `/home/swenson/rubyfunction2.rb`
require specvar1
require specvar2
Is this possible? Any suggestions I can apply to get it to work?
It's not quite clear what you want here. Those two code snippets are in no way equivalent, they do completely different things!
The first one passes the literal strings '`/home/swenson/rubyfunction1.rb`' and '`/home/swenson/rubyfunction2.rb`' as arguments to require. The second one executes two files named /home/swenson/rubyfunction1.rb and /home/swenson/rubyfunction2.rb using the default system shell (CMD.EXE on Windows, /bin/sh on POSIX), gets the standard output as String and passes those strings to require.
Note that in the first case, the backticks ` are part of the filename, whereas in the second case, they are Ruby syntax for calling the Kernel#` method.
So, I think I understand your question correctly, let's say we have 3 files
add.rb
#!/usr/bin/env ruby
def add(a, b)
a + b
end
subtract.rb
#!/usr/bin/env ruby
puts "def subtract(a, b)"
puts " a - b"
puts "end"
example.rb
require './add.rb'
subtract = `./subtract.rb`
puts "I can add: #{add(3, 2)}"
# can't do `subtract`, yet, as we haven't `eval`ed the code even though we've run executed the file
eval subtract
puts "I can now subtract #{subtract(3, 2)}"
And the output of running ruby example.rb on the command line is:
$ ruby example.rb
I can add: 5
I can now subtract 1
So, add.rb just defines a function add. When we require that file, it gets loaded in so we can use that function in our code with no problems.
But, subtract.rb doesn't define a function...it just outputs some code, so running it on the command line looks like:
$ ./subtract.rb
def subtract(a, b)
a - b
end
So now, in our third file example.rb, we require the add.rb and then we can start using add in our code as is, but then we want to execute the subtract.rb (using back ticks here) and capture the output of it. At this point, we can't subtract 2 numbers, because we haven't done anything with the output. Then we use eval to evaluate the output of the subtract method, which will define a method for us, then we can subtract the 2 numbers without a problem.
Note that eval is generally frowned upon because it allows arbitrary code to be executed. Never eval untrusted code unless you know how to tame it. In this case, as #JörgWMittag has pointed out in the comments, this code should be trusted, otherwise you just executed an un-trusted file to get this code. Be careful with user input, though, as that's not trusted.
We had a test that found every Ruby file in our application and ran ruby -c on it. We introduced Rubocop and made it check the same list of files.
Is the test that ran ruby -c actually now useless, or is there an example of a failure mode that would be caught by ruby -c but not Rubocop?
The documentation for ruby -c says:
Causes Ruby to check the syntax of the script and exit without executing. If there are no syntax errors, Ruby will print "Syntax OK" to the standard output.
This is an example of a syntax issue that will be caught by either:
% echo "puts 'hello world" > hot_script.rb
% ruby -c hot_script.rb
hot_script.rb:1: unterminated string meets end of file
% rubocop hot_script.rb
Inspecting 1 file
F
Offenses:
hot_script.rb:1:6: F: unterminated string meets end of file
(Using Ruby 1.9 parser; configure using TargetRubyVersion parameter, under AllCops)
puts 'hello world
^
1 file inspected, 1 offense detected
Rubocop even catches some of the same warnings, though I didn't have ruby -c configured to catch these previously, and I am therefore more interested in errors. Here's an example of relative parity in handling a warning:
% cat unused_var.rb
def hot_method
a = 1
b = 2
puts b
end
% ruby -cwW2 unused_var.rb
unused_var.rb:2: warning: assigned but unused variable - a
Syntax OK
% rubocop unused_var.rb
Inspecting 1 file
W
Offenses:
unused_var.rb:2:3: W: Lint/UselessAssignment: Useless assignment to variable - a.
a = 1
^
1 file inspected, 1 offense detected
I searched using
https://www.google.com/search?q=rubocop%20syntax%20check%20superset
https://www.google.com/search?q=is%20there%20any%20reason%20to%20run%20ruby%20-c%20syntax%20check%20if%20i%20use%20rubocop
but I may be doing it wrong. The test is way slower in Ruby 1.9 than it was in Ruby 1.8, so the answer to this question is actually valuable to me. And you have to admit, you're curious, right?
The answer is "most of the time." RuboCop builds on the parser gem, which is a standalone Ruby parser which mimics, more or less, the MRI parser. RuboCop wraps parser's syntax checks and will properly report issues. However, as stated on the parser's GitHub:
Unfortunately MRI often changes syntax in patch level versions
[...] there is no simple way to track these changes.
This policy makes it all but impossible to make Parser precisely
compatible with the Ruby MRI parser.
In addition, parser supports the latest minor version of whatever release you are using, and doesn't backport minor versions. So if you use Ruby 2.4.0, RuboCop will use a parser version supporting 2.4.1 syntax.
For all intents and purposes, parser is equivalent to the official MRI parser, and unless you have a specific reason to use both, using RuboCop alone should be sufficient.
Rubocop will also identify and report syntax errors since the code cannot be properly parsed if that is the case, so there's no need for both.
A simple Ruby program, which works well (using Ruby 2.0.0):
#!/usr/bin/ruby
while gets
print if /foo/../bar/
end
However, Ruby also outputs the warning warning: regex literal in condition. It seems that Ruby considers my flip-flop-expression /foo/../bar/ as dangerous.
My question: Where lies the danger in this program? And: Can I turn off this warning (ideally only for this statement, keeping other warnings active)?
BTW, I found on the net several discussions of this kind of code, also mentioning the warning, but never found a good explanation why we get warned.
You can avoid the warning by using an explicit match:
while gets
print if ~/foo/..~/bar/
end
Regexp#~ matches against $_.
I don't know why the warning is shown (to be honest, I wasn't even aware that Ruby matches regexp literals against $_ implicitly), but according to the parser's source code, it is shown unless you provide the -e option when invoking Ruby, i.e. passing the script as an argument:
$ ruby -e "while gets; print if /foo/../bar/ end"
I would avoid using $_ as an implicit parameter and instead use something like:
while line = gets
print line if line=~/foo/..line=~/bar/
end
I think Neil Slater is right: It looks like a bug in a parser. If I change the code to
#!/usr/bin/ruby
while gets
print if $_=~/foo/..$_=~/bar/
end
the warning disappears.
I'll file a bug report.
I'm working on implementing Project Euler solutions as semantic Ruby one-liners. It would be extremely useful if I could coerce Ruby to automatically puts the value of the last expression. Is there a way to do this? For example:
#!/usr/bin/env ruby -Ilib -rrubygems -reuler
1.upto(100).into {|n| (n.sum.squared - n.map(&:squared).sum)
I realize I can simply puts the line, but for other reasons (I plan to eval the file in tests, to compare against the expected output) I would like to avoid an explicit puts. Also, it allots me an extra four characters for the solution. :)
Is there anything I can do?
You might try running it under irb instead of directly under a Ruby interpreter.
It seems like the options -f --noprompt --noverbose might be suitable (.
#!/usr/bin/env irb -f --noprompt --noverbose -Ilib -rrubygems -reuler
'put your one-liner here'
The options have these meanings:
-f: do not use .irbrc (or IRBRC)
--noverbose: do not display the source lines
--noprompt: do not prefix the output (e.g. with =>)
result = calculate_result
puts result if File.exist?(__FILE__)
result of eval is last executed operation just like any other code block in ruby
is doing
puts eval(file_contents)
an option for you?
EDIT
you can make use of eval's second parameter which is variables binding
try the following:
do_not_puts = true
eval(file_contents, binding)
and in the file:
....
result = final_result
if defined?(do_not_puts)
result
else
puts(result)
end
Is it an option to change the way you run scripts?
script.rb:
$_= 1.upto(100).into {|n| (n.sum.squared - n.map(&:squared).sum)
invoke with
echo nil.txt | /usr/bin/env/ruby -Ilib -rrubygems -reuler -p script.rb, where nil.txt is a file with a single newline.