Related
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.
I need to populate a Hash with various values. Some of values are accessed often enough and another ones really seldom.
The issue is, I'm using some computation to get values and populating the Hash becomes really slow with multiple keys.
Using some sort of cache is not a option in my case.
I wonder how to make the Hash compute the value only when the key is firstly accessed and not when it is added?
This way, seldom used values wont slow down the filling process.
I'm looking for something that is "kinda async" or lazy access.
There are many different ways to approach this. I recommend using an instance of a class that you define instead of a Hash. For example, instead of...
# Example of slow code using regular Hash.
h = Hash.new
h[:foo] = some_long_computation
h[:bar] = another_long_computation
# Access value.
puts h[:foo]
... make your own class and define methods, like this...
class Config
def foo
some_long_computation
end
def bar
another_long_computation
end
end
config = Config.new
puts config.foo
If you want a simple way to cache the long computations or it absolutely must be a Hash, not your own class, you can now wrap the Config instance with a Hash.
config = Config.new
h = Hash.new {|h,k| h[k] = config.send(k) }
# Access foo.
puts h[:foo]
puts h[:foo] # Not computed again. Cached from previous access.
One issue with the above example is that h.keys will not include :bar because you haven't accessed it yet. So you couldn't, for example, iterate over all the keys or entries in h because they don't exist until they're actually accessed. Another potential issue is that your keys need to be valid Ruby identifiers, so arbitrary String keys with spaces won't work when defining them on Config.
If this matters to you, there are different ways to handle it. One way you can do it is to populate your hash with thunks and force the thunks when accessed.
class HashWithThunkValues < Hash
def [](key)
val = super
if val.respond_to?(:call)
# Force the thunk to get actual value.
val = val.call
# Cache the actual value so we never run long computation again.
self[key] = val
end
val
end
end
h = HashWithThunkValues.new
# Populate hash.
h[:foo] = ->{ some_long_computation }
h[:bar] = ->{ another_long_computation }
h["invalid Ruby name"] = ->{ a_third_computation } # Some key that's an invalid ruby identifier.
# Access hash.
puts h[:foo]
puts h[:foo] # Not computed again. Cached from previous access.
puts h.keys #=> [:foo, :bar, "invalid Ruby name"]
One caveat with this last example is that it won't work if your values are callable because it can't tell the difference between a thunk that needs to be forced and a value.
Again, there are ways to handle this. One way to do it would be to store a flag that marks whether a value has been evaluated. But this would require extra memory for every entry. A better way would be to define a new class to mark that a Hash value is an unevaluated thunk.
class Unevaluated < Proc
end
class HashWithThunkValues < Hash
def [](key)
val = super
# Only call if it's unevaluated.
if val.is_a?(Unevaluated)
# Force the thunk to get actual value.
val = val.call
# Cache the actual value so we never run long computation again.
self[key] = val
end
val
end
end
# Now you must populate like so.
h = HashWithThunkValues.new
h[:foo] = Unevaluated.new { some_long_computation }
h[:bar] = Unevaluated.new { another_long_computation }
h["invalid Ruby name"] = Unevaluated.new { a_third_computation } # Some key that's an invalid ruby identifier.
h[:some_proc] = Unevaluated.new { Proc.new {|x| x + 2 } }
The downside of this is that now you have to remember to use Unevaluted.new when populating your Hash. If you want all values to be lazy, you could override []= also. I don't think it would actually save much typing because you'd still need to use Proc.new, proc, lambda, or ->{} to create the block in the first place. But it might be worthwhile. If you did, it might look something like this.
class HashWithThunkValues < Hash
def []=(key, val)
super(key, val.respond_to?(:call) ? Unevaluated.new(&val) : val)
end
end
So here is the full code.
class HashWithThunkValues < Hash
# This can be scoped inside now since it's not used publicly.
class Unevaluated < Proc
end
def [](key)
val = super
# Only call if it's unevaluated.
if val.is_a?(Unevaluated)
# Force the thunk to get actual value.
val = val.call
# Cache the actual value so we never run long computation again.
self[key] = val
end
val
end
def []=(key, val)
super(key, val.respond_to?(:call) ? Unevaluated.new(&val) : val)
end
end
h = HashWithThunkValues.new
# Populate.
h[:foo] = ->{ some_long_computation }
h[:bar] = ->{ another_long_computation }
h["invalid Ruby name"] = ->{ a_third_computation } # Some key that's an invalid ruby identifier.
h[:some_proc] = ->{ Proc.new {|x| x + 2 } }
You can define your own indexer with something like this:
class MyHash
def initialize
#cache = {}
end
def [](key)
#cache[key] || (#cache[key] = compute(key))
end
def []=(key, value)
#cache[key] = value
end
def compute(key)
#cache[key] = 1
end
end
and use it as follows:
1.9.3p286 :014 > hash = MyHash.new
=> #<MyHash:0x007fa0dd03a158 #cache={}>
1.9.3p286 :019 > hash["test"]
=> 1
1.9.3p286 :020 > hash
=> #<MyHash:0x007fa0dd03a158 #cache={"test"=>1}>
you can use this:
class LazyHash < Hash
def [] key
(_ = (#self||{})[key]) ?
((self[key] = _.is_a?(Proc) ? _.call : _); #self.delete(key)) :
super
end
def lazy_update key, &proc
(#self ||= {})[key] = proc
self[key] = proc
end
end
Your lazy hash will behave exactly as a normal Hash, cause it is actually a real Hash.
See live demo here
*** UPDATE - answering to nested procs question ***
Yes, it would work, but it is cumbersome.
See updated answer.
Use lazy_update instead of []= to add "lazy" values to your hash.
This isn't strictly an answer to the body of your question, but Enumerable::Lazy will definitely be a part of Ruby 2.0. This will let you do lazy evaluation on iterator compositions:
lazy = [1, 2, 3].lazy.select(&:odd?)
# => #<Enumerable::Lazy: #<Enumerator::Generator:0x007fdf0b864c40>:each>
lazy.to_a
# => [40, 50]
What's the best way to implement the enum idiom in Ruby? I'm looking for something which I can use (almost) like the Java/C# enums.
Two ways. Symbols (:foo notation) or constants (FOO notation).
Symbols are appropriate when you want to enhance readability without littering code with literal strings.
postal_code[:minnesota] = "MN"
postal_code[:new_york] = "NY"
Constants are appropriate when you have an underlying value that is important. Just declare a module to hold your constants and then declare the constants within that.
module Foo
BAR = 1
BAZ = 2
BIZ = 4
end
flags = Foo::BAR | Foo::BAZ # flags = 3
Added 2021-01-17
If you are passing the enum value around (for example, storing it in a database) and you need to be able to translate the value back into the symbol, there's a mashup of both approaches
COMMODITY_TYPE = {
currency: 1,
investment: 2,
}
def commodity_type_string(value)
COMMODITY_TYPE.key(value)
end
COMMODITY_TYPE[:currency]
This approach inspired by andrew-grimm's answer https://stackoverflow.com/a/5332950/13468
I'd also recommend reading through the rest of the answers here since there are a lot of ways to solve this and it really boils down to what it is about the other language's enum that you care about
I'm surprised that no one has offered something like the following (harvested from the RAPI gem):
class Enum
private
def self.enum_attr(name, num)
name = name.to_s
define_method(name + '?') do
#attrs & num != 0
end
define_method(name + '=') do |set|
if set
#attrs |= num
else
#attrs &= ~num
end
end
end
public
def initialize(attrs = 0)
#attrs = attrs
end
def to_i
#attrs
end
end
Which can be used like so:
class FileAttributes < Enum
enum_attr :readonly, 0x0001
enum_attr :hidden, 0x0002
enum_attr :system, 0x0004
enum_attr :directory, 0x0010
enum_attr :archive, 0x0020
enum_attr :in_rom, 0x0040
enum_attr :normal, 0x0080
enum_attr :temporary, 0x0100
enum_attr :sparse, 0x0200
enum_attr :reparse_point, 0x0400
enum_attr :compressed, 0x0800
enum_attr :rom_module, 0x2000
end
Example:
>> example = FileAttributes.new(3)
=> #<FileAttributes:0x629d90 #attrs=3>
>> example.readonly?
=> true
>> example.hidden?
=> true
>> example.system?
=> false
>> example.system = true
=> true
>> example.system?
=> true
>> example.to_i
=> 7
This plays well in database scenarios, or when dealing with C style constants/enums (as is the case when using FFI, which RAPI makes extensive use of).
Also, you don't have to worry about typos causing silent failures, as you would with using a hash-type solution.
I use the following approach:
class MyClass
MY_ENUM = [MY_VALUE_1 = 'value1', MY_VALUE_2 = 'value2']
end
I like it for the following advantages:
It groups values visually as one whole
It does some compilation-time checking (in contrast with just using symbols)
I can easily access the list of all possible values: just MY_ENUM
I can easily access distinct values: MY_VALUE_1
It can have values of any type, not just Symbol
Symbols may be better cause you don't have to write the name of outer class, if you are using it in another class (MyClass::MY_VALUE_1)
The most idiomatic way to do this is to use symbols. For example, instead of:
enum {
FOO,
BAR,
BAZ
}
myFunc(FOO);
...you can just use symbols:
# You don't actually need to declare these, of course--this is
# just to show you what symbols look like.
:foo
:bar
:baz
my_func(:foo)
This is a bit more open-ended than enums, but it fits well with the Ruby spirit.
Symbols also perform very well. Comparing two symbols for equality, for example, is much faster than comparing two strings.
If you are using Rails 4.2 or greater you can use Rails enums.
Rails now has enums by default without the need for including any gems.
This is very similar (and more with features) to Java, C++ enums.
Quoted from http://edgeapi.rubyonrails.org/classes/ActiveRecord/Enum.html :
class Conversation < ActiveRecord::Base
enum status: [ :active, :archived ]
end
# conversation.update! status: 0
conversation.active!
conversation.active? # => true
conversation.status # => "active"
# conversation.update! status: 1
conversation.archived!
conversation.archived? # => true
conversation.status # => "archived"
# conversation.update! status: 1
conversation.status = "archived"
# conversation.update! status: nil
conversation.status = nil
conversation.status.nil? # => true
conversation.status # => nil
I know it's been a long time since the guy posted this question, but I had the same question and this post didn't give me the answer. I wanted an easy way to see what the number represents, easy comparison, and most of all ActiveRecord support for lookup using the column representing the enum.
I didn't find anything, so I made an awesome implementation called yinum which allowed everything I was looking for. Made ton of specs, so I'm pretty sure it's safe.
Some example features:
COLORS = Enum.new(:COLORS, :red => 1, :green => 2, :blue => 3)
=> COLORS(:red => 1, :green => 2, :blue => 3)
COLORS.red == 1 && COLORS.red == :red
=> true
class Car < ActiveRecord::Base
attr_enum :color, :COLORS, :red => 1, :black => 2
end
car = Car.new
car.color = :red / "red" / 1 / "1"
car.color
=> Car::COLORS.red
car.color.black?
=> false
Car.red.to_sql
=> "SELECT `cars`.* FROM `cars` WHERE `cars`.`color` = 1"
Car.last.red?
=> true
This is my approach to enums in Ruby. I was going for short and sweet, not necessarily the the most C-like. Any thoughts?
module Kernel
def enum(values)
Module.new do |mod|
values.each_with_index{ |v,i| mod.const_set(v.to_s.capitalize, 2**i) }
def mod.inspect
"#{self.name} {#{self.constants.join(', ')}}"
end
end
end
end
States = enum %w(Draft Published Trashed)
=> States {Draft, Published, Trashed}
States::Draft
=> 1
States::Published
=> 2
States::Trashed
=> 4
States::Draft | States::Trashed
=> 5
Check out the ruby-enum gem, https://github.com/dblock/ruby-enum.
class Gender
include Enum
Gender.define :MALE, "male"
Gender.define :FEMALE, "female"
end
Gender.all
Gender::MALE
Perhaps the best lightweight approach would be
module MyConstants
ABC = Class.new
DEF = Class.new
GHI = Class.new
end
This way values have associated names, as in Java/C#:
MyConstants::ABC
=> MyConstants::ABC
To get all values, you can do
MyConstants.constants
=> [:ABC, :DEF, :GHI]
If you want an enum's ordinal value, you can do
MyConstants.constants.index :GHI
=> 2
If you're worried about typos with symbols, make sure your code raises an exception when you access a value with a non-existent key. You can do this by using fetch rather than []:
my_value = my_hash.fetch(:key)
or by making the hash raise an exception by default if you supply a non-existent key:
my_hash = Hash.new do |hash, key|
raise "You tried to access using #{key.inspect} when the only keys we have are #{hash.keys.inspect}"
end
If the hash already exists, you can add on exception-raising behaviour:
my_hash = Hash[[[1,2]]]
my_hash.default_proc = proc do |hash, key|
raise "You tried to access using #{key.inspect} when the only keys we have are #{hash.keys.inspect}"
end
Normally, you don't have to worry about typo safety with constants. If you misspell a constant name, it'll usually raise an exception.
Another solution is using OpenStruct. Its pretty straight forward and clean.
https://ruby-doc.org/stdlib-2.3.1/libdoc/ostruct/rdoc/OpenStruct.html
Example:
# bar.rb
require 'ostruct' # not needed when using Rails
# by patching Array you have a simple way of creating a ENUM-style
class Array
def to_enum(base=0)
OpenStruct.new(map.with_index(base).to_h)
end
end
class Bar
MY_ENUM = OpenStruct.new(ONE: 1, TWO: 2, THREE: 3)
MY_ENUM2 = %w[ONE TWO THREE].to_enum
def use_enum (value)
case value
when MY_ENUM.ONE
puts "Hello, this is ENUM 1"
when MY_ENUM.TWO
puts "Hello, this is ENUM 2"
when MY_ENUM.THREE
puts "Hello, this is ENUM 3"
else
puts "#{value} not found in ENUM"
end
end
end
# usage
foo = Bar.new
foo.use_enum 1
foo.use_enum 2
foo.use_enum 9
# put this code in a file 'bar.rb', start IRB and type: load 'bar.rb'
It all depends how you use Java or C# enums. How you use it will dictate the solution you'll choose in Ruby.
Try the native Set type, for instance:
>> enum = Set['a', 'b', 'c']
=> #<Set: {"a", "b", "c"}>
>> enum.member? "b"
=> true
>> enum.member? "d"
=> false
>> enum.add? "b"
=> nil
>> enum.add? "d"
=> #<Set: {"a", "b", "c", "d"}>
Someone went ahead and wrote a ruby gem called Renum. It claims to get the closest Java/C# like behavior. Personally I'm still learning Ruby, and I was a little shocked when I wanted to make a specific class contain a static enum, possibly a hash, that it wasn't exactly easily found via google.
Recently we released a gem that implements Enums in Ruby. In my post you will find the answers on your questions. Also I described there why our implementation is better than existing ones (actually there are many implementations of this feature in Ruby yet as gems).
Symbols is the ruby way. However, sometimes one need to talk to some C code or something or Java that expose some enum for various things.
#server_roles.rb
module EnumLike
def EnumLike.server_role
server_Symb=[ :SERVER_CLOUD, :SERVER_DESKTOP, :SERVER_WORKSTATION]
server_Enum=Hash.new
i=0
server_Symb.each{ |e| server_Enum[e]=i; i +=1}
return server_Symb,server_Enum
end
end
This can then be used like this
require 'server_roles'
sSymb, sEnum =EnumLike.server_role()
foreignvec[sEnum[:SERVER_WORKSTATION]]=8
This is can of course be made abstract and you can roll our own Enum class
I have implemented enums like that
module EnumType
def self.find_by_id id
if id.instance_of? String
id = id.to_i
end
values.each do |type|
if id == type.id
return type
end
end
nil
end
def self.values
[#ENUM_1, #ENUM_2]
end
class Enum
attr_reader :id, :label
def initialize id, label
#id = id
#label = label
end
end
#ENUM_1 = Enum.new(1, "first")
#ENUM_2 = Enum.new(2, "second")
end
then its easy to do operations
EnumType.ENUM_1.label
...
enum = EnumType.find_by_id 1
...
valueArray = EnumType.values
module Status
BAD = 13
GOOD = 24
def self.to_str(status)
for sym in self.constants
if self.const_get(sym) == status
return sym.to_s
end
end
end
end
mystatus = Status::GOOD
puts Status::to_str(mystatus)
Output:
GOOD
This seems a bit superfluous, but this is a methodology that I have used a few times, especially where I am integrating with xml or some such.
#model
class Profession
def self.pro_enum
{:BAKER => 0,
:MANAGER => 1,
:FIREMAN => 2,
:DEV => 3,
:VAL => ["BAKER", "MANAGER", "FIREMAN", "DEV"]
}
end
end
Profession.pro_enum[:DEV] #=>3
Profession.pro_enum[:VAL][1] #=>MANAGER
This gives me the rigor of a c# enum and it is tied to the model.
Most people use symbols (that's the :foo_bar syntax). They're sort of unique opaque values. Symbols don't belong to any enum-style type so they're not really a faithful representation of C's enum type but this is pretty much as good as it gets.
Sometimes all I need is to be able to fetch enum's value and identify its name similar to java world.
module Enum
def get_value(str)
const_get(str)
end
def get_name(sym)
sym.to_s.upcase
end
end
class Fruits
include Enum
APPLE = "Delicious"
MANGO = "Sweet"
end
Fruits.get_value('APPLE') #'Delicious'
Fruits.get_value('MANGO') # 'Sweet'
Fruits.get_name(:apple) # 'APPLE'
Fruits.get_name(:mango) # 'MANGO'
This to me serves the purpose of enum and keeps it very extensible too. You can add more methods to the Enum class and viola get them for free in all the defined enums. for example. get_all_names and stuff like that.
Try the inum.
https://github.com/alfa-jpn/inum
class Color < Inum::Base
define :RED
define :GREEN
define :BLUE
end
Color::RED
Color.parse('blue') # => Color::BLUE
Color.parse(2) # => Color::GREEN
see more https://github.com/alfa-jpn/inum#usage
Another approach is to use a Ruby class with a hash containing names and values as described in the following RubyFleebie blog post. This allows you to convert easily between values and constants (especially if you add a class method to lookup the name for a given value).
I think the best way to implement enumeration like types is with symbols since the pretty much behave as integer (when it comes to performace, object_id is used to make comparisons ); you don't need to worry about indexing and they look really neat in your code xD
irb(main):016:0> num=[1,2,3,4]
irb(main):017:0> alph=['a','b','c','d']
irb(main):018:0> l_enum=alph.to_enum
irb(main):019:0> s_enum=num.to_enum
irb(main):020:0> loop do
irb(main):021:1* puts "#{s_enum.next} - #{l_enum.next}"
irb(main):022:1> end
Output:
1 - a
2 - b
3 - c
4 - d
Another way to mimic an enum with consistent equality handling (shamelessly adopted from Dave Thomas). Allows open enums (much like symbols) and closed (predefined) enums.
class Enum
def self.new(values = nil)
enum = Class.new do
unless values
def self.const_missing(name)
const_set(name, new(name))
end
end
def initialize(name)
#enum_name = name
end
def to_s
"#{self.class}::##enum_name"
end
end
if values
enum.instance_eval do
values.each { |e| const_set(e, enum.new(e)) }
end
end
enum
end
end
Genre = Enum.new %w(Gothic Metal) # creates closed enum
Architecture = Enum.new # creates open enum
Genre::Gothic == Genre::Gothic # => true
Genre::Gothic != Architecture::Gothic # => true
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.
I have a few arrays of Ruby objects of class UserInfo:
class UserInfo
attr_accessor :name, :title, :age
end
How can I merge these arrays into one array? A user is identified by its name, so I want no duplicate names. If name, title, age, etc. are equal I'd like to have 1 entry in the new array. If names are the same, but any of the other details differ I probably want those 2 users in a different array to manually fix the errors.
Thanks in advance
Redefine equality comparison on your object, and you can get rid of actual duplicates quickly with Array#uniq
class UserInfo
attr_accessor :name, :title, :age
def == other
name==other.name and title==other.title and age==other.age
end
end
# assuming a and b are arrays of UserInfo objects
c = a | b
# c will only contain one of each UserInfo
Then you can sort by name and look for name-only duplicates
d = c.sort{ |p,q| p.name <=> q.name } #sort by name
name = ""
e = []
d.each do |item|
if item.name == name
e[-1] = [e[-1],item].flatten
else
e << item
end
end
A year ago I monkey patched a kind of cryptic instance_variables_compare on Object. I guess you could use that.
class Object
def instance_variables_compare(o)
Hash[*self.instance_variables.map {|v|
self.instance_variable_get(v)!=o.instance_variable_get(v) ?
[v,o.instance_variable_get(v)] : []}.flatten]
end
end
A cheesy example
require 'Date'
class Cheese
attr_accessor :name, :weight, :expire_date
def initialize(name, weight, expire_date)
#name, #weight, #expire_date = name, weight, expire_date
end
end
stilton=Cheese.new('Stilton', 250, Date.parse("2010-12-02"))
gorgonzola=Cheese.new('Gorgonzola', 250, Date.parse("2010-12-17"))
irb is my weapon of choice
>> stilton.instance_variables_compare(gorgonzola)
=> {"#name"=>"Gorgonzola", "#expire_date"=>#<Date: 4910305/2,0,2299161>}
>> gorgonzola.instance_variables_compare(stilton)
=> {"#name"=>"Stilton", "#expire_date"=>#<Date: 4910275/2,0,2299161>}
>> stilton.expire_date=gorgonzola.expire_date
=> #<Date: 4910305/2,0,2299161>
>> stilton.instance_variables_compare(gorgonzola)
=> {"#name"=>"Gorgonzola"}
>> stilton.instance_variables_compare(stilton)
=> {}
As you can see the instance_variables_compare returns an empty Hash if the two objects has the same content.
An array of cheese
stilton2=Cheese.new('Stilton', 210, Date.parse("2010-12-02"))
gorgonzola2=Cheese.new('Gorgonzola', 250, Date.parse("2010-12-17"))
arr=[]<<stilton<<stilton2<<gorgonzola<<gorgonzola2
One hash without problems and one with
h={}
problems=Hash.new([])
arr.each {|c|
if h.has_key?(c.name)
if problems.has_key?(c.name)
problems[c.name]=problems[c.name]<<c
elsif h[c.name].instance_variables_compare(c) != {}
problems[c.name]=problems[c.name]<<c<<h[c.name]
h.delete(c.name)
end
else
h[c.name]=c
end
}
Now the Hash h contains the objects without merging problems and the problems hash contains those that has instance variables that differs.
>> h
=> {"Gorgonzola"=>#<Cheese:0xb375e8 #name="Gorgonzola", #weight=250, #expire_date=#<Date: 2010-12-17 (4911095/2,0,2299161)>>}
>> problems
=> {"Stilton"=>[#<Cheese:0xf54c30 #name="Stilton", #weight=210, #expire_date=#<Date: 2010-12-02 (4911065/2,0,2299161)>>, #<Cheese:0xfdeca8 #name="Stilton", #weight=250,#expire_date=#<Date: 2010-12-02 (4911065/2,0,2299161)>>]}
As far as I can see you will not have to modify this code at all to support an array of UserInfo objects.
It would most probably be much faster to compare the properties directly or with a override of ==. This is how you override ==
def ==(other)
return self.weight == other.weight && self.expire_date == other.expire_date
end
and the loop changes into this
arr.each {|c|
if h.has_key?(c.name)
if problems.has_key?(c.name)
problems[c.name]=problems[c.name]<<c
elsif h[c.name] != c
problems[c.name]=problems[c.name]<<c<<h[c.name]
h.delete(c.name)
end
else
h[c.name]=c
end
}
Finally you might want to convert the Hash back to an Array
result = h.values
Here's another potential way. If you have a way of identifying each UserInfo, say a to_str method that prints out the values:
def to_str()
return "#{#name}:#{#title}:#{#age}"
end
You can use inject and a hash
all_users = a + b # collection of users to "merge"
res = all_users.inject({})do |h,v|
h[v.to_str] = v #save the value indexed on the string output
h # return h for the next iteration
end
merged = res.values #the unique users