I have a hash where multiple keys (lets say 1-5) point to one object (lets call a).
Keys (6-10) points to another object(say, b).
At some point I merged "b" into "a", now i have to make sure everyone sees the same object (also merging "a" into "b" and creating two objects with same content is not an option)
Is there a way to make any reference to "b" just redirect to "a" (keys 1-10 now point to object a) without manually updating keys 6-10 ?
You can't switch out one object for another unless you have some kind of a wrapper. Unless performance matters a lot, the easiest wrappers to use are proxy objects, because you don't need to unwrap them: they transparently behave exactly like the wrapped object.
class ProxyObject
# thanks to https://alisdair.mcdiarmid.org/invisible-proxies-with-ruby/
instance_methods.each do |m|
undef_method(m) unless m =~ /(^__|^nil\?$|^send$|^object_id$)/
end
attr_accessor :target
def initialize(target)
#target = target
end
def respond_to?(symbol, include_priv=false)
#target.respond_to?(symbol, include_priv)
end
private def method_missing(method, *args, &block)
#target.send(method, *args, &block)
end
end
a = 1
b = 10
a_proxy = ProxyObject.new(a)
b_proxy = ProxyObject.new(b)
a_proxy.class # verify how well they masquerade
# => Integer
hash = 10.times.map { |i| [i + 1, i < 5 ? a_proxy : b_proxy] }.to_h
# => {1=>1, 2=>1, 3=>1, 4=>1, 5=>1, 6=>10, 7=>10, 8=>10, 9=>10, 10=>10}
hash.values.sum() # confirm it behaves exactly like a number
# => 55
b_proxy.target = a_proxy.target # switch reference
hash
# => {1=>1, 2=>1, 3=>1, 4=>1, 5=>1, 6=>1, 7=>1, 8=>1, 9=>1, 10=>1}
hash.values.sum() # confirm the reference is changed
# => 10
I think I found an answer but I still have to code it
instead of the hash having an object, it will contain an array
array[0] will originally point to itself, array[1] will be the actual object
so this is the setup: hash1-5 points to arr1, hash6-10 points to arr2, arr1[0] points to itself and arr1[0]
after merging arr2[1] (b in the original question) into arr1[1] (a into the original question), I will update arr2[0] to point to arr1.
finally, after every key retrieval I will run something along the lines of
test = hash[6]
while test[0] != test
test = test[0]
end
Related
Write a function that accepts a multi-dimensional container of any size and converts it into a one dimensional associative array whose keys are strings representing their value's path in the original container.
So { 'one' => {'two' => 3, 'four' => [ 5,6,7]}, 'eight'=> {'nine'=> {'ten'=>11}}}
would become
:
"{'one/two' => 3,'one/four/0' => 5, 'one/four/1' => 6, 'one/four/2' => 7, 'eight/nine/ten' : 11}"
I've gotten this so far... But am having a lot of issues. Any pointers to things I am overlooking?
def oneDimHash(hash)
if hash.is_a?(Fixnum)
puts "AHHH"
else
hash.each_pair do |key,value|
if value.is_a?(Hash)
#temp_key << key << '/'
oneDimHash(value)
elsif value.is_a?(Array)
value.each_with_index do |val,index|
puts index
#temp_key << "#{index}"
oneDimHash(val)
end
else
#temp_key << key
#result["#{#temp_key}"] = "#{value}"
#temp_key = ''
end
end
end
end
It's immediately suspect to me that you are using instance variables instead of method arguments / local variables. Very likely that is producing messed-up keys, at least. Supposing that the method signature cannot be modified, you can work around the need for additional arguments by delegating to a helper function. Perhaps I'd try an approach along these lines:
def oneDimHash(o)
oneDimHashInternal("", o, {})
end
def oneDimHashInternal(keyStem, o, hash)
if o.is_a? Hash
o.each_pair do |key, value|
oneDimHashInternal("#{keystem}/#{key}", value, hash)
end
elsif o.is_a? Array
# Work this out for yourself
else
# Store the (non-container) object in hash
# Work this out for yourself
end
hash
end
Note also that there are Enumerables that are neither Arrays nor Hashes. I don't know whether you need to account for such.
How about this?
def oneDimHash(obj,parent="")
unless obj.is_a?(Hash)
puts "AHHH" # or may be better: raise "AHHH"
else
obj.flat_map do |key,value|
combined_key = [parent,key.to_s].join '/'
case value
when Hash then oneDimHash(value,combined_key).to_a
when Array then value.each_with_index.map { |v,i| [combined_key+"/#{i}",v] }
else [ [combined_key,value] ]
end
end.to_h
end
end
So I need to create an instance method for Array that takes two arguments, the size of an array and an optional object that will be appended to an array.
If the the size argument is less than or equal to the Array.length or the size argument is equal to 0, then just return the array. If the optional argument is left blank, then it inputs nil.
Example output:
array = [1,2,3]
array.class_meth(0) => [1,2,3]
array.class_meth(2) => [1,2,3]
array.class_meth(5) => [1,2,3,nil,nil]
array.class_meth(5, "string") => [1,2,3,"string","string"]
Here is my code that I've been working on:
class Array
def class_meth(a ,b=nil)
self_copy = self
diff = a - self_copy.length
if diff <= 0
self_copy
elsif diff > 0
a.times {self_copy.push b}
end
self_copy
end
def class_meth!(a ,b=nil)
# self_copy = self
diff = a - self.length
if diff <= 0
self
elsif diff > 0
a.times {self.push b}
end
self
end
end
I've been able to create the destructive method, class_meth!, but can't seem to figure out a way to make it non-destructive.
Here's (IMHO) a cleaner solution:
class Array
def class_meth(a, b = nil)
clone.fill(b, size, a - size)
end
def class_meth!(a, b = nil)
fill(b, size, a - size)
end
end
I think it should meet all your needs. To avoid code duplication, you can make either method call the other one (but not both simulaneously, of course):
def class_meth(a, b = nil)
clone.class_meth!(a, b)
end
or:
def class_meth!(a, b = nil)
replace(class_meth(a, b))
end
As you problem has been diagnosed, I will just offer a suggestion for how you might do it. I assume you want to pass two and optionally three, not one and optionally two, parameters to the method.
Code
class Array
def self.class_meth(n, arr, str=nil)
arr + (str ? ([str] : [nil]) * [n-arr.size,0].max)
end
end
Examples
Array.class_meth(0, [1,2,3])
#=> [1,2,3]
Array.class_meth(2, [1,2,3])
#=> [1,2,3]
Array.class_meth(5, [1,2,3])
#=> [1,2,3,nil,nil]
Array.class_meth(5, [1,2,3], "string")
#=> [1,2,3,"string","string"]
Array.class_meth(5, ["dog","cat","pig"])
#=> [1,2,3,"string","string"]
Array.class_meth(5, ["dog","cat","pig"], "string")
#=> [1,2,3,"string","string"]
Array.class_meth(5, ["dog","cat","pig"])
#=> ["dog", "cat", "pig", nil, nil]
Array.class_meth(5, ["dog","cat","pig"], "string")
#=> ["dog", "cat", "pig", "string", "string"]
Before withdrawing his answer, #PatriceGahide suggested using Array#fill. That would be an improvement here; i.e., replace the operative line with:
arr.fill(str ? str : nil, arr.size, [n-arr.size,0].max)
self_copy = self does not make a new object - assignment in Ruby never "copies" or creates a new object implicitly.
Thus the non-destructive case works on the same object (the instance the method was invoked upon) as in the destructive case, with a different variable bound to the same object - that is self.equal? self_copy is true.
The simplest solution is to merely use #clone, keeping in mind it is a shallow clone operation:
def class_meth(a ,b=nil)
self_copy = self.clone # NOW we have a new object ..
# .. so we can modify the duplicate object (self_copy)
# down here without affecting the original (self) object.
end
If #clone cannot be used other solutions involve create a new array or obtain an array #slice (returns a new array) or even append (returning a new array) with #+; however, unlike #clone, these generally lock-into returning an Array and not any sub-type as may be derived.
After the above change is made it should also be apparent that it can written as so:
def class_meth(a ,b=nil)
clone.class_meth!(a, b) # create a NEW object; modify it; return it
# (assumes class_meth! returns the object)
end
A more appropriate implementation of #class_meth!, or #class_meth using one of the other forms to avoid modification of the current instance, is left as an exercise.
FWIW: Those are instance methods, which is appropriate, and not "class meth[ods]"; don't be confused by the ill-naming.
So I'm new to programming, and I'm working on Chris Pine's Learn to Program, which teaches Ruby. I'm on chapter 10 trying to make my own method for an array. I was at a total loss and tried modelling mine off his suggested answer. After fiddling around, I can't get an output. I run the program and it simply ends. I even tried using his code and it's giving me the same problem.
Here's what I have so far.
unsorted_array = ['gamma', 'delta', 'beta', 'alpha', 'zeta']
sorted_array = []
def sort some_array
recursive_sort(some_array, [])
end
def recursive_sort(unsorted_array, sorted_array)
if unsorted_array.length <= 0
return sorted_array
end
still_unsorted =[]
smallest = unsorted_array.pop
sorted_array = []
unsorted_array.each do |tested_obj|
if '#{tested_obj}' > smallest
sorted_array.push(smallest)
else
still_unsorted.push(smallest)
smallest = unsorted_array.pop
end
end
recursive_sort(still_unsorted, sorted_array)
end
puts sort(recursive_sort(unsorted_array, sorted_array))
Any advice would be appreciated.
Here are a few observations about your code:
since test_obj is a string, '#{tested_obj}' is the same as #{tested_obj}, which is the same as tested_obj.
declaring sorted_array = [] has no effect. Being a local variable, it is not within the scope of teh method recursive_sort. That method receives an array that it calls sorted_array, so you would not want it initialized anyway.
you don't need to create the new array, still_unsorted; simply transfer elements from unsorted_array to sorted_array.
Below I've fixed and tightened up your code.
def recursive_sort(unsorted_array, sorted_array = [])
return sorted_array unless unsorted_array.length > 0
smallest = unsorted_array.min
unsorted_array.each {|e| sorted_array << e if e == smallest}
unsorted_array.delete(smallest)
recursive_sort(unsorted_array, sorted_array)
end
unsorted_array = ['gamma', 'alpha', 'delta', 'beta', 'gamma', 'alpha', 'zeta']
p recursive_sort unsorted_array
# => ["alpha", "alpha", "beta", "delta", "gamma", "gamma", "zeta"]
Here's what's happening:
by giving the second argument of recursive_sort (sorted_value) a default value of [] (an empty array), there is no need for the method sort you had previously.
sorted_array is returned if sorting is finished (same as return sorted_array if unsorted_array.length == 0).
use Enumerable#min to find the smallest value of the unsorted items (smallest).
add each instance of smallest in unsorted_array to sorted_array.
delete all instances of smallest in unsorted_array.
call the same method again, to remove the next smallest unsorted item, etc.
Note
unsorted_array.each {|e| sorted_array << e if e == smallest}
could be expressed in many different ways. Here's one:
sorted_array += [smallest]*(unsorted_array.count {|e| e == smallest})
To see how this works, suppose smallest = 'alpha'. Then
unsorted_array.count {|e| e == 'alpha'} # => 2
so the above expression is:
sorted_array += ['alpha']*2
which is
sorted_array += ['alpha', 'alpha']
which adds two "alpha"'s to sorted_array.
I am looking for a way to have, I would say synonym keys in the hash.
I want multiple keys to point to the same value, so I can read/write a value through any of these keys.
As example, it should work like that (let say :foo and :bar are synonyms)
hash[:foo] = "foo"
hash[:bar] = "bar"
puts hash[:foo] # => "bar"
Update 1
Let me add couple of details. The main reason why I need these synonyms, because I receive keys from external source, which I can't control, but multiple keys could actually be associated with the same value.
Rethink Your Data Structure
Depending on how you want to access your data, you can make either the keys or the values synonyms by making them an array. Either way, you'll need to do more work to parse the synonyms than the definitional word they share.
Keys as Definitions
For example, you could use the keys as the definition for your synonyms.
# Create your synonyms.
hash = {}
hash['foo'] = %w[foo bar]
hash
# => {"foo"=>["foo", "bar"]}
# Update the "definition" of your synonyms.
hash['baz'] = hash.delete('foo')
hash
# => {"baz"=>["foo", "bar"]}
Values as Definitions
You could also invert this structure and make your keys arrays of synonyms instead. For example:
hash = {["foo", "bar"]=>"foo"}
hash[hash.rassoc('foo').first] = 'baz'
=> {["foo", "bar"]=>"baz"}
You could subclass hash and override [] and []=.
class AliasedHash < Hash
def initialize(*args)
super
#aliases = {}
end
def alias(from,to)
#aliases[from] = to
self
end
def [](key)
super(alias_of(key))
end
def []=(key,value)
super(alias_of(key), value)
end
private
def alias_of(key)
#aliases.fetch(key,key)
end
end
ah = AliasedHash.new.alias(:bar,:foo)
ah[:foo] = 123
ah[:bar] # => 123
ah[:bar] = 456
ah[:foo] # => 456
What you can do is completely possible as long as you assign the same object to both keys.
variable_a = 'a'
hash = {foo: variable_a, bar: variable_a}
puts hash[:foo] #=> 'a'
hash[:bar].succ!
puts hash[:foo] #=> 'b'
This works because hash[:foo] and hash[:bar] both refer to the same instance of the letter a via variable_a. This however wouldn't work if you used the assignment hash = {foo: 'a', bar: 'a'} because in that case :foo and :bar refer to different instance variables.
The answer to your original post is:
hash[:foo] = hash[:bar]
and
hash[:foo].__id__ == hash[:bar].__id__it
will hold true as long as the value is a reference value (String, Array ...) .
The answer to your Update 1 could be:
input.reduce({ :k => {}, :v => {} }) { |t, (k, v)|
t[:k][t[:v][v] || k] = v;
t[:v][v] = k;
t
}[:k]
where «input» is an abstract enumerator (or array) of your input data as it comes [key, value]+, «:k» your result, and «:v» an inverted hash that serves the purpose of finding a key if its value is already present.
This question already has answers here:
Ruby Style: How to check whether a nested hash element exists
(16 answers)
How to avoid NoMethodError for nil elements when accessing nested hashes? [duplicate]
(4 answers)
Closed 7 years ago.
I'm working a little utility written in ruby that makes extensive use of nested hashes. Currently, I'm checking access to nested hash elements as follows:
structure = { :a => { :b => 'foo' }}
# I want structure[:a][:b]
value = nil
if structure.has_key?(:a) && structure[:a].has_key?(:b) then
value = structure[:a][:b]
end
Is there a better way to do this? I'd like to be able to say:
value = structure[:a][:b]
And get nil if :a is not a key in structure, etc.
Traditionally, you really had to do something like this:
structure[:a] && structure[:a][:b]
However, Ruby 2.3 added a method Hash#dig that makes this way more graceful:
structure.dig :a, :b # nil if it misses anywhere along the way
There is a gem called ruby_dig that will back-patch this for you.
Hash and Array have a method called dig.
value = structure.dig(:a, :b)
It returns nil if the key is missing at any level.
If you are using a version of Ruby older than 2.3, you can install a gem such as ruby_dig or hash_dig_and_collect, or implement this functionality yourself:
module RubyDig
def dig(key, *rest)
if value = (self[key] rescue nil)
if rest.empty?
value
elsif value.respond_to?(:dig)
value.dig(*rest)
end
end
end
end
if RUBY_VERSION < '2.3'
Array.send(:include, RubyDig)
Hash.send(:include, RubyDig)
end
The way I usually do this these days is:
h = Hash.new { |h,k| h[k] = {} }
This will give you a hash that creates a new hash as the entry for a missing key, but returns nil for the second level of key:
h['foo'] -> {}
h['foo']['bar'] -> nil
You can nest this to add multiple layers that can be addressed this way:
h = Hash.new { |h, k| h[k] = Hash.new { |hh, kk| hh[kk] = {} } }
h['bar'] -> {}
h['tar']['zar'] -> {}
h['scar']['far']['mar'] -> nil
You can also chain indefinitely by using the default_proc method:
h = Hash.new { |h, k| h[k] = Hash.new(&h.default_proc) }
h['bar'] -> {}
h['tar']['star']['par'] -> {}
The above code creates a hash whose default proc creates a new Hash with the same default proc. So, a hash created as a default value when a lookup for an unseen key occurs will have the same default behavior.
EDIT: More details
Ruby hashes allow you to control how default values are created when a lookup occurs for a new key. When specified, this behavior is encapsulated as a Proc object and is reachable via the default_proc and default_proc= methods. The default proc can also be specified by passing a block to Hash.new.
Let's break this code down a little. This is not idiomatic ruby, but it's easier to break it out into multiple lines:
1. recursive_hash = Hash.new do |h, k|
2. h[k] = Hash.new(&h.default_proc)
3. end
Line 1 declares a variable recursive_hash to be a new Hash and begins a block to be recursive_hash's default_proc. The block is passed two objects: h, which is the Hash instance the key lookup is being performed on, and k, the key being looked up.
Line 2 sets the default value in the hash to a new Hash instance. The default behavior for this hash is supplied by passing a Proc created from the default_proc of the hash the lookup is occurring in; ie, the default proc the block itself is defining.
Here's an example from an IRB session:
irb(main):011:0> recursive_hash = Hash.new do |h,k|
irb(main):012:1* h[k] = Hash.new(&h.default_proc)
irb(main):013:1> end
=> {}
irb(main):014:0> recursive_hash[:foo]
=> {}
irb(main):015:0> recursive_hash
=> {:foo=>{}}
When the hash at recursive_hash[:foo] was created, its default_proc was supplied by recursive_hash's default_proc. This has two effects:
The default behavior for recursive_hash[:foo] is the same as recursive_hash.
The default behavior for hashes created by recursive_hash[:foo]'s default_proc will be the same as recursive_hash.
So, continuing in IRB, we get the following:
irb(main):016:0> recursive_hash[:foo][:bar]
=> {}
irb(main):017:0> recursive_hash
=> {:foo=>{:bar=>{}}}
irb(main):018:0> recursive_hash[:foo][:bar][:zap]
=> {}
irb(main):019:0> recursive_hash
=> {:foo=>{:bar=>{:zap=>{}}}}
I made rubygem for this. Try vine.
Install:
gem install vine
Usage:
hash.access("a.b.c")
I think one of the most readable solutions is using Hashie:
require 'hashie'
myhash = Hashie::Mash.new({foo: {bar: "blah" }})
myhash.foo.bar
=> "blah"
myhash.foo?
=> true
# use "underscore dot" for multi-level testing
myhash.foo_.bar?
=> true
myhash.foo_.huh_.what?
=> false
value = structure[:a][:b] rescue nil
Solution 1
I suggested this in my question before:
class NilClass; def to_hash; {} end end
Hash#to_hash is already defined, and returns self. Then you can do:
value = structure[:a].to_hash[:b]
The to_hash ensures that you get an empty hash when the previous key search fails.
Solution2
This solution is similar in spirit to mu is too short's answer in that it uses a subclass, but still somewhat different. In case there is no value for a certain key, it does not use a default value, but rather creates a value of empty hash, so that it does not have the problem of confusion in assigment that DigitalRoss's answer has, as was pointed out by mu is too short.
class NilFreeHash < Hash
def [] key; key?(key) ? super(key) : self[key] = NilFreeHash.new end
end
structure = NilFreeHash.new
structure[:a][:b] = 3
p strucrture[:a][:b] # => 3
It departs from the specification given in the question, though. When an undefined key is given, it will return an empty hash instread of nil.
p structure[:c] # => {}
If you build an instance of this NilFreeHash from the beginning and assign the key-values, it will work, but if you want to convert a hash into an instance of this class, that may be a problem.
You could just build a Hash subclass with an extra variadic method for digging all the way down with appropriate checks along the way. Something like this (with a better name of course):
class Thing < Hash
def find(*path)
path.inject(self) { |h, x| return nil if(!h.is_a?(Thing) || h[x].nil?); h[x] }
end
end
Then just use Things instead of hashes:
>> x = Thing.new
=> {}
>> x[:a] = Thing.new
=> {}
>> x[:a][:b] = 'k'
=> "k"
>> x.find(:a)
=> {:b=>"k"}
>> x.find(:a, :b)
=> "k"
>> x.find(:a, :b, :c)
=> nil
>> x.find(:a, :c, :d)
=> nil
This monkey patch function for Hash should be easiest (at least for me). It also doesn't alter structure i.e. changing nil's to {}. It would still also apply even if you're reading a tree from a raw source e.g. JSON. It also doesn't need to produce empty hash objects as it goes or parse a string. rescue nil was actually a good easy solution for me as I'm brave enough for such a low risk but I find it to essentially have a drawback with performance.
class ::Hash
def recurse(*keys)
v = self[keys.shift]
while keys.length > 0
return nil if not v.is_a? Hash
v = v[keys.shift]
end
v
end
end
Example:
> structure = { :a => { :b => 'foo' }}
=> {:a=>{:b=>"foo"}}
> structure.recurse(:a, :b)
=> "foo"
> structure.recurse(:a, :x)
=> nil
What's also good is that you can play around saved arrays with it:
> keys = [:a, :b]
=> [:a, :b]
> structure.recurse(*keys)
=> "foo"
> structure.recurse(*keys, :x1, :x2)
=> nil
The XKeys gem will read and auto-vivify-on-write nested hashes (::Hash) or hashes and arrays (::Auto, based on the key/index type) with a simple, clear, readable, and compact syntax by enhancing #[] and #[]=. The sentinel symbol :[] will push onto the end of an array.
require 'xkeys'
structure = {}.extend XKeys::Hash
structure[:a, :b] # nil
structure[:a, :b, :else => 0] # 0 (contextual default)
structure[:a] # nil, even after above
structure[:a, :b] = 'foo'
structure[:a, :b] # foo
You can use the andand gem, but I'm becoming more and more wary of it:
>> structure = { :a => { :b => 'foo' }} #=> {:a=>{:b=>"foo"}}
>> require 'andand' #=> true
>> structure[:a].andand[:b] #=> "foo"
>> structure[:c].andand[:b] #=> nil
There is the cute but wrong way to do this. Which is to monkey-patch NilClass to add a [] method that returns nil. I say it is the wrong approach because you have no idea what other software may have made a different version, or what behavior change in a future version of Ruby can be broken by this.
A better approach is to create a new object that works a lot like nil but supports this behavior. Make this new object the default return of your hashes. And then it will just work.
Alternately you can create a simple "nested lookup" function that you pass the hash and the keys to, which traverses the hashes in order, breaking out when it can.
I would personally prefer one of the latter two approaches. Though I think it would be cute if the first was integrated into the Ruby language. (But monkey-patching is a bad idea. Don't do that. Particularly not to demonstrate what a cool hacker you are.)
Not that I would do it, but you can Monkeypatch in NilClass#[]:
> structure = { :a => { :b => 'foo' }}
#=> {:a=>{:b=>"foo"}}
> structure[:x][:y]
NoMethodError: undefined method `[]' for nil:NilClass
from (irb):2
from C:/Ruby/bin/irb:12:in `<main>'
> class NilClass; def [](*a); end; end
#=> nil
> structure[:x][:y]
#=> nil
> structure[:a][:y]
#=> nil
> structure[:a][:b]
#=> "foo"
Go with #DigitalRoss's answer. Yes, it's more typing, but that's because it's safer.
In my case, I needed a two-dimensional matrix where each cell is a list of items.
I found this technique which seems to work. It might work for the OP:
$all = Hash.new()
def $all.[](k)
v = fetch(k, nil)
return v if v
h = Hash.new()
def h.[](k2)
v = fetch(k2, nil)
return v if v
list = Array.new()
store(k2, list)
return list
end
store(k, h)
return h
end
$all['g1-a']['g2-a'] << '1'
$all['g1-a']['g2-a'] << '2'
$all['g1-a']['g2-a'] << '3'
$all['g1-a']['g2-b'] << '4'
$all['g1-b']['g2-a'] << '5'
$all['g1-b']['g2-c'] << '6'
$all.keys.each do |group1|
$all[group1].keys.each do |group2|
$all[group1][group2].each do |item|
puts "#{group1} #{group2} #{item}"
end
end
end
The output is:
$ ruby -v && ruby t.rb
ruby 1.9.2p0 (2010-08-18 revision 29036) [x86_64-linux]
g1-a g2-a 1
g1-a g2-a 2
g1-a g2-a 3
g1-a g2-b 4
g1-b g2-a 5
g1-b g2-c 6
I am currently trying out this:
# --------------------------------------------------------------------
# System so that we chain methods together without worrying about nil
# values (a la Objective-c).
# Example:
# params[:foo].try?[:bar]
#
class Object
# Returns self, unless NilClass (see below)
def try?
self
end
end
class NilClass
class MethodMissingSink
include Singleton
def method_missing(meth, *args, &block)
end
end
def try?
MethodMissingSink.instance
end
end
I know the arguments against try, but it is useful when looking into things, like say, params.