RubyMonk makes a point on how you can use underscores for convenience to write large numbers that can become difficult to read without demarcation.
Their task is: Try using underscores to make a huge, readable number. They provide this code:
def describe(something)
puts "I am a: #{something.class} and I look like: #{something}"
end
def big_num
# create a huge number
end
describe(big_num)
Could anyone explain how I would go about creating a huge number? According to the error messages below, I have to use underscores in the code to make it pass.
RubyMonk expects a object of class Bignum, which is part of the standard Ruby library. From the documentation:
Bignum objects hold integers outside the range of Fixnum. Bignum
objects are created automatically when integer calculations would
otherwise overflow a Fixnum.
So you just have to create a number that is bigger than what Fixnum can handle. For example, this will pass RubyMonk's spec:
def big_num
5_000_000_000_000_000_000_000
end
Because the number is bigger than Fixnum can handle, Ruby automagically returns a Bignum instead. For example, try running this:
5_000_000_000.class
# => Fixnum
5_000_000_000_000_000_000_000.class
# => Bignum
Ruby allows using underscores as placeholders (i.e. they are only to increase readability for humans and are otherwise ignored). So your big_num method can simply have one line:
return 1_000_000_000_000_000_000_000_000_000_000_000
And calling that will return 1000000000000000000000000000000000
(the return keyword is optional)
Ruby allows you to put underscores while writing literal numbers so that large numbers can be easier to read.
The convention goes that you shouldn't put underscores if the number is 4 or less digits long and on every three numbers if it's longer, starting from right:
10_000_000 # => 10000000
Works for floating numbers too:
10_000.0 # => 10000.0
The underscores are ignored by the interpreter if you put them between two digits:
1_2_3_4_5 # => 12345
After looking at the error message, it is clear that RubyMonk expects Bignum. This is another magic, which the interpreter does transparently - if the number is small enough to be mapped to the architecture's int, the number is an instance of Fixnum:
100.class # => Fixnum
If that is not the case, Ruby automagically uses a dedicated class (Bignum):
(10_000_000**100).class # => Bignum
# 10_000_000 to the power of 100,
# which is a very big number and
# thus stored in Bignum
Related
The pre/post increment/decrement operator (++ and --) are pretty standard programing language syntax (for procedural and object-oriented languages, at least).
Why doesn't Ruby support them? I understand you could accomplish the same thing with += and -=, but it just seems oddly arbitrary to exclude something like that, especially since it's so concise and conventional.
Example:
i = 0 #=> 0
i += 1 #=> 1
i #=> 1
i++ #=> expect 2, but as far as I can tell,
#=> irb ignores the second + and waits for a second number to add to i
I understand Fixnum is immutable, but if += can just instanciate a new Fixnum and set it, why not do the same for ++?
Is consistency in assignments containing the = character the only reason for this, or am I missing something?
Here is how Matz(Yukihiro Matsumoto) explains it in an old thread:
Hi,
In message "[ruby-talk:02706] X++?"
on 00/05/10, Aleksi Niemelä <aleksi.niemela#cinnober.com> writes:
|I got an idea from http://www.pragprog.com:8080/rubyfaq/rubyfaq-5.html#ss5.3
|and thought to try. I didn't manage to make "auto(in|de)crement" working so
|could somebody help here? Does this contain some errors or is the idea
|wrong?
(1) ++ and -- are NOT reserved operator in Ruby.
(2) C's increment/decrement operators are in fact hidden assignment.
They affect variables, not objects. You cannot accomplish
assignment via method. Ruby uses +=/-= operator instead.
(3) self cannot be a target of assignment. In addition, altering
the value of integer 1 might cause severe confusion throughout
the program.
matz.
One reason is that up to now every assignment operator (i.e. an operator which changes a variable) has a = in it. If you add ++ and --, that's no longer the case.
Another reason is that the behavior of ++ and -- often confuse people. Case in point: The return value of i++ in your example would actually be 1, not 2 (the new value of i would be 2, however).
It's not conventional in OO languages. In fact, there is no ++ in Smalltalk, the language that coined the term "object-oriented programming" (and the language Ruby is most strongly influenced by). What you mean is that it's conventional in C and languages closely imitating C. Ruby does have a somewhat C-like syntax, but it isn't slavish in adhering to C traditions.
As for why it isn't in Ruby: Matz didn't want it. That's really the ultimate reason.
The reason no such thing exists in Smalltalk is because it's part of the language's overriding philosophy that assigning a variable is fundamentally a different kind of thing than sending a message to an object — it's on a different level. This thinking probably influenced Matz in designing Ruby.
It wouldn't be impossible to include it in Ruby — you could easily write a preprocessor that transforms all ++ into +=1. but evidently Matz didn't like the idea of an operator that did a "hidden assignment." It also seems a little strange to have an operator with a hidden integer operand inside of it. No other operator in the language works that way.
I think there's another reason: ++ in Ruby wouldn't be remotely useful as in C and its direct successors.
The reason being, the for keyword: while it's essential in C, it's mostly superfluous in Ruby. Most of the iteration in Ruby is done through Enumerable methods, such as each and map when iterating through some data structure, and Fixnum#times method, when you need to loop an exact number of times.
Actually, as far as I have seen, most of the time +=1 is used by people freshly migrated to Ruby from C-style languages.
In short, it's really questionable if methods ++ and -- would be used at all.
You can define a .+ self-increment operator:
class Variable
def initialize value = nil
#value = value
end
attr_accessor :value
def method_missing *args, &blk
#value.send(*args, &blk)
end
def to_s
#value.to_s
end
# pre-increment ".+" when x not present
def +(x = nil)
x ? #value + x : #value += 1
end
def -(x = nil)
x ? #value - x : #value -= 1
end
end
i = Variable.new 5
puts i #=> 5
# normal use of +
puts i + 4 #=> 9
puts i #=> 5
# incrementing
puts i.+ #=> 6
puts i #=> 6
More information on "class Variable" is available in "Class Variable to increment Fixnum objects".
I think Matz' reasoning for not liking them is that it actually replaces the variable with a new one.
ex:
a = SomeClass.new
def a.go
'hello'
end
# at this point, you can call a.go
# but if you did an a++
# that really means a = a + 1
# so you can no longer call a.go
# as you have lost your original
Now if somebody could convince him that it should just call #succ! or what not, that would make more sense, and avoid the problem. You can suggest it on ruby core.
And in the words of David Black from his book "The Well-Grounded Rubyist":
Some objects in Ruby are stored in variables as immediate values. These include
integers, symbols (which look like :this), and the special objects true, false, and
nil. When you assign one of these values to a variable (x = 1), the variable holds
the value itself, rather than a reference to it.
In practical terms, this doesn’t matter (and it will often be left as implied, rather than
spelled out repeatedly, in discussions of references and related topics in this book).
Ruby handles the dereferencing of object references automatically; you don’t have to
do any extra work to send a message to an object that contains, say, a reference to
a string, as opposed to an object that contains an immediate integer value.
But the immediate-value representation rule has a couple of interesting ramifications,
especially when it comes to integers. For one thing, any object that’s represented
as an immediate value is always exactly the same object, no matter how many
variables it’s assigned to. There’s only one object 100, only one object false, and
so on.
The immediate, unique nature of integer-bound variables is behind Ruby’s lack of
pre- and post-increment operators—which is to say, you can’t do this in Ruby:
x = 1
x++ # No such operator
The reason is that due to the immediate presence of 1 in x, x++ would be like 1++,
which means you’d be changing the number 1 to the number 2—and that makes
no sense.
Some objects in Ruby are stored in variables as immediate values. These include integers, symbols (which look like :this), and the special objects true, false, and nil. When you assign one of these values to a variable (x = 1), the variable holds the value itself, rather than a reference to it.
Any object that’s represented as an immediate value is always exactly the same object, no matter how many variables it’s assigned to. There’s only one object 100, only one object false, and so on.
The immediate, unique nature of integer-bound variables is behind Ruby’s lack of pre-and post-increment operators—which is to say, you can’t do this in Ruby:
x=1
x++ # No such operator
The reason is that due to the immediate presence of 1 in x, x++ would be like 1++, which means you’d be changing the number 1 to the number 2—and that makes no sense.
Couldn't this be achieved by adding a new method to the fixnum or Integer class?
$ ruby -e 'numb=1;puts numb.next'
returns 2
"Destructive" methods seem to be appended with ! to warn possible users, so adding a new method called next! would pretty much do what was requested ie.
$ ruby -e 'numb=1; numb.next!; puts numb'
returns 2 (since numb has been incremented)
Of course, the next! method would have to check that the object was an integer variable and not a real number, but this should be available.
I am having real difficulty with this and every answer I have seen doesnt seem to work. I have been able to pass a value such as 1.44 as 1.00 but the two decimal values are being lost. I have a number of values passed from a from which i then want to submit to an api via a call. The code is below:
IncomeWagesWeekly = params[:WagesWeekly].to_i
How do i ensure that when this is passed the two decimal places are present. Thanks for any help.
You don't have in Ruby language such thing as fixed digits after decimal point.
1 is the same as 1.00 as it was rightfully mentioned before in comment (almost the same).
If you don't check it's type like that:
1.is_a? Integer # => true
1.is_a? Float # => false
it is all the same.
Just use 1.44.to_i.
If by some reason you want to have an instance of Float instead use to_f method. To crop number explicitly you should use round, or ceil, or floor method:
1.44.round.to_f # => 1.0
1.55.round.to_f # => 2.0
1.44.ceil.to_f # => 2.0
1.55.ceil.to_f # => 2.0
1.44.floor.to_f # => 1.0
1.55.floor.to_f # => 1.0
Maybe don't try to make in integer and use to_f instead. Also consider any sprintf( "%0.02f", your_number), but it returns string.
First, it seems that you want to do fixed-point arithmetic here. So, using a floating point number is not the right choice, since floating point calculations can produce mathematically incorrect results.
A solution for this would be either to stick with Integers (as has been suggested already), or to use the data type BigDecimal, which is defined in the Ruby standard library, and in particular its methods fix, frac and to_digits.
Now to your database: You didn't say what database you are using, and how you pass the values to it, but in general, it is a bad idea to store a non-integer value into a database-field which is supposed to accept integers. As you observed, the fractional part was dropped. Correct behaviour.
You could redefine your database schema, or you can convert your decimal value by yourself into something which matches the field definition in the database. Which way to go, depends on what you want to actually do with this value afterwards. For instance, if you just want to display it, but not perform any calculations, you could use a string. Or, if you know that the number of fractional digits don't exceed a certain limit, you could define a suitable numeric format for the database column - etc.
In Ruby everything is an object. But when I try a singleton method on a number, I get type error. Are there any exceptions to the notion of everything is an object?
a_str = "Ruby"
a_num = 100
def a_str.bark
puts "miaow"
end
a_str.bark #=> miaow (Good Cat!)
def a_num.bark
puts "miaow"
end
a_num.bark #=> TypeError: can't define singleton method "bark" for Fixnum
Numbers are kind of special as they actually don't exist as real objects in memory. This would be unfeasible as there are infinite many of them.
Instead, Ruby emulates them being objects using certain conventions. i.e. you will notice that the object_id of a Fixnum is always 2 * i + 1 (with i being the number). Using this convention, Ruby can emulate the numbers that are represented as actual plain numbers on the CPU for performance and space constraints to look like objects to your Ruby program.
As Fixnums don't actually exist as discrete objects in memory, you can't change them individually. Instead, numbers are considered immutables. They can mostly be used as objects, but you can't change them as they are not actual discrete objects. There are a few other immutable objects in Ruby, e.g. false, true, nil.
In comparison, the string will be handled as a discrete ruby object that can be changed and is not immutable. It thus behaves like the majority of all the other Ruby objects you will encounter.
A lot of times people use symbols as keys in a Ruby hash.
What's the advantage over using a string?
E.g.:
hash[:name]
vs.
hash['name']
TL;DR:
Using symbols not only saves time when doing comparisons, but also saves memory, because they are only stored once.
Ruby Symbols are immutable (can't be changed), which makes looking something up much easier
Short(ish) answer:
Using symbols not only saves time when doing comparisons, but also saves memory, because they are only stored once.
Symbols in Ruby are basically "immutable strings" .. that means that they can not be changed, and it implies that the same symbol when referenced many times throughout your source code, is always stored as the same entity, e.g. has the same object id.
a = 'name'
a.object_id
=> 557720
b = 'name'
=> 557740
'name'.object_id
=> 1373460
'name'.object_id
=> 1373480 # !! different entity from the one above
# Ruby assumes any string can change at any point in time,
# therefore treating it as a separate entity
# versus:
:name.object_id
=> 71068
:name.object_id
=> 71068
# the symbol :name is a references to the same unique entity
Strings on the other hand are mutable, they can be changed anytime. This implies that Ruby needs to store each string you mention throughout your source code in it's separate entity, e.g. if you have a string "name" multiple times mentioned in your source code, Ruby needs to store these all in separate String objects, because they might change later on (that's the nature of a Ruby string).
If you use a string as a Hash key, Ruby needs to evaluate the string and look at it's contents (and compute a hash function on that) and compare the result against the (hashed) values of the keys which are already stored in the Hash.
If you use a symbol as a Hash key, it's implicit that it's immutable, so Ruby can basically just do a comparison of the (hash function of the) object-id against the (hashed) object-ids of keys which are already stored in the Hash. (much faster)
Downside:
Each symbol consumes a slot in the Ruby interpreter's symbol-table, which is never released.
Symbols are never garbage-collected.
So a corner-case is when you have a large number of symbols (e.g. auto-generated ones). In that case you should evaluate how this affects the size of your Ruby interpreter (e.g. Ruby can run out of memory and blow up if you generate too many symbols programmatically).
Notes:
If you do string comparisons, Ruby can compare symbols just by comparing their object ids, without having to evaluate them. That's much faster than comparing strings, which need to be evaluated.
If you access a hash, Ruby always applies a hash-function to compute a "hash-key" from whatever key you use. You can imagine something like an MD5-hash. And then Ruby compares those "hashed keys" against each other.
Every time you use a string in your code, a new instance is created - string creation is slower than referencing a symbol.
Starting with Ruby 2.1, when you use frozen strings, Ruby will use the same string object. This avoids having to create new copies of the same string, and they are stored in a space that is garbage collected.
Long answers:
https://web.archive.org/web/20180709094450/http://www.reactive.io/tips/2009/01/11/the-difference-between-ruby-symbols-and-strings
http://www.randomhacks.net.s3-website-us-east-1.amazonaws.com/2007/01/20/13-ways-of-looking-at-a-ruby-symbol/
https://www.rubyguides.com/2016/01/ruby-mutability/
The reason is efficiency, with multiple gains over a String:
Symbols are immutable, so the question "what happens if the key changes?" doesn't need to be asked.
Strings are duplicated in your code and will typically take more space in memory.
Hash lookups must compute the hash of the keys to compare them. This is O(n) for Strings and constant for Symbols.
Moreover, Ruby 1.9 introduced a simplified syntax just for hash with symbols keys (e.g. h.merge(foo: 42, bar: 6)), and Ruby 2.0 has keyword arguments that work only for symbol keys.
Notes:
1) You might be surprised to learn that Ruby treats String keys differently than any other type. Indeed:
s = "foo"
h = {}
h[s] = "bar"
s.upcase!
h.rehash # must be called whenever a key changes!
h[s] # => nil, not "bar"
h.keys
h.keys.first.upcase! # => TypeError: can't modify frozen string
For string keys only, Ruby will use a frozen copy instead of the object itself.
2) The letters "b", "a", and "r" are stored only once for all occurrences of :bar in a program. Before Ruby 2.2, it was a bad idea to constantly create new Symbols that were never reused, as they would remain in the global Symbol lookup table forever. Ruby 2.2 will garbage collect them, so no worries.
3) Actually, computing the hash for a Symbol didn't take any time in Ruby 1.8.x, as the object ID was used directly:
:bar.object_id == :bar.hash # => true in Ruby 1.8.7
In Ruby 1.9.x, this has changed as hashes change from one session to another (including those of Symbols):
:bar.hash # => some number that will be different next time Ruby 1.9 is ran
Re: what's the advantage over using a string?
Styling: its the Ruby-way
(Very) slightly faster value look ups since hashing a symbol is equivalent to hashing an integer vs hashing a string.
Disadvantage: consumes a slot in the program's symbol table that is never released.
I'd be very interested in a follow-up regarding frozen strings introduced in Ruby 2.x.
When you deal with numerous strings coming from a text input (I'm thinking of HTTP params or payload, through Rack, for example), it's way easier to use strings everywhere.
When you deal with dozens of them but they never change (if they're your business "vocabulary"), I like to think that freezing them can make a difference. I haven't done any benchmark yet, but I guess it would be close the symbols performance.
The pre/post increment/decrement operator (++ and --) are pretty standard programing language syntax (for procedural and object-oriented languages, at least).
Why doesn't Ruby support them? I understand you could accomplish the same thing with += and -=, but it just seems oddly arbitrary to exclude something like that, especially since it's so concise and conventional.
Example:
i = 0 #=> 0
i += 1 #=> 1
i #=> 1
i++ #=> expect 2, but as far as I can tell,
#=> irb ignores the second + and waits for a second number to add to i
I understand Fixnum is immutable, but if += can just instanciate a new Fixnum and set it, why not do the same for ++?
Is consistency in assignments containing the = character the only reason for this, or am I missing something?
Here is how Matz(Yukihiro Matsumoto) explains it in an old thread:
Hi,
In message "[ruby-talk:02706] X++?"
on 00/05/10, Aleksi Niemelä <aleksi.niemela#cinnober.com> writes:
|I got an idea from http://www.pragprog.com:8080/rubyfaq/rubyfaq-5.html#ss5.3
|and thought to try. I didn't manage to make "auto(in|de)crement" working so
|could somebody help here? Does this contain some errors or is the idea
|wrong?
(1) ++ and -- are NOT reserved operator in Ruby.
(2) C's increment/decrement operators are in fact hidden assignment.
They affect variables, not objects. You cannot accomplish
assignment via method. Ruby uses +=/-= operator instead.
(3) self cannot be a target of assignment. In addition, altering
the value of integer 1 might cause severe confusion throughout
the program.
matz.
One reason is that up to now every assignment operator (i.e. an operator which changes a variable) has a = in it. If you add ++ and --, that's no longer the case.
Another reason is that the behavior of ++ and -- often confuse people. Case in point: The return value of i++ in your example would actually be 1, not 2 (the new value of i would be 2, however).
It's not conventional in OO languages. In fact, there is no ++ in Smalltalk, the language that coined the term "object-oriented programming" (and the language Ruby is most strongly influenced by). What you mean is that it's conventional in C and languages closely imitating C. Ruby does have a somewhat C-like syntax, but it isn't slavish in adhering to C traditions.
As for why it isn't in Ruby: Matz didn't want it. That's really the ultimate reason.
The reason no such thing exists in Smalltalk is because it's part of the language's overriding philosophy that assigning a variable is fundamentally a different kind of thing than sending a message to an object — it's on a different level. This thinking probably influenced Matz in designing Ruby.
It wouldn't be impossible to include it in Ruby — you could easily write a preprocessor that transforms all ++ into +=1. but evidently Matz didn't like the idea of an operator that did a "hidden assignment." It also seems a little strange to have an operator with a hidden integer operand inside of it. No other operator in the language works that way.
I think there's another reason: ++ in Ruby wouldn't be remotely useful as in C and its direct successors.
The reason being, the for keyword: while it's essential in C, it's mostly superfluous in Ruby. Most of the iteration in Ruby is done through Enumerable methods, such as each and map when iterating through some data structure, and Fixnum#times method, when you need to loop an exact number of times.
Actually, as far as I have seen, most of the time +=1 is used by people freshly migrated to Ruby from C-style languages.
In short, it's really questionable if methods ++ and -- would be used at all.
You can define a .+ self-increment operator:
class Variable
def initialize value = nil
#value = value
end
attr_accessor :value
def method_missing *args, &blk
#value.send(*args, &blk)
end
def to_s
#value.to_s
end
# pre-increment ".+" when x not present
def +(x = nil)
x ? #value + x : #value += 1
end
def -(x = nil)
x ? #value - x : #value -= 1
end
end
i = Variable.new 5
puts i #=> 5
# normal use of +
puts i + 4 #=> 9
puts i #=> 5
# incrementing
puts i.+ #=> 6
puts i #=> 6
More information on "class Variable" is available in "Class Variable to increment Fixnum objects".
I think Matz' reasoning for not liking them is that it actually replaces the variable with a new one.
ex:
a = SomeClass.new
def a.go
'hello'
end
# at this point, you can call a.go
# but if you did an a++
# that really means a = a + 1
# so you can no longer call a.go
# as you have lost your original
Now if somebody could convince him that it should just call #succ! or what not, that would make more sense, and avoid the problem. You can suggest it on ruby core.
And in the words of David Black from his book "The Well-Grounded Rubyist":
Some objects in Ruby are stored in variables as immediate values. These include
integers, symbols (which look like :this), and the special objects true, false, and
nil. When you assign one of these values to a variable (x = 1), the variable holds
the value itself, rather than a reference to it.
In practical terms, this doesn’t matter (and it will often be left as implied, rather than
spelled out repeatedly, in discussions of references and related topics in this book).
Ruby handles the dereferencing of object references automatically; you don’t have to
do any extra work to send a message to an object that contains, say, a reference to
a string, as opposed to an object that contains an immediate integer value.
But the immediate-value representation rule has a couple of interesting ramifications,
especially when it comes to integers. For one thing, any object that’s represented
as an immediate value is always exactly the same object, no matter how many
variables it’s assigned to. There’s only one object 100, only one object false, and
so on.
The immediate, unique nature of integer-bound variables is behind Ruby’s lack of
pre- and post-increment operators—which is to say, you can’t do this in Ruby:
x = 1
x++ # No such operator
The reason is that due to the immediate presence of 1 in x, x++ would be like 1++,
which means you’d be changing the number 1 to the number 2—and that makes
no sense.
Some objects in Ruby are stored in variables as immediate values. These include integers, symbols (which look like :this), and the special objects true, false, and nil. When you assign one of these values to a variable (x = 1), the variable holds the value itself, rather than a reference to it.
Any object that’s represented as an immediate value is always exactly the same object, no matter how many variables it’s assigned to. There’s only one object 100, only one object false, and so on.
The immediate, unique nature of integer-bound variables is behind Ruby’s lack of pre-and post-increment operators—which is to say, you can’t do this in Ruby:
x=1
x++ # No such operator
The reason is that due to the immediate presence of 1 in x, x++ would be like 1++, which means you’d be changing the number 1 to the number 2—and that makes no sense.
Couldn't this be achieved by adding a new method to the fixnum or Integer class?
$ ruby -e 'numb=1;puts numb.next'
returns 2
"Destructive" methods seem to be appended with ! to warn possible users, so adding a new method called next! would pretty much do what was requested ie.
$ ruby -e 'numb=1; numb.next!; puts numb'
returns 2 (since numb has been incremented)
Of course, the next! method would have to check that the object was an integer variable and not a real number, but this should be available.