How does Ruby's #count method deal with nil values? - ruby

I'm doing Ruby exercises for the Odin Project (programming newcomer), and we're tasked with recreating Ruby's #count method. Given an array like:
nil_list = [false, false, nil]
Observations:
nil_list.count == 3, its length.
nil_list.count(nil) == 1, the number of times nil is present in the list.
nil_list given a block behaves as expected.
When I try to recreate it, here's what I come up with:
module Enumerable
def my_count (find = nil)
result = 0
for i in self
if block_given?
result += 1 if yield(i)
elsif find != nil
result += 1 if i == find
else return self.length
end
end
return result
end
end
The problem here is that this doesn't actually count nils if we enter nil in as an argument, since this is the same (according to my code) as there not being an argument.
ie, nil_list.my_count(nil) == 3 instead of 1.
While typing this question I had a slightly different idea:
module Enumerable
def my_count (find = "")
result = 0
for i in self
if block_given?
result += 1 if yield(i)
elsif find != ""
result += 1 if i == find
else return self.length
end
end
return result
end
end
So this fixes the problem I was having with searches for nil, but now nil_list.count("") == 0 whereas nil_list.my_count("") == 3. Same issue, just relocated to "" which I assume doesn't ever get used.
At this point I'm just curious: how does the actual count method prevent this issue from happening?

You can write def my_count(*args) and check then length of args. I'd write:
module Enumerable
def my_count(*args)
case
when args.size > 1
raise ArgumentError
when args.size == 1
value = args.first
reduce(0) { |acc, x| value == x ? acc + 1 : acc }
when block_given?
reduce(0) { |acc, x| yield(x) ? acc + 1 : acc }
else
reduce(0) { |acc, x| acc + 1 }
end
end
end

The ugly truth is: in most Ruby implementations, Enumerable#count isn't actually written in Ruby. In MRI, YARV and MRuby, it's written in C, in JRuby and XRuby, it's written in Java, in IronRuby and Ruby.NET, it's written in C#, in MacRuby, it's written in Objective-C, in MagLev, it's written in Smalltalk, in Topaz, it's written in RPython, in Cardinal, it's written in PIR or PASM, and so on. And it not only is not written in Ruby, it's also got privileged access to the internals of the execution engine, in particular, it can access the arguments that were passed, which you cannot do from Ruby.
Such overloaded methods appear all over the core library and standard library, but they can't easily be written in Ruby. The implementers cheat by either writing them in languages that do support overloading (e.g. C# or Java), or they give them privileged access to the internals of the execution engine.
The standard workaround in Ruby is to (ab)use the fact that the default value of an optional parameter is just a normal Ruby expression and that local variables in a default value expression are visible inside the method body:
def my_count(find = (find_passed = false; nil))
if find_passed # find was passed
# do something
else
# do something else
end
end
A second possibility is to use some unforgeable unique token as the default value:
undefined = Object.new
define_method(:my_count) do |find = undefined|
if undefined.equal?(find) # find was not passed
# do something
else
# do something else
end
end

Related

Does anyone see the error in this simple Ruby function?

This function is supposed to take a string and return the characters in reverse order.
def reverse(string)
reversedString = "";
i = string.length - 1
while i >= 0
reversedString = reversedString + string[i]
i -= 1
end
puts reversedString
end
however all the tests return false:
puts(
'reverse("abc") == "cba": ' + (reverse("abc") == "cba").to_s
)
puts(
'reverse("a") == "a": ' + (reverse("a") == "a").to_s
)
puts(
'reverse("") == "": ' + (reverse("") == "").to_s
)
Does anyone see what the problem is?
Try to use the default String class reverse method like this:
"Hello World".reverse
"Hello World".reverse!
Check Ruby's String class API at https://ruby-doc.org/core-2.4.0/String.html
If you want to make your custom method, you could use a map like this:
string = String.new
"Hello World".chars.each { | c | string.prepend c }
The problem is your function isn't returning its result, it's printing it. It needs to return reversedString.
As a rule of thumb, functions should return their result. Another function should format and print it.
def reverse(string)
reversedString = "";
i = string.length - 1
while i >= 0
reversedString = reversedString + string[i]
i -= 1
end
return reversedString
end
Note: This was probably an exercise, but Ruby already has String#reverse.
It's good that you're writing tests, but the way you're writing them it's hard to tell what went wrong. Look into a Ruby testing framework like MiniTest.
require "minitest/autorun"
class TestReverse < Minitest::Test
def test_reverse
assert_equal "cba", reverse("abc")
assert_equal "a", reverse("a")
assert_equal "", reverse("")
end
end
That would have told you that your function is returning nil.
1) Failure:
TestReverse#test_reverse [test.rb:16]:
Expected: "cba"
Actual: nil
To make this more Ruby-like yet avoid using the built-in String#reverse method you'd do this:
def reverse(string)
string.chars.reverse.join('')
end
Remember that in Ruby the result of the last operation is automatically the return value of the method. In your case the last operation is puts which always returns nil, eating your value. You want to pass it through.
Try to design methods with a simple mandate, that is, this function should focus on doing one job and one job only: reversing a string. Displaying it is beyond that mandate, so that's a job for another method, like perhaps the caller.
To avoid calling any sort of reverse method at all:
def reverse(string)
result = ''
length = string.length
length.times do |i|
result << string[length - 1 - i]
end
result
end
You can often avoid for almost completely and while frequently if you use things like times or ranges (0..n) to iterate over.
puts prints and returns nil, so the whole method returns nil. If, for debugging reasons , you want to inspect what your method is returning, use p which returns it's argument (reversedString in this case).
def reverse(string)
reversedString = ""
i = string.length - 1
while i >= 0
reversedString = reversedString + string[i]
i -= 1
end
p reversedString # !!!
end
And all 3 tests return true
If I was going to do this, I'd probably take advantage of an array:
ary = 'foo bar baz'.chars
reversed_ary = []
ary.size.times do
reversed_ary << ary.pop
end
reversed_ary.join # => "zab rab oof"
pop removes the last character from the array and returns it, so basically it's walking backwards through ary, nibbling at the end and pushing each character onto the end of reversed_ary, effectively reversing the array.
Alternately it could be done using a string:
ary = 'foo bar baz'.chars
reversed_str = ''
ary.size.times do
reversed_str << ary.pop
end
reversed_str # => "zab rab oof"
or:
reversed_str += ary.pop
I just saw that #tadman did a similar thing with the string. His would run more quickly but this is more readable, at least to my eyes.

Short hand way to evaluate args in ruby

I am currently using the following code in a ruby program to evaluate variable length arguments that are passed to a method. The program is running however I'm wondering if there is a short hand way to write this.
Should have been more specific in my original description, trying to rewrite the Inject method for the Array class (hence the witty name...)
Therefore it needs to be able to accept a maximum of two args, and a minimum 0 if a block is given.
array.inject(:+)
array.inject{ |output, num| output + num }
array.inject(arg, :+)
array.inject(arg) { |output, num| output + num }
The most difficult case/s to handle are the first and forth where the 1 arg can be either a Fixnum or a Symbol. As mentioned, the code works, just looking for ways to tidy it up.
class Array
def enjict(*args)
if args.length == 2 && args[0].is_a?(Fixnum) && args[1].is_a?(Symbol)
start, symbol = args
elsif args.length == 1
raise ArgumentError unless args.first.is_a?(Symbol) || args.first.is_a?(Fixnum)
symbol = args.first if args.first.is_a?(Symbol)
start = args.first if args.first.is_a?(Fixnum)
else
raise ArgumentError unless block_given?
end
copiedArray = dup
start = copiedArray.shift unless start
if block_given?
copiedArray.each { |num| start = yield(start, num) }
else
copiedArray.each { |num| start = start.send(symbol, num) }
end
start
end
end
The sad truth is: it's messy, and there's nothing you can do about it. Almost all Ruby implementations implement Enumerable#inject with privileged access to the interpreter internals, including introspection of the arguments. MRI, YARV, MRuby implement it in C, MacRuby and RubyMotion in Objective-C, XRuby and JRuby in Java, Ruby.NET and IronRuby in C#, Topaz in RPython, Cardinal in PIR, and so on.
This is something that is simply not available to Ruby code.
Only Rubinius implements it in Ruby.
You can use a similar trick by (ab)using the fact that the default argument expression for an optional parameter can be any arbitrarily complex Ruby expression and that local variables of those expressions become local variables of the method. This is a common trick for figuring out whether an argument was passed or not:
def inject(initial=(no_initial = true; nil), sym=(no_sym = true; nil))
sym, initial = initial, nil if !block_given && no_sym
# and so on …
end
Judging from the conditions, how about refactoring your method arguments to:
def enjict(start, symbol, *options, &block)
e = proc{ raise ArgumentError if options.length > 0 && !block_given? }
e.call
if start.is_a?(Fixnum) && symbol.is_a?(Symbol)
# do something you want
else
e.call
end
end

Check if array element data[i][j][k] exists

I need to find out if data[i][j][k] element exists, but I don't know if data[i] or data[i][j] not nil themselves.
If I just data[i][j][k].nil?, it throw undefined method [] for nil:NilClass if data[i] or data[i][j] is nil
So, I am using now
unless data[i].nil? or data[i][j].nil? or data[i][j][k].nil?
# do something with data[i][j][k]
end
But it is somehow cumbersome.
Is there any other way to check if data[i][j][k] exists without data[i].nil? or data[i][j].nil? or data[i][j][k].nil? ?
I usually do:
unless (data[i][j][k] rescue false)
# do something
end
Here are three different alternatives:
Shorten it
You can shorten it slightly by using "!" instead of .nil?:
!data[i] or !data[i][j] or !data[i][j][k]
You could get rid of the repetition by doing this:
((data[i] || [])[j] || [])[k].nil?
Abstract away these details
Both of the code snippets above are nasty enough that I would probably not write them more than once in a code base.
A three-dimensional array seems complicated enough that you shouldn't be accessing it directly in lots of places in your code. You should consider wrapping it inside an object with an appropriate name:
class My3DWorld
def initialize
# set up #data
end
# Gets the point or returns nil if it doesn't exist.
def get_point(i, j, k)
#data[i] && #data[i][j] && #data[i][j][k]
end
end
Use a hash instead
However, ultimately, I wonder whether you really need a 3D array. Another more Ruby-like way to implement this data structure would be to use a hash and use i,j,k coordinate tuples as the keys. Unless this is a huge structure and you need the performance characteristics of a 3D array, I recommend looking at my other answer here:
https://stackoverflow.com/a/20600345/28128
The new feature "refinements" is an option:
module ResponsiveNil
refine NilClass do
def [](obj)
nil
end
end
end
using ResponsiveNil
a = [[1]]
p a[2][3][4] #=> nil
You can shorten slightly to
if data[i] && data[i][j] && data[i][j][k]
# do something with data[i][j][k]
end
You can also you the "andand" gem which allows you to write:
data[i].andand[j].andand[k]
If you are willing to monkey patch Array, you could define a method to enable this, such as:
class Array
def index_series(*args)
result = self
args.each do |key|
result = result[key]
return nil if result.nil?
end
result
end
end
which would let you do:
data.index_series(i, j, k)
The following permits any amount of nesting, and allows for the possibility that an element of the array has a value of nil:
def element_exists?(arr, *indices)
if arr.is_a? Array
return true if indices.empty?
return false if arr.size <= (i = indices.pop)
element_exists?(arr[i], *indices)
else
indices.empty?
end
end
data = [[0,1],[2,nil]]
element_exists?(data) # => true
element_exists?(data, 1) # => true
element_exists?(data, 2) # => false
element_exists?(data, 1, 1) # => true
element_exists?(data, 1, 2) # => false
element_exists?(data, 1, 1, 1) # => false

What do c == self and yield do?

Can you help me understand what this class does and how we can make use of it?
class Integer
def myt
c=0
until c == self
yield(c)
c+=1
end
self
end
end
Thank you.
x = Integer.new
x.myt
I tried to test it but it doesn't work. Error is: "no block given (yield)"
Also, in my book it says to test like this:
5.myt (|| puts "I'm on iteration #{i}! "} but it also gives an error - not sure why or what this line of code means.
allonhadaya and PNY did a good job explaining the purpose (enumeration) of the myt method.
Regarding your two questions mentioned in the title:
1.) What does 'c == self' do?
The '==' operator checks whether the integer c and Integer object you instantiate, are equal in value. If they are, the expression evaluates to true.
2.) What does 'yield' do?
The 'yield' statement passes control from the current method to a block which has been provided to the method. Blocks are ruby's implementation of a closure which, simple put, means that a method can be "extended" by calling the method with a block of additional code as long as the method supports a block (ie. incorporates yield statements)
The method seems to be a times implementation.
Basically 5.times { |i| puts i } and 5.myt { |i| puts i } will do exactly the same thing.
First, it sets a counter to 0, c = 0. Then you have a conditional where it checks if c is equal with self which will always be the integer attached to the method myt. It, then yields the counter and return self when is done.
Looks like it enumerates the values between zero inclusively and self exclusively.
allon#ahadaya:~$ irb
irb(main):001:0> class Integer
irb(main):002:1> def myt
irb(main):003:2> c=0
irb(main):004:2> until c == self
irb(main):005:3> yield(c)
irb(main):006:3> c+=1
irb(main):007:3> end
irb(main):008:2> self
irb(main):009:2> end
irb(main):010:1> end
=> nil
irb(main):011:0> 5.myt { |i| puts i }
0
1
2
3
4
=> 5
irb(main):012:0>
Using the example your book gave --
5.myt {|i| puts "I'm on iteration #{i}! "}
#You were missing an object in the pipes and a curly bracket before the pipes (not parentheses)
Allows you to see the internal workings of your myt method. Initializing variable c with a value of 0 the method executes an until look until the condition "c == self" is satisfied. Self references the object, here 5, which the method is acting on.
Therefore ...
def myt
until c == 5 #Until this is true
yield(c) #Do this .. here yield will do whatever the block specified
c+=1 #Increment on each iteration the value of variable c by 1
end #closing the until loop
self #return self
end
The yield within the method passes control from your method to the parameter, a block, back to the method.
Yield therefore allows you to build methods which can have similar patterns but with block you customize it to do your particular need.
If instead of putting each number maybe all you want to do is put the odd integers between 0 and the integer you call the method on --
5.myt {|i| puts i if i.odd?} # returns I am odd: 1 and I am odd: 3
I would suggest that you write your own blocks here to see how yield works and how you can keep the same method but pass in different blocks and create different method outputs!

Understanding Ruby Enumerable#map (with more complex blocks)

Let's say I have a function
def odd_or_even n
if n%2 == 0
return :even
else
return :odd
end
end
And I had a simple enumerable array
simple = [1,2,3,4,5]
And I ran it through map, with my function, using a do-end block:
simple.map do
|n| odd_or_even(n)
end
# => [:odd,:even,:odd,:even,:odd]
How could I do this without, say, defining the function in the first place? For example,
# does not work
simple.map do |n|
if n%2 == 0
return :even
else
return :odd
end
end
# Desired result:
# => [:odd,:even,:odd,:even,:odd]
is not valid ruby, and the compiler gets mad at me for even thinking about it. But how would I implement an equivalent sort of thing, that works?
edit
In reality, the solution to my problem matters to me a lot less than the motivation/reasoning behind it, to help me understand more how ruby blocks work :)
You're so close. Just remove the returns and you're golden.
This is because the block passed to map is a proc (i.e. created with Proc.new), and not a lambda. A return within a proc doesn't just jump out of the proc- it jumps out of the method that executed (i.e. called call on) the proc. A return within a lambda, on the other hand, jumps out of only the lambda.
The proc method returns a lambda in Ruby 1.8, and a Proc in Ruby 1.9. It's probably best to just not use this method and be explicit with which construct you want to use.
I'm guessing you were either in IRB or a plain ruby script when you were trying this out.
a = Proc.new { return }
a.call # fails. Nothing to return from.
def foobar
a = Proc.new { return }
a.call
puts 'hello' # not reached. The return within the proc causes execution to jump out of the foobar method.
end
foobar # succeeds, but does not print 'hello'. The return within the proc jumps out of the foobar method.
b = lambda { return }
b.call # succeeds. The return only returns from the lambda itself.
def bazquux
b = lambda { return }
b.call
puts 'hello' # this is reached. The lambda only returned from itself.
end
bazquux # succeeds, and prints 'hello'
The lesson to learn from this is to use implicit returns unless you can't, I guess.
I suspect this may be a duplicate question, but to give a value out of a block, use next
simple.map do |n|
if n%2 == 0
next :even
else
next :odd
end
end
Shortest variant using Andrew's answer:
simple.map { |n| next :even if n % 2 == 0; :odd }

Resources