Ruby Code:
def fnAdd(x)
return ->(y) { x + y }
end
add1 = 1.method(:fnAdd)
puts add1.call(10)
Output: Proc:0x007f52658d3330#main.rb:2 (lambda)
I am having issues getting the desired output in the above code.
I'm basically trying to write the following Scala code (which calls a function that returns another function) in Ruby.
Scala Code:
def fnAdd (x:Int) = {
(y:Int) => x + y
}
var add1 = fnAdd (1)
var add2 = fnAdd (2)
println(add1(10))
println(add2(3))
Output: 11 5
I've made an attempt at converting the code to Ruby but I'm not sure if it is correct. I don't understand the output, which appears to be some kind of proc object.
Could someone please explain what I need to change to get the desired output?
I'm not sure how your first example is even running, as it produces a NameError on my machine. Regardless, #method is intended for accessing methods on specific objects. You've defined a standalone method which is already curried, not one inside of the Fixnum class. So you simply need to call it as a method.
add1 = fnAdd(1)
Also, Ruby has the same behavior as Scala with regard to returning the last expression in a method, so you don't need to use return in this case.
Edit:
Thanks to #JörgWMittag for pointing out a few flaws here. Defining #fnAdd at the top-level makes it a private instance method on Object. Since everything in Ruby is an object, Fixnum inherits from the Object class. Thus, 1.method(:fnAdd) is simply giving you the fnAdd method without actually passing it any arguments. Thus, it still expects to be called twice.
fnAddMethod = 1.method(:fnAdd)
add1 = fnAddMethod.call(1)
puts add1.call(10)
However, this would be extremely unidiomatic, so it's best to stick with the simpler solution.
Related
In ruby, the following expression:
x.filter {|n| n.even?}
can also be written as:
x.filter(&:even?)
so, I am wondering how I would write this expression?
x.filter {|n| !n.even?}
without using odd? method
As Sam and engineerskmnky said in the comments below question, it is not possible to perform x.filter { |n| !n.even? } operation directly (and in fact two operations inside the block).
I guess that this was only a trivial example and not a real code so if you have method that does not have the inverse one and you don't want to create one, you can create a lambda or proc in the following way:
not_even = -> (n) { !n.even? }
and then call it on filter as:
x.filter(¬_even)
You can also use reject method which should give you the same result without the magic of using lambda.
So I found this quiz on a website that I was excited to solve with my newly acquired Ruby skills (CodeAcademy, not quite finished yet).
What I want to do is make an array with 100 entries, all set to "open". Then, I planned to create a method containing a for loop that iterates through every nth entry of the array and changes it to either "open" or "closed", based on what it was before. In the for loop, n should be increased from 1 to 100.
What I have so far is this:
change_state = Proc.new { |element| element == "open" ? element = "closed" : element = "open" }
def janitor(array,n)
for i in 1..n
array.each { |element| if array.index(element) % i == 0 then element.change_state end }
end
end
lockers = [*1..100]
lockers = lockers.map{ |element| element = "closed" }
result = janitor(lockers,100)
When trying to execute I receive an error saying:
undefined method `change_state' for "closed":String (NoMethodError)
Anybody an idea what is wrong here? I kinda think I'm calling the "change_state" proc incorrectly on the current array element.
If you know the quiz, no spoilers please!
As you have implemented change_state, it is not a method of any class, and definitely not one attached to any of the individual elements of the array, despite you using the same variable name element. So you cannot call it as element.change_state.
Instead, it is a variable pointing to a Proc object.
To call the code in a Proc object, you would use the call method, and syntax like proc_obj.call( params ) - in your case change_state.call( element )
If you just drop in that change, your error message will change to:
NameError: undefined local variable or method `change_state' for main:Object
That's because the change_state variable is not in scope inside the method, in order to be called. There are lots of ways to make it available. One option would be to pass it in as a parameter, so your definition for janitor becomes
def janitor(array,n,state_proc)
(use the variable name state_proc inside your routine instead of change_state - I am suggesting you change the name to avoid confusing yourself)
You could then call it like this:
result = janitor(lockers,100,change_state)
Although your example does not really need this structure, this is one way in which Ruby code can provide a generic "outer" function - working through the elements of an array, say - and have the user of that code provide a small internal custom part of it. A more common way to achieve the same result as your example is to use a Ruby block and the yield method, but Procs also have their uses, because you can treat them like data as well as code - so you can pass them around, put them into hashes or arrays to decide which one to call etc.
There may be other issues to address in your code, but this is the cause of the error message in the question.
I am confused about bindings.
def repl(input_stream, output_stream)
loop do
output_stream.print "> "
input = input_stream.gets()
result = binding.eval(input)
output_stream.puts(result)
end
end
repl($stdin, $stdout)
I am going to call repl with just $stdin and $stdout. I need a dumbed down version of what the line:
binding.eval(input) is doing.
Bindings are just where we currently are in the call stack right? They hold the current local variables? Anything else? What's a good way to think of them differently from the current scope?
Objects of class Binding encapsulate the execution context at some particular place in the code and retain this context for future use. The variables, methods, value of self, and possibly an iterator block that can be accessed in this context are all retained. Binding objects can be created using Kernel#binding, and are made available to the callback of Kernel#set_trace_func.
static VALUE
bind_local_variable_defined_p(VALUE bindval, VALUE sym)
{
ID lid = check_local_id(bindval, &sym);
const rb_binding_t *bind;
if (!lid) return Qfalse;
GetBindingPtr(bindval, bind);
return get_local_variable_ptr(bind->env, lid) ? Qtrue : Qfalse;
}
Here is a example of Public Instance Methods
def get_binding(param)
return binding
end
b = get_binding("hello")
b.eval("param") #=> "hello"
Right now the code below produces the output below it, but how would I override the default output to a more logical one for my given situation. I understand that I could just append the string "Hz" after the range but I want to incorporate this into a module which can be included to the Range class when needed or for use with refinements.
Code:
("20Hz"..."40Hz").each { |hz| p hz }
Output:
"20Hz"
"20Ia"
"20Ib"
...etc
Wanted output:
"20Hz"
"21Hz"
"22Hz"
...etc
This is absolutely a bad idea, but just for the sake of experimenting:
class String
alias_method :succ_orig, :succ
def succ
self.gsub(/\d+/, &:succ_orig)
end
end
p ("20Hz".."40Hz").to_a
#=> ["20Hz", "21Hz", "22Hz", "23Hz", "24Hz", "25Hz", "26Hz", "27Hz", "28Hz", "29Hz", "30Hz", "31Hz", "32Hz", "33Hz", "34Hz", "35Hz", "36Hz", "37Hz", "38Hz", "39Hz", "40Hz"]
As you can see, it is not the Range class that should be altered, but String#succ method.
But in real project, you better create a class for your Hertz-strings and define its succ method appropriately.
I think its quite simple.
("20"..."40").each { |hz| p hz + 'Hz'}
I would recommend creating your own function or class for this rather that changing the way in which Ruby ranges behave. There is probably a lot of other code that depends on ranges working in a specific way, and changing the range definition would result in that code breaking. You might want to aim for something like this:
HzRange.new("20Hz", "40Hz").each{ |hz| p hz }
The creation of the HzRange class is up to you, but you should probably delegate to the Array or Range object so that you can inherit some default behavior like Enumerable.
In the Lua language, I am able to define functions in a table with something such as
table = { myfunction = function(x) return x end }
I wondered if I can created methods this way, instead of having to do it like
function table:mymethod() ... end
I am fairly sure it is possible to add methods this way, but I am unsure of the proper name of this technique, and I cannot find it looking for "lua" and "methods" or such.
My intention is to pass a table to a function such as myfunction({data= stuff, name = returnedName, ?method?init() = stuff}).
Unfortunately I have tried several combinations with the colon method declaration but none of them is valid syntax.
So...anyone here happens to know?
Sure: table:method() is just syntactic sugar for table.method(self), but you have to take care of the self argument. If you do
tab={f=function(x)return x end }
then tab:f(x) won't work, as this actually is tab.f(tab,x) and thus will return tab instead of x.
You might take a look on the lua users wiki on object orientation or PiL chapter 16.