I want to run some code after every iteration of each. Is there a way to do this without repeating the code? I tried this:
(1..10).each do |n|
continue = Proc.new {
puts "ended #{n}"
next
}
continue.call if n == 2
puts n
continue.call
end
but it didn't work.
In my actual code, I have lots of next calls. That's why it's unpractical to call a method every time I call next.
Approach 1
Define the contents of the loop in a method that you call from the loop. You can put an ensure block in the method. That way, your method can use return anywhere you want to move onto the next iteration, but you still guarantee you execute the ensure code:
def doit(x)
return if x == 2
puts "I like the number #{x}"
ensure
puts "LOOP"
end
[1,2,3,4].each{|x| doit(x)}
results in
I like the number 1
LOOP
LOOP
I like the number 3
LOOP
I like the number 4
LOOP
Approach 2
Similar to approach 1, but allows you reuse the "callback" code for different concerns. It also keeps you using next instead of return. This is to define a method that yields and then does other stuff:
def ensure_LOOP(x)
yield
puts "LOOP"
end
[1,2,3,4].each do |x|
ensure_LOOP(x) do
next if x == 2
puts "I really like the number #{x}"
end
end
Results in
I really like the number 1
LOOP
LOOP
I really like the number 3
LOOP
I really like the number 4
LOOP
And
[1,2,3,4].each do |x|
ensure_LOOP(x) do
next unless x == 2
puts "I don't like the number #{x}"
end
end
results in
LOOP
I don't like the number 2
LOOP
LOOP
LOOP
As I understand the question, you don't want anything executed after continue.call if n==2. If that's correct, you could use the control expression next with an argument.
def m(n)
puts "Only #{n} more days!"
end
(1..6).each do |n|
next m(n) if n==3
puts n
m(n)
end
1
Only 1 more days!
2
Only 2 more days!
Only 3 more days!
4
Only 4 more days!
5
Only 5 more days!
6
Only 6 more days!
Just call it within the each loop?
(1..10).each do |n|
puts n
puts "ended #{n}"
end
The code you provided actually does run, and outputs the following:
1
ended 1
ended 2
2
ended 2
3
ended 3
4
ended 4
5
ended 5
6
ended 6
7
ended 7
8
ended 8
9
ended 9
10
ended 10
As you can see, the Proc gets called twice for the number 2, as your if condition passes in that case and calls the Proc.
Stepping back, defining a method outside the context of the iteration is probably a better choice. It will make the code easier to read and avoid redefining the Proc each time the each block executes.
That said, technically what you have here seems to run okay.
Related
I have the following:
text_counter = 0
MAXTEXT_COUNTER = 10
puts "hello, this will start"
loop do
puts "hello"
text_counter += 1
sleep(2)
if text_counter >= MAXTEXT_COUNTER
break
end
end
sleep(7200)
print "ended test"
Once the break has happened, how can I get it to start again from the top?
I'm now thinking I could nest this loop in an until loop with the condition of text_counter == 1000. This would break, then sleep for 2 hours, then start again until it hits 1000.
It looks like you need a loop within a loop where you repeat one N times, the other M times:
MAXTEXT_COUNTER = 10
puts "hello, this will start"
loop do
MAXTEXT_COUNTER.times do
puts "hello"
sleep(2)
end
print "ended test"
sleep(7200)
end
The outer loop is perpetual. The inner one runs a certain number of times and stops using the times method.
You're looking for next
It functions similarly to break, but returns control back to the top of the loop. It's great for creating flat control flow.
For example
0.upto(100) do |i|
if i % 7 == 0
puts "#{i} is a multiple of 7"
next
end
puts i
end
There is a retry keyword which repeats the loop from top, just what you've asked.
Or you can wrap your loop into a method and continuously call that method.
Questions
Why does break within a proc jump out of three loops all the way to puts 8? It's pretty counter-intuitive.
Is there a way to make it break out of the innermost loop, that is, to puts 6?
Code
3.times do
puts "outer loop"
break_proc = proc { break }
puts 1
loop do
puts 2
loop do
puts 3
loop do
puts 4
break_proc.call
puts 5
end
puts 6
end
puts 7
end
puts 8
end
outer loop
1
2
3
4
8
outer loop
1
2
3
4
8
outer loop
1
2
3
4
8
TL;DR
The behavior you're seeing is a result of attempting to treat a Proc object like a snippet of code passed to Kernel#eval, or thinking that a toplevel break inside a Proc is the same as a bare break keyword inside a loop. An explanation for the behavior is provided, but the real solution is to avoid doing what you're doing.
Procs Carry Context
Why does break within a proc jump out of three loops all the way to puts 8?
This happens because a Proc object contains a Binding to the context in which it's created, and the break keyword is exiting the iterator block and returning to its calling context. Specifically, you're creating the Proc in the top-level loop here:
3.times do
puts "outer loop"
break_proc = proc { break }
One could be forgiven for thinking that Ruby's break just exits a loop wherever its called, but its behavior is more complex than that, especially when you're trying to do something odd like a toplevel break inside a Proc. Your use case for break is even covered in The Ruby Programming Language, where it says:
[A break] causes the block to return to its iterator and the iterator to return to the method that invoked it. Because procs work like blocks, we expect break to do the same thing in a proc. We can’t easily test this, however. When we create a proc with Proc.new, Proc.new is the iterator that break would return from. And by the time we can invoke the proc object, the iterator has already returned. So it never makes sense to have a top-level break statement in a proc created with Proc.new[.]
— David Flanagan and Yukihiro Matsumoto. The Ruby Programming Language (Kindle Locations 8185-8192). O'Reilly Media.
When you create deeply nested loops and then complicate that with objects that carry runtime bindings, the results aren't always what you expect. The behavior you're seeing is not a bug, although it may be a misfeature in some cases. You'd have to ask the language designers why it behaves this way if you want a reason for the implementation semantics rather an explanation for the behavior you're seeing.
Breaking Loops
Is there a way to make it break out of the innermost loop, that is, to puts 6?
Yes, but not with break inside a Proc. Replacing the Proc#call with an actual inline break statement does what you expect and is the "simplest thing that could possibly work," but you can also use throw and catch if you want to adjust your nesting level. For example:
3.times do
puts "outer loop"
break_proc = proc { throw :up }
puts 1
loop do
puts 2
loop do
puts 3
catch :up do
loop do
puts 4
break_proc.call
puts 5
end
end
puts 6
end
puts 7
end
puts 8
end
This will yield:
outer loop
1
2
3
4
6
3
4
6
3
4
6
and endlessly loop inside the third loop where you puts 3.
So, this will do what you're asking, but may or may not do what you want. If it helps, great! If not, you may want to ask a separate question with some real data and behavior if you want to find a more elegant data structure or decompose your task into a set of collaborating objects.
Because of context binding break escapes from the loop defined at the same level:
3.times do
puts 1
loop do
break_proc = proc {|b| break }
puts 2
loop do
puts 3
loop do
puts 4
break_proc.call
puts 5
end
puts 6
end
puts 7
raise 'break other loops'
end
puts 8
end
=>
1
2
3
4
7
1.rb:18:in `block (2 levels) in <main>': break other loops (RuntimeError)
Easiest way to break from your construction - return a boolean from the block indicating if loop should be terminated (... = proc{ true }/break if break_proc.call), or use throw:
3.times do
puts "outer loop"
break_proc = proc {|b| throw :breakit }
puts 1
loop do
puts 2
loop do
puts 3
catch :breakit do
loop do
puts 4
break_proc.call
puts 5
end
end
puts 6
raise 'break the other loops...'
end
puts 7
end
puts 8
end
If you want to break till 6 block you could do this
3.times do
puts "outer loop"
break_proc = proc { break }
puts 1
loop do
puts 2
loop do
puts 3
loop do
puts 4
break
puts 5
end
puts 6
end
puts 7
end
puts 8
end
Ruby Folks:
To use proc & lambda in Ruby, kindly consider the following info to use them error-free and use break or return with proper understanding:
Lambda and non-lambda semantics:
-------------------------------
Procs are coming in two flavors: lambda and non-lambda (regular procs). Differences are:
In lambdas, return and break means exit from this lambda;
In non-lambda procs, return means exit from embracing method (and will throw LocalJumpError if invoked outside the method);
In non-lambda procs, break means exit from the method for which the block is given. (and will throw LocalJumpError if invoked after the method returns);
In lambdas, arguments are treated in the same way as in methods: strict, with ArgumentError for mismatching argument number, and no additional argument processing;
Regular procs accept arguments more generously: missing arguments are filled with nil, single Array arguments are deconstructed if the proc has multiple arguments, and there is no error raised on extra arguments.
Ref: https://ruby-doc.org/core-3.0.2/Proc.html
I'm wondering if it's possible to use a Proc for skipping iteration in Ruby?
I wrote some piece of code
def validation i
pr = Proc.new do |i|
if i < 3
next
end
end
pr.call(i)
end
(1..5).each do |i|
validation i
puts "#{i} is bigger than 3"
end
and I expected something like this as result:
3 is bigger than 3
4 is bigger than 3
5 is bigger than 3
but instead I got:
1 is bigger than 3
2 is bigger than 3
3 is bigger than 3
4 is bigger than 3
5 is bigger than 3
So is it possible to use somehow next in Proc for skipping from outer iteration or there is some other way?
You can't call next in your validation method because the loop is external. What you can do is use next within your (1..5).each loop that's dependent on a call to validation. The following code produces your desired result.
Edit - The code has been refactored to make appropriate use of Proc.
pr = Proc.new {|i| i < 3}
(1..5).each do |i|
next if pr.call(i)
puts "#{i} is bigger than 3"
end
I'm trying to do repeat a code block, but have something happen every 5th time.
In English:
Do this 30 times, every 5th time take an additional step
My Ruby so far:
6.times do
5.times do
#standard step
end
#perform additional step
end
but I wondered if there was a clever way to do it?
mostly you do "every nth time" problems with a modulo like this:
30.times do |n|
# standard step
if n % 5 == 0
puts n # extra step
end
end
In C and many other languages, there is a continue keyword that, when used inside of a loop, jumps to the next iteration of the loop. Is there any equivalent of this continue keyword in Ruby?
Yes, it's called next.
for i in 0..5
if i < 2
next
end
puts "Value of local variable is #{i}"
end
This outputs the following:
Value of local variable is 2
Value of local variable is 3
Value of local variable is 4
Value of local variable is 5
=> 0..5
next
also, look at redo which redoes the current iteration.
Writing Ian Purton's answer in a slightly more idiomatic way:
(1..5).each do |x|
next if x < 2
puts x
end
Prints:
2
3
4
5
Inside for-loops and iterator methods like each and map the next keyword in ruby will have the effect of jumping to the next iteration of the loop (same as continue in C).
However what it actually does is just to return from the current block. So you can use it with any method that takes a block - even if it has nothing to do with iteration.
Ruby has two other loop/iteration control keywords: redo and retry.
Read more about them, and the difference between them, at Ruby QuickTips.
I think it is called next.
Use next, it will bypass that condition and rest of the code will work.
Below i have provided the Full script and out put
class TestBreak
puts " Enter the nmber"
no= gets.to_i
for i in 1..no
if(i==5)
next
else
puts i
end
end
end
obj=TestBreak.new()
Output:
Enter the nmber
10
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
Use may use next conditionally
before = 0
"0;1;2;3".split(";").each.with_index do |now, i|
next if i < 1
puts "before it was #{before}, now it is #{now}"
before = now
end
output:
before it was 0, now it is 1
before it was 1, now it is 2
before it was 2, now it is 3