I wanted to learn more about for loops, as far as I know there are different types?
For instance,
for i = 1, 5 do
print("hello")
end
^ I know about this one, it's going to print hello 5 times, but there are others like the one below which I do not understand, specifically the index bit (does that mean it is number 1?) and what is the ipairs for
for index, 5 in ipairs(x) do
print("hello")
end
If there are any other types please let me know, I want to learn all of them and if you can provide any further reading I'd be more than greatful to check them out
As you can read in the Lua reference manual
3.3.5 For Statement
The for statement has two forms: one numerical and one generic.
The numerical for loop repeats a block of code while a control
variable runs through an arithmetic progression. It has the following
syntax:
stat ::= for Name ‘=’ exp ‘,’ exp [‘,’ exp] do block end
Example:
for i = 1, 3 do
print(i)
end
Will output
1
2
3
You seem familiar with that one. Read the reference manual section for more details.
The generic for statement works over functions, called iterators. On
each iteration, the iterator function is called to produce a new
value, stopping when this new value is nil. The generic for loop has
the following syntax:
stat ::= for namelist in explist do block end namelist ::= Name {‘,’
Name}
Example:
local myTable = {"a", "b", "c"}
for i, v in ipairs(myTable) do
print(i, v)
end
Will ouput
1 a
2 b
3 c
ipairs is one of those iterator functions mentioned:
Returns three values (an iterator function, the table t, and 0) so
that the construction
for i,v in ipairs(t) do body end will iterate over the key–value pairs (1,t[1]), (2,t[2]), ..., up to the first nil value.
Read more about ipairs and pairs here:
https://www.lua.org/manual/5.3/manual.html#pdf-pairs
https://www.lua.org/manual/5.3/manual.html#pdf-ipairs
Of course you can implement your own iterator functions!
Make sure you also read:
Programming in Lua: 7 Iterators and the Generic for
Yes, It will print hello 5 times
According to this answer on Difference between pairs, ipairs, and next?
ipairs does the exact same thing as pairs, but with a slight twist to it.
ipairs runs through the table, until it finds a nil value, or a value that is non-existent, if that makes sense. So, if you ran the script I showed you for pairs, but just replaced pairs with ipairs, it would do the exact same thing
Related
I'm playing with iterables and comprehension in Julia and tried to code simple problem: find all pairs of numbers less then 10 whose product is less then 10. This was my first try:
solution = filter((a,b)->a*b<10, product(1:10, 1:10))
collect(solution)
but I got error "wrong number of arguments". This is kind of expected because anonymous function inside filter expects two arguments but it gets one tuple.
I know I can do
solution = filter(p->p[1]*p[2]<10, product(1:10, 1:10))
but it doesn't look nice as the one above. Is there a way I can tell that (a,b) is argument of type tuple and use something similar to syntax in first example?
I don't think there's a way to do exactly as you'd like, but here are some alternatives you could consider for the anonymous function:
x->let (a,b)=x; a*b<10 end
x->((a,b)=x; a*b<10)
These can of course be made into macros if you like:
macro tup(ex)
#assert ex.head == :(->)
#assert ex.args[1].head == :tuple
arg = gensym()
quote
$arg -> ( $(ex.args[1]) = $arg; $(ex.args[2]) )
end
end
Then #tup (a, b) -> a * b < 10 will do as you like.
Metaprogramming in Julia is pretty useful and common for situations where you are doing something over and over and would like specialized syntax for it. But I would avoid this kind of metaprogramming if this were a one-off thing, because adding new syntax means learning new syntax and makes code harder to read.
I'm attempting to solve http://projecteuler.net/problem=1.
I want to create a method which takes in an integer and then creates an array of all the integers preceding it and the integer itself as values within the array.
Below is what I have so far. Code doesn't work.
def make_array(num)
numbers = Array.new num
count = 1
numbers.each do |number|
numbers << number = count
count = count + 1
end
return numbers
end
make_array(10)
(1..num).to_a is all you need to do in Ruby.
1..num will create a Range object with start at 1 and end at whatever value num is. Range objects have to_a method to blow them up into real Arrays by enumerating each element within the range.
For most purposes, you won't actually need the Array - Range will work fine. That includes iteration (which is what I assume you want, given the problem you're working on).
That said, knowing how to create such an Array "by hand" is valuable learning experience, so you might want to keep working on it a bit. Hint: you want to start with an empty array ([]) instead with Array.new num, then iterate something num.times, and add numbers into the Array. If you already start with an Array of size num, and then push num elements into it, you'll end up with twice num elements. If, as is your case, you're adding elements while you're iterating the array, the loop never exits, because for each element you process, you add another one. It's like chasing a metal ball with the repulsing side of a magnet.
To answer the Euler Question:
(1 ... 1000).to_a.select{|x| x%3==0 || x%5==0}.reduce(:+) # => 233168
Sometimes a one-liner is more readable than more detailed code i think.
Assuming you are learning Ruby by examples on ProjectEuler, i'll explain what the line does:
(1 ... 1000).to_a
will create an array with the numbers one to 999. Euler-Question wants numbers below 1000. Using three dots in a Range will create it without the boundary-value itself.
.select{|x| x%3==0 || x%5==0}
chooses only elements which are divideable by 3 or 5, and therefore multiples of 3 or 5. The other values are discarded. The result of this operation is a new Array with only multiples of 3 or 5.
.reduce(:+)
Finally this operation will sum up all the numbers in the array (or reduce it to) a single number: The sum you need for the solution.
What i want to illustrate: many methods you would write by hand everyday are already integrated in ruby, since it is a language from programmers for programmers. be pragmatic ;)
Is there a more readable way in lua to write:
for k, v in pairs(my_table) do
myfunction( v )
end
I'm never using k, so I'd like to take it out of the loop control, so it's clear I'm just iterating over the values. Is there a function like pairs() that only gives me a list of the values?
There is no standard function that only iterates values, but you can write it yourself if you wish. Here is such an iterator :
function values(t)
local k, v
return function()
k, v = next(t, k)
return v
end
end
But normally people just use pairs and discard the first variable. It is customary in this case to name the unused variable _ (an underscore) to clearly indicate the intent.
I've seen people use the _ variable instead of k or i.
why would you use the pairs() function if you don't want the key/value pairs of the table you're enumerating then?
for example, this is even shorter to type:
local t = {"asdf", "sdfg", "dfgh"}
for i=1, #t do
print(t[i])
end
otherwise, i always just did this:
local t = {"asdf", "sdfg", "dfgh"}
for _,v in pairs(t) do
print(v)
end
edit: for your scenario, where you want to enumerate only values in a table with non-numeric keys, probably the clearest thing you could do would be to write your own table iterator function like this:
local t = {["asdf"] = 1, ["sdfg"] = 2, ["dfgh"] = 3}
function values(tbl)
local key = nil
return function()
key = next(tbl, key)
return tbl[key]
end
end
for value in values(t) do
print(value)
end
then, it is very explicit that you're only traversing the values of the table t. like pairs(), this is not guaranteed to traverse in order since it uses next().
It's your coding style, really. If you can read it and you're consistent with it then it shouldn't matter.
However, I tend to use:
for i,c in
"i" standing for "index" and "c" standing for "child", but "v" for "value" works as well. And even if you're not using the index variable, it's still good practice.
Another thing you might do is:
for n = 1, 10
when dealing with numbers. But once again, it's you're coding style and as long as it's consistent you should be good.
From Lua Style Guide:
The variable consisting of only an underscore "_" is commonly used as a placeholder when you want to ignore the variable:
for _,v in ipairs(t) do print(v) end
Note: This resembles the use of "_" in Haskell, Erlang, Ocaml, and Prolog languages, where "_" takes the special meaning of anonymous (ignored) variables in pattern matches. In Lua, "_" is only a convention with no inherent special meaning though. Semantic editors that normally flag unused variables may avoid doing so for variables named "_" (e.g. LuaInspect is such a case).
So I would expect underscore (_) name is more readable for unused variables.
Why isn't t:insert(9) working in Lua?
(I want to append a value of 9 to the end of the table)
t = {1,2,3}
table.insert(t, 9) -- works (appends 9 to end of table t)
t:insert(9) -- does NOT work
I thought in general
a.f(a,x) is equalivant to a:f(x) in Lua
While it's true that a:f(x) is simply syntactic sugar for a.f(a,x) that second syntax is not what you have there. Think it through backwards:
The function call you tried is t:insert(9)
So the syntax rule you stated would be t.insert(t, 9)
But the working function call is table.insert(t, 9)
See how the last two aren't the same? So the answer to your question is that insert() isn't a function contained in t, it's in "table".
Since the table methods haven't been associated with t, you either have to call them directly through the table.insert syntax, or define the metatable on t to be table, e.g.:
> t = {1,2,3}
> setmetatable(t, {__index=table})
> t:insert(9)
> print (t[4])
9
You're trying to call an entry in your table called insert, however, in table t, there is none. If you want it to work, what you could do is to set the insert entry to table.insert
t = {insert = table.insert, 1, 2, 3}
t:insert(9)
print(t[4]) -- 9, as you'd expect
I can't seem to find a definitive answer on this and I want to make sure I understand this to the "n'th level" :-)
a = { "a" => "Hello", "b" => "World" }
a.count # 2
a.size # 2
a.length # 2
a = [ 10, 20 ]
a.count # 2
a.size # 2
a.length # 2
So which to use? If I want to know if a has more than one element then it doesn't seem to matter but I want to make sure I understand the real difference. This applies to arrays too. I get the same results.
Also, I realize that count/size/length have different meanings with ActiveRecord. I'm mostly interested in pure Ruby (1.92) right now but if anyone wants to chime in on the difference AR makes that would be appreciated as well.
Thanks!
For arrays and hashes size is an alias for length. They are synonyms and do exactly the same thing.
count is more versatile - it can take an element or predicate and count only those items that match.
> [1,2,3].count{|x| x > 2 }
=> 1
In the case where you don't provide a parameter to count it has basically the same effect as calling length. There can be a performance difference though.
We can see from the source code for Array that they do almost exactly the same thing. Here is the C code for the implementation of array.length:
static VALUE
rb_ary_length(VALUE ary)
{
long len = RARRAY_LEN(ary);
return LONG2NUM(len);
}
And here is the relevant part from the implementation of array.count:
static VALUE
rb_ary_count(int argc, VALUE *argv, VALUE ary)
{
long n = 0;
if (argc == 0) {
VALUE *p, *pend;
if (!rb_block_given_p())
return LONG2NUM(RARRAY_LEN(ary));
// etc..
}
}
The code for array.count does a few extra checks but in the end calls the exact same code: LONG2NUM(RARRAY_LEN(ary)).
Hashes (source code) on the other hand don't seem to implement their own optimized version of count so the implementation from Enumerable (source code) is used, which iterates over all the elements and counts them one-by-one.
In general I'd advise using length (or its alias size) rather than count if you want to know how many elements there are altogether.
Regarding ActiveRecord, on the other hand, there are important differences. check out this post:
Counting ActiveRecord associations: count, size or length?
There is a crucial difference for applications which make use of database connections.
When you are using many ORMs (ActiveRecord, DataMapper, etc.) the general understanding is that .size will generate a query that requests all of the items from the database ('select * from mytable') and then give you the number of items resulting, whereas .count will generate a single query ('select count(*) from mytable') which is considerably faster.
Because these ORMs are so prevalent I following the principle of least astonishment. In general if I have something in memory already, then I use .size, and if my code will generate a request to a database (or external service via an API) I use .count.
In most cases (e.g. Array or String) size is an alias for length.
count normally comes from Enumerable and can take an optional predicate block. Thus enumerable.count {cond} is [roughly] (enumerable.select {cond}).length -- it can of course bypass the intermediate structure as it just needs the count of matching predicates.
Note: I am not sure if count forces an evaluation of the enumeration if the block is not specified or if it short-circuits to the length if possible.
Edit (and thanks to Mark's answer!): count without a block (at least for Arrays) does not force an evaluation. I suppose without formal behavior it's "open" for other implementations, if forcing an evaluation without a predicate ever even really makes sense anyway.
I found a good answare at http://blog.hasmanythrough.com/2008/2/27/count-length-size
In ActiveRecord, there are several ways to find out how many records
are in an association, and there are some subtle differences in how
they work.
post.comments.count - Determine the number of elements with an SQL
COUNT query. You can also specify conditions to count only a subset of
the associated elements (e.g. :conditions => {:author_name =>
"josh"}). If you set up a counter cache on the association, #count
will return that cached value instead of executing a new query.
post.comments.length - This always loads the contents of the
association into memory, then returns the number of elements loaded.
Note that this won't force an update if the association had been
previously loaded and then new comments were created through another
way (e.g. Comment.create(...) instead of post.comments.create(...)).
post.comments.size - This works as a combination of the two previous
options. If the collection has already been loaded, it will return its
length just like calling #length. If it hasn't been loaded yet, it's
like calling #count.
Also I have a personal experience:
<%= h(params.size.to_s) %> # works_like_that !
<%= h(params.count.to_s) %> # does_not_work_like_that !
We have a several ways to find out how many elements in an array like .length, .count and .size. However, It's better to use array.size rather than array.count. Because .size is better in performance.
Adding more to Mark Byers answer. In Ruby the method array.size is an alias to Array#length method. There is no technical difference in using any of these two methods. Possibly you won't see any difference in performance as well. However, the array.count also does the same job but with some extra functionalities Array#count
It can be used to get total no of elements based on some condition. Count can be called in three ways:
Array#count # Returns number of elements in Array
Array#count n # Returns number of elements having value n in Array
Array#count{|i| i.even?} Returns count based on condition invoked on each element array
array = [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,4,3,2,4,5,6,7,1,2,4]
array.size # => 17
array.length # => 17
array.count # => 17
Here all three methods do the same job. However here is where the count gets interesting.
Let us say, I want to find how many array elements does the array contains with value 2
array.count 2 # => 3
The array has a total of three elements with value as 2.
Now, I want to find all the array elements greater than 4
array.count{|i| i > 4} # =>6
The array has total 6 elements which are > than 4.
I hope it gives some info about count method.