I will try to explain the problem with a simple example:
def enclose(x)
[x]
end
In my application, enclose does something more complex, but in essence it returns an array, the content of which is solely determined by the value of the parameter x. I could it use it like this:
foo = 'abcd'
....
foo = enclose(foo)
Now to my question: Is it possible to write a method enclose!, which simply replaces the parameter by its enclosed version, so that the example could be written as
foo = 'abcd'
....
enclose!(foo)
Since Ruby passes arguments by reference, I thought hat this could maybe be possible. The naive approach,
def enclose!(x)
x = [x]
end
does not work - I think this is because the assignment creates a new object and leaves the actual parameter untouched.
Is there way, that I can achieve my goal? I think in Smallalk, there would be a method become which would change the object identity, but I didn't find something similar in Ruby.
Since Ruby passes arguments by reference, I thought hat this could maybe be possible.
Ruby is pass-by-value, not pass-by-reference, which you have proven yourself, because otherwise your code would have worked.
I think in Smallalk, there would be a method become which would change the object identity, but I didn't find something similar in Ruby.
There isn't. Ruby has neither pass-by-reference nor become:, what you want simply isn't possible.
There's some other interesting posts about how ruby is pass by value, but the values are references.
What it boils down to is, you can modify the variable an object refers to, but you cannot change it to refer to another object.
> a = [1]
=> [1]
> def add_a(array)
> array << "a"
> end
=> :add_a
> add_a a
=> [1, "a"]
> a
=> [1, "a"]
There is a way to sort of accomplish what you are asking for but it's not quite pretty. Ruby has this concept of a binding (http://ruby-doc.org/core-2.2.0/Binding.html), which is like a CallContext in .NET.
You can do something like this:
def enclose(x)
[x]
end
def enclose!(x, binding)
eval("#{x} = [#{x}]", binding)
end
foo = 'abcd'
enclose!(:foo, binding)
=> ["abcd"]
In the script above, the :foo means you are passing the name of the variable, and the binding (context) where to find its value. Then you're dynamically calling eval to evaluate the assignment operation foo = [foo].
Related
I'm trying to make this simple method return a value related to the name of its input. For instance if I give the method "people_array" it should return "people_array_of_arrays."
If I were using the method in IRB I would get something like:
people_array = ["George\tMichael", "Kim\tKardashian", "Kanyne\tWest"]
=> ["George\tMichael", "Kim\tKardashian", "Kanyne\tWest"]
make_array_of_arrays(people_array)
=> people_array_of_arrays
people_array
=> ["George\tMichael", "Kim\tKardashian", "Kanyne\tWest"]
people_array_of_arrays
=> [["George", "Micahel"], ["Kim", "Kardashian"], ["Kayne", "West"]]
I have written this so far, but have not been able to figure out how to return a nicely named array of arrays. All I could think of was string interpolation but that isn't exactly what I need.
def make_array_of_arrays(array)
formatted_array = []
array.each do |feed|
mini_array = feed.split("\t")
formatted_array.push(mini_array)
end
#{array}_of_arrays = formatted_array
end
I saw there was a method variablize, but that returns an instance variable which isn't exactly what I want. Any pointers?
I do not think that it can be easily done. Suppose you were able to define a local variable in some way within the method definition. But the scope of that local variable is limited to the method definition. So the moment you go outside of the method definition, the local variable name is gone. So in order to do it, you have to somehow get the binding information of the environment outside of the method definition, and define a local variable within that. I do not know if that is possible.
With instance variables, things get a little easier using instance_variable_set, but I am not sure how to implement it fully. First of all, getting the name of the original variable is tricky.
And what you are trying to do is not the right approach. You should think of different ways.
I think the best you can do is to use an instance variable instead of a local variable, and also give the name of the variable explicitly instead of the array itself:
def make_array_of_arrays(variable_name)
array = instance_variable_get("##{variable_name}")
# Your code here
instance_variable_set("##{variable_name}_of_arrays", formatted_array)
end
#people_array = ["George\tMichael", "Kim\tKardashian", "Kanyne\tWest"]
make_array_of_arrays(:people_array)
#people_array_of_arrays
#=> [["George", "Micahel"], ["Kim", "Kardashian"], ["Kayne", "West"]]
This also might be useful.
No need for meta-programming (unless I misunderstand your question). Simply return your formatted array:
def make_array_of_arrays(array)
formatted_array = []
array.each do |feed|
mini_array = feed.split("\t")
formatted_array.push(mini_array)
end
formatted_array
end
Then you can assign the return value to whatever name you want:
people_array_of_arrays = make_array_of_arrays(people_array)
Note, you can use map to simplify your make_array_of_arrays method:
def make_array_of_arrays(array)
array.map do |feed|
feed.split("\t")
end
end
The big problem here is there's no good way to access the name of a variable.
Barring that and building on Sean Vieira's addition, you could do some eval magic to get this:
def make_array_of_arrays(array, array_name)
new_array = array.map { |feed| feed.split("\t") }
eval("def #{array_name}_of_arrays; return #{new_array}; end")
end
This basically creates a function for your *_of_arrays line that returns the array you're looking for.
If you could find a way to get the name of the variable, you'd have everything you want.
Not that I really officially endorse this method. And I can't for the life of me figure out why you'd want to do this. It's very unidiomatic, and will be confusing for anyone looking at that chunk of code.
This is not easy nor advisable.
Think of Ruby Objects as people (you and me) communicating by phone (phonenumbers being object_id's). Imagine I am in your list of phonenumbers under the name (variable) 'sTeEnSlAg' , and also under 'steenslg'. Then you phone me and ask "Please give me the name you are registered under on my phone, post-fixed with "_of_arrays".
What do you think would be the polite version of my answer?
Being new to Ruby, I'm having trouble explaining to myself the behavior around method definitions within Ruby.
The example is noted below...
class Foo
def do_something(action)
action.inspect
end
def do_something_else=action
action.inspect
end
end
?> f.do_something("drive")
=> "\"drive\""
?> f.do_something_else=("drive")
=> "drive"
The first example is self explanatory. What Im trying to understand is the behavior of the second example. Other than what looks to be one producing a string literal and the other is not, what is actually happening? Why would I use one over the other?
Generally, do_something is a getter, and do_something= is a setter.
class Foo
attr_accessor :bar
end
is equivalent to
class Foo
def bar
#bar
end
def bar=(value)
#bar = value
end
end
To answer your question about the difference in behavior, methods that end in = always return the right hand side of the expression. In this case returning action, not action.inspect.
class Foo
def do_something=(action)
"stop"
end
end
?> f = Foo.new
?> f.do_something=("drive")
=> "drive"
Both of your methods are actually being defined and called as methods. Quite a lot of things in Ruby can be defined as methods, even the operators such as +, -, * and /. Ruby allows methods to have three special notational suffixes. I made that phrase up all by myself. What I mean by notational suffixes is that the thing on the end of the method will indicate how that method is supposed to work.
Bang!
The first notational suffix is !. This indicates that the method is supposed to be destructive, meaning that it modifies the object that it's called on. Compare the output of these two scripts:
a = [1, 2, 3]
a.map { |x| x * x }
a
And:
a = [1, 2, 3]
a.map! { |x| x * x }
a
There's a one character difference between the two scripts, but they operate differently! The first one will still go through each element in the array and perform the operation inside the block, but the object in a will still be the same [1,2,3] that you started with.
In the second example, however, the a at the end will instead be [1, 4, 9] because map! modified the object in place!
Query
The second notational suffix is ?, and that indicates that a method is used to query an object about something, and means that the method is supposed to return true, false or in some extreme circumstances, nil.
Now, note that the method doesn't have to return true or false... it's just that it'd be very nice if it did that!
Proof:
def a?
true
end
def b?
"moo"
end
Calling a? will return true, and calling b? will return "moo". So there, that's query methods. The methods that should return true or false but sometimes can return other things because some developers don't like other developers.
Setters!
NOW we get to the meat of your (paraphrased) question: what does = mean on the end of a method?
That usually indicates that a method is going to set a particular value, as Erik already outlined before I finished typing this essay of an answer.
However, it may not set one, just like the query methods may not return true or false. It's just convention.
You can call that setter method like this also:
foo.something_else="value"
Or (my favourite):
foo.something_else = "value"
In theory, you can actually ignore the passed in value, just like you can completely ignore any arguments passed into any method:
def foo?(*args)
"moo"
end
>> foo?(:please, :oh, :please, :why, :"won't", :you, :use, :these, :arguments, :i, :got, :just, :for, :you, :question_mark?)
=> "moo"
Ruby supports all three syntaxes for setter methods, although it's very rare to see the one you used!
Well, I hope this answer's been roughly educational and that you understand more things about Ruby now. Enjoy!
You cannot define a return value for assignment methods. The return value is always the same as the value passed in, so that assignment chains (x = y = z = 3) will always work.
Typically, you would omit the brackets when you invoke the method, so that it behaves like a property:
my_value = f.do_something= "drive"
def do_something_else=action
action.inspect
end
This defines a setter method, so do_something_else appears as though we are initializing a attribute. So the value initialized is directly passed,
I want to change the default arguments passed to a Ruby function. For example, instead of each time writing
[1,2,3].do_stuff(:option => ' my option ')
I want to modify the defaults so that I can write
[1,2,3].do_stuff
What is the simplest, cleanest, most Ruby-like way of changing default parameters?
>> [1, 2, 3].do_stuff
=> Result I get
>> [1, 2, 3].do_stuff :an_option => a_value
=> Result I really want, but don't want to specify the argument
I like to use super for this. It allows us to add some functionality to the method apart from just changing default arguments:
class Array
def do_stuff(options = {})
# Verify if caller has not passed the option
options[:argument_i_want_to_change] = default_value_i_want unless options.has_key? :argument_i_want_to_change
# call super
super
end
end
Result:
>> [1, 2, 3].do_stuff
=> Result that I really want
UPDATE: Removed reverse_merge! dependency. (Now looking for a better alternatives to using []= method)
(moved from your original question)
I assume you are talking about a method Array#do_stuff that already exists, but you want to modify it slightly (in your case by changing a default parameter).
A post here gives a nice way of doing it. It doesn't suffer from the same problems as the alias technique, as there isn't a leftover "old" method.
Here how you could use that technique with your example problem (tested with ruby 1.9)
class Array
old_do_stuff = instance_method(:do_stuff)
define_method(:do_stuff) { |options = {}|
options[:option] ||= " option "
old_do_stuff.bind(self).call(options)
}
end
You might also want read up on UnboundMethod if the above code is confusing. Note that old_do_stuff goes out of scope after the end statement, so it isn't a problem for future uses of Array.
Are you wanting a solution for code you didn't write yourself? There are two options I'm aware of.
Code you wrote yourself:
def some_method_you_wrote(options)
becomes:
def some_method_you_wrote(options = { :option1 => 'value' })
(Swanand's answer is nice too)
For code you didn't write, look into aliasing methods. (Rails provides something called alias_method_chain for this purpose, IIRC.)
I want to write a simple Ruby DSL to translate some statements and expressions into another language. A basic example would be:
some_function {
t + 2
}
Here, t is not a ruby variable and thus the block can't (and must not!) be evaluated by Ruby. So my best bet would be to use the parsing output (or AST) to do the translation myself. To do so, I can use ParseTree and ruby2ruby. However, I have other constructs that I would like to use, for example:
1.upto(10) {|x|
some_function {
t + x
}
}
Here, I have a local variable and I need to get its value in order to do my translation. However, in the function that does the block evaluation, I don't have access to the local variables of the calling block. If it were a global variable ($x), I could check if its name exists in the global_variables array and in the worst case use eval, but how could I do so for a local variable, if possible at all?
Update:
Just to clear up things. Like I said originally, I'm using ruby2ruby (and hence ParseTree) to get the AST (using to_sexp) corresponding to the block. But when using a local variable inside my block, I encounter the following:
[:dvar, :x]
And thus, I would need to get the value of a variable from its name as a string/symbol. And I can't use method_missing or instance_eval, because I want to translate the whole expression to another language or syntax (like a RPN).
Another solution not based on ParseTree would be welcome nonetheless, since it apparently is not fully supported with Ruby 1.9.
To get the variable values, use the proc's binding:
def some_function(&block)
b = block.binding
p [b.eval("t"), b.eval("x")]
end
t = 1
1.upto(10) {|x|
some_function {
t + x
}
}
Here, t is not a ruby variable and
thus the block can't (and must not!)
be evaluated by Ruby.
Any reason for the "not evaluated" restriction? It seems like method_missing would elegantly handle evaluating the "missing" t variable, but Ruby would automatically dereference the x variable.
You can use instance_eval against an object with t.
class Context
attr_accessor :t
def initialize(_t)
#t = _t
end
end
def some_function(&block)
puts Context.new(1).instance_eval(&block)
end
1.upto(10) {|x|
some_function {
t + x
}
}
I'm not entirely sure if this is possible in Ruby, but hopefully there's an easy way to do this. I want to declare a variable and later find out the name of the variable. That is, for this simple snippet:
foo = ["goo", "baz"]
How can I get the name of the array (here, "foo") back? If it is indeed possible, does this work on any variable (e.g., scalars, hashes, etc.)?
Edit: Here's what I'm basically trying to do. I'm writing a SOAP server that wraps around a class with three important variables, and the validation code is essentially this:
[foo, goo, bar].each { |param|
if param.class != Array
puts "param_name wasn't an Array. It was a/an #{param.class}"
return "Error: param_name wasn't an Array"
end
}
My question is then: Can I replace the instances of 'param_name' with foo, goo, or bar? These objects are all Arrays, so the answers I've received so far don't seem to work (with the exception of re-engineering the whole thing ala dbr's answer)
What if you turn your problem around? Instead of trying to get names from variables, get the variables from the names:
["foo", "goo", "bar"].each { |param_name|
param = eval(param_name)
if param.class != Array
puts "#{param_name} wasn't an Array. It was a/an #{param.class}"
return "Error: #{param_name} wasn't an Array"
end
}
If there were a chance of one the variables not being defined at all (as opposed to not being an array), you would want to add "rescue nil" to the end of the "param = ..." line to keep the eval from throwing an exception...
You need to re-architect your solution. Even if you could do it (you can't), the question simply doesn't have a reasonable answer.
Imagine a get_name method.
a = 1
get_name(a)
Everyone could probably agree this should return 'a'
b = a
get_name(b)
Should it return 'b', or 'a', or an array containing both?
[b,a].each do |arg|
get_name(arg)
end
Should it return 'arg', 'b', or 'a' ?
def do_stuff( arg )
get_name(arg)
do
do_stuff(b)
Should it return 'arg', 'b', or 'a', or maybe the array of all of them? Even if it did return an array, what would the order be and how would I know how to interpret the results?
The answer to all of the questions above is "It depends on the particular thing I want at the time." I'm not sure how you could solve that problem for Ruby.
It seems you are trying to solve a problem that has a far easier solution..
Why not just store the data in a hash? If you do..
data_container = {'foo' => ['goo', 'baz']}
..it is then utterly trivial to get the 'foo' name.
That said, you've not given any context to the problem, so there may be a reason you can't do this..
[edit] After clarification, I see the issue, but I don't think this is the problem.. With [foo, bar, bla], it's equivalent like saying ['content 1', 'content 2', 'etc']. The actual variables name is (or rather, should be) utterly irrelevant. If the name of the variable is important, that is exactly why hashes exist.
The problem isn't with iterating over [foo, bar] etc, it's the fundamental problem with how the SOAP server is returing the data, and/or how you're trying to use it.
The solution, I would say, is to either make the SOAP server return hashes, or, since you know there is always going to be three elements, can you not do something like..
{"foo" => foo, "goo" => goo, "bar"=>bar}.each do |param_name, param|
if param.class != Array
puts "#{param_name} wasn't an Array. It was a/an #{param.class}"
puts "Error: #{param_name} wasn't an Array"
end
end
OK, it DOES work in instance methods, too, and, based on your specific requirement (the one you put in the comment), you could do this:
local_variables.each do |var|
puts var if (eval(var).class != Fixnum)
end
Just replace Fixnum with your specific type checking.
I do not know of any way to get a local variable name. But, you can use the instance_variables method, this will return an array of all the instance variable names in the object.
Simple call:
object.instance_variables
or
self.instance_variables
to get an array of all instance variable names.
Building on joshmsmoore, something like this would probably do it:
# Returns the first instance variable whose value == x
# Returns nil if no name maps to the given value
def instance_variable_name_for(x)
self.instance_variables.find do |var|
x == self.instance_variable_get(var)
end
end
There's Kernel::local_variables, but I'm not sure that this will work for a method's local vars, and I don't know that you can manipulate it in such a way as to do what you wish to acheive.
Great question. I fully understand your motivation. Let me start by noting, that there are certain kinds of special objects, that, under certain circumstances, have knowledge of the variable, to which they have been assigned. These special objects are eg. Module instances, Class instances and Struct instances:
Dog = Class.new
Dog.name # Dog
The catch is, that this works only when the variable, to which the assignment is performed, is a constant. (We all know that Ruby constants are nothing more than emotionally sensitive variables.) Thus:
x = Module.new # creating an anonymous module
x.name #=> nil # the module does not know that it has been assigned to x
Animal = x # but will notice once we assign it to a constant
x.name #=> "Animal"
This behavior of objects being aware to which variables they have been assigned, is commonly called constant magic (because it is limited to constants). But this highly desirable constant magic only works for certain objects:
Rover = Dog.new
Rover.name #=> raises NoMethodError
Fortunately, I have written a gem y_support/name_magic, that takes care of this for you:
# first, gem install y_support
require 'y_support/name_magic'
class Cat
include NameMagic
end
The fact, that this only works with constants (ie. variables starting with a capital letter) is not such a big limitation. In fact, it gives you freedom to name or not to name your objects at will:
tmp = Cat.new # nameless kitty
tmp.name #=> nil
Josie = tmp # by assigning to a constant, we name the kitty Josie
tmp.name #=> :Josie
Unfortunately, this will not work with array literals, because they are internally constructed without using #new method, on which NameMagic relies. Therefore, to achieve what you want to, you will have to subclass Array:
require 'y_support/name_magic'
class MyArr < Array
include NameMagic
end
foo = MyArr.new ["goo", "baz"] # not named yet
foo.name #=> nil
Foo = foo # but assignment to a constant is noticed
foo.name #=> :Foo
# You can even list the instances
MyArr.instances #=> [["goo", "baz"]]
MyArr.instance_names #=> [:Foo]
# Get an instance by name:
MyArr.instance "Foo" #=> ["goo", "baz"]
MyArr.instance :Foo #=> ["goo", "baz"]
# Rename it:
Foo.name = "Quux"
Foo.name #=> :Quux
# Or forget the name again:
MyArr.forget :Quux
Foo.name #=> nil
# In addition, you can name the object upon creation even without assignment
u = MyArr.new [1, 2], name: :Pair
u.name #=> :Pair
v = MyArr.new [1, 2, 3], ɴ: :Trinity
v.name #=> :Trinity
I achieved the constant magic-imitating behavior by searching all the constants in all the namespaces of the current Ruby object space. This wastes a fraction of second, but since the search is performed only once, there is no performance penalty once the object figures out its name. In the future, Ruby core team has promised const_assigned hook.
You can't, you need to go back to the drawing board and re-engineer your solution.
Foo is only a location to hold a pointer to the data. The data has no knowledge of what points at it. In Smalltalk systems you could ask the VM for all pointers to an object, but that would only get you the object that contained the foo variable, not foo itself. There is no real way to reference a vaiable in Ruby. As mentioned by one answer you can stil place a tag in the data that references where it came from or such, but generally that is not a good apporach to most problems. You can use a hash to receive the values in the first place, or use a hash to pass to your loop so you know the argument name for validation purposes as in DBR's answer.
The closest thing to a real answer to you question is to use the Enumerable method each_with_index instead of each, thusly:
my_array = [foo, baz, bar]
my_array.each_with_index do |item, index|
if item.class != Array
puts "#{my_array[index]} wasn't an Array. It was a/an #{item.class}"
end
end
I removed the return statement from the block you were passing to each/each_with_index because it didn't do/mean anything. Each and each_with_index both return the array on which they were operating.
There's also something about scope in blocks worth noting here: if you've defined a variable outside of the block, it will be available within it. In other words, you could refer to foo, bar, and baz directly inside the block. The converse is not true: variables that you create for the first time inside the block will not be available outside of it.
Finally, the do/end syntax is preferred for multi-line blocks, but that's simply a matter of style, though it is universal in ruby code of any recent vintage.