I'm looking for the shortest, most simple Ruby one-liner to execute a statement exactly once. Idea is to use this while debugging to quickly add a debug statement to a loop that gets executed exactly once.
Best I've come up with so far:
puts "do something interesting exactly once!" if (once ||= "0").next! == "1"
Can you come up with something even shorter?
Added for clarification:
The idea for the questions was to focus on the "do it once" part and not so much on the "do something interesting" part. It should be assumed that the code do be executed once could be anything, not just a puts statement.
The ideal solution would also work in different kinds of loop constructs. E.g. as was pointed out my initial solution only works if the once variable is already defined outside the loop context or if the loop context used doesn't create a new lexical scope.
The original use case that triggered this question was slightly different - it looked more like below. But I though the above, simpler example would more easily explain the kind of solution I was looking for.
def process
do_some_preprocessing()
raise SomeError if <once> # added temp. for debugging purposes - the <once> part is what this question is about!
dangerous_operation() # this can raise SomeError under certain conditions
rescue SomeError
attempt_to_rescue() and retry
end
Well, you could abuse lambdas and closures.
->{puts "do something interesting exactly once!";x=->{x}}[][]
#=> do something interesting exactly once!
#=> #<Proc:0x5465282c#(irb):10 (lambda)>
The original contents of the lambda are only run once; any subsequent invocations will simply return an empty proc.
You could alternately abuse globals for a more true "one-liner", but it's awful.
$x ||= puts("do something interesting exactly once!") || 1
debug = ["do something interesting exactly once!"]
puts debug.pop # "do something interesting exactly once!"
puts debug.pop # nil
(answer edited to reflect the discussion in comments)
Your code won't do what you want it to do, it will depend of the looping construct you use.
This will work:
puts "do something interesting exactly once!" if once = once.nil?
But with this one, you'll have to define once before: once = nil (same thing for your own code). This is because otherwise, the scope of the once variable will be restrained to the block within an each loop, causing it to fail. This would work just fine within a for loop (the way you must have tested it):
(1..3).each do # 3.times would behave just the same
puts "once has not been defined before! Won't work!" if once = once.nil?
end
# >once has not been defined before! Won't work!
# once has not been defined before! Won't work!
# once has not been defined before! Won't work!
for i in 1..3 do
puts "Works because of the way for loops treat vars within loop" if once = once.nil?
end
# >Works because of the way for loops treat vars within loop
To avoid that problem without having to initialize the variable first, you can make once global:
(1..3).each do
puts "$once's scope is not restrained to the 'each' loop! Works!" if $once = $once.nil?
end
# >$once's scope is not restrained to the 'each' loop! Works!
The original idea generates code-smell. It results in code that will leave someone else scratching their head, which isn't a good thing. Generating code that is obvious and easy to understand will make your, and other programmer's, job easier.
Writing code that takes a while to figure out will take you a while to figure out in the future if you're debugging so be kind to your future self.
I'd stick with the standard way, using a simple flag:
once = false
2.times do
puts "do something interesting exactly once!" unless once
once ||= true
end
Which results in this output:
# >> do something interesting exactly once!
Related
TL;DR I am going to a bootcamp next year and one their assessments to get in is learning ruby. I have a background in JS and am very new to ruby. I have this assessment in which case I am not familiar with what the test wants me to do. Below is the test case(Rspec) and right below that is my answer.
describe "some silly block functions" do
describe "reverser" do
it "reverses the string returned by the default block" do
result = reverser do
"hello"
end
expect(result).to eq("olleh")
end
it "reverses each word in the string returned by the default block" do
result = reverser do
"hello dolly"
end
expect(result).to eq("olleh yllod")
end
end
This is my answer code:
def reverser sentence
words = sentence.split(" ")
result = []
words.length.times do |i|
result.push(yield(words[i]))
end
result.join(" ")
end
reverser("hello dolly") {|n| n.reverse} #=> 'olleh yllod'
As I mentioned above I am new to ruby and the idea of yielding is like a callback function for JS. I am having a hard time figuring out what expected code the test case wants me to write. It says that 'it reverses each word in the string returned by the default block' from the statement I just created a block outside of the function where the words are being reversed. I appreciate the help and guidance from whoever can give advice.
This is really more about TDD than about Ruby. The approach would be much the same in any other language as well.
The point of TDD is to write the simplest test that could possibly fail, and then write the simplest code that could possibly change the error message. Step #1 is already provided to you in this example, so this is really about step #2: write the simplest code that could possibly change the message.
Let's run the tests! The message says:
NoMethodError:
undefined method `reverser' …
What's the simplest code that could possibly change a message that says a method doesn't exist? Well, make the method exist, of course!
def reverser; end
Now, the message is:
expected: "olleh"
got: nil
Okay, so it expected us to return the string 'olleh', but we actually returned nil. That's easy:
def reverser; 'olleh' end
Great! The first test passes. But the second still fails. It says:
expected: "olleh yllod"
got: "olleh"
Hmm … apparently, it is not enough to just return something statically. We have to return something different every time. The obvious source would be an argument, but our method doesn't have any parameters. Or does it? Yes! In Ruby, all methods have an implicit block parameter! You can evaluate it using the yield keyword, so let's try that:
def reverser; yield end
Damn! We're back to two errors! That was a step backwards. Or was it? Let's look at the first error message:
expected: "olleh"
got: "hello"
Do you notice something? The expected value is exactly the reverse of the value we are currently returning. So, all we need to do is reverse the return value:
def reverser; yield.reverse end
Hooray! We're back to 1 error:
expected: "olleh yllod"
got: "yllod olleh"
Again, can you spot what is happening? The order of the words is reversed! We need to separate the words and then reverse them, then put them back together:
def reverser; yield.reverse.split.reverse.join end
So close!
expected: "olleh yllod"
got: "ollehyllod"
We just need to put the space back in:
def reverser; yield.reverse.split.reverse.join(' ') end
Yippieh!
2 examples, 0 failures
The important thing is: at no point did we actually have to think. Every step of the way, the tests told us what to do, what to do next, and when we were done. That's what TDD is about: the tests drive the development.
I think the point of the question should be to explain about RSpec and TDD if you're going on a bootcamp. I think giving you the answer to the problem is only part of what you need to know in this case. So...
One of the principles of TDD is to write the least amount of code to get the tests to pass. If I go back to the start.
You have written a reverser method that takes sentence as an argument:
def reverser sentence
'olleh'
end
Run the test and the test should fail with an error: wrong number of arguments. Remove the argument and try that and run RSpec again:
def reverser
'olleh'
end
The first test should pass, but it will fail the second test as we've hard coded the return value of olleh. Clearly it's no good returning a hard coded value — it just helped the test to pass — so I need to figure out how to yield a return value.
def reverser
yield.reverse
end
And this perhaps will get the second test to pass...
This is the guiding principle of TDD, take small steps and get your code to pass. Once it's passing then go back and refactor and improve your code.
As you probably know already TDD is invaluable for writing good quality code - it makes writing code fun, it helps with refactoring.
I found a page with some resources and I would recommend codeschool but they've retired their course which is a pity but there is a PluralSight TDD course that might be useful and also there is a Udemy course on TDD that might be useful too in giving you a head start.
yield means "execute the code inside the block and give me the result". Your reverser method can be simply written like this:
def reverser
yield.split.map(&:reverse).join(' ') if block_given?
end
result = reverser do
'hello world'
end
puts result
# => olleh dlrow
Ruby automatically returns the last thing called as the return value, so the return value of the block given to reverser is hello world which is what will be assigned to yield.
You could check the documentation for block_given? here. Take a look at this answer for deeper explanation of blocks
In a blog post about unconditional programming Michael Feathers shows how limiting if statements can be used as a tool for reducing code complexity.
He uses a specific example to illustrate his point. Now, I've been thinking about other specific examples that could help me learn more about unconditional/ifless/forless programming.
For example in this cat clone there is an if..else block:
#!/usr/bin/env ruby
if ARGV.length > 0
ARGV.each do |f|
puts File.read(f)
end
else
puts STDIN.read
end
It turns out ruby has ARGF which makes this program much simpler:
#!/usr/bin/env ruby
puts ARGF.read
I'm wondering if ARGF didn't exist how could the above example be refactored so there is no if..else block?
Also interested in links to other illustrative specific examples.
Technically you can,
inputs = { ARGV => ARGV.map { |f| File.open(f) }, [] => [STDIN] }[ARGV]
inputs.map(&:read).map(&method(:puts))
Though that's code golf and too clever for its own good.
Still, how does it work?
It uses a hash to store two alternatives.
Map ARGV to an array of open files
Map [] to an array with STDIN, effectively overwriting the ARGV entry if it is empty
Access ARGV in the hash, which returns [STDIN] if it is empty
Read all open inputs and print them
Don't write that code though.
As mentioned in my answer to your other question, unconditional programming is not about avoiding if expressions at all costs but about striving for readable and intention revealing code. And sometimes that just means using an if expression.
You can't always get rid of a conditional (maybe with an insane number of classes) and Michael Feathers isn't advocating that. Instead it's sort of a backlash against overuse of conditionals. We've all seen nightmare code that's endless chains of nested if/elsif/else and so has he.
Moreover, people do routinely nest conditionals inside of conditionals. Some of the worst code I've ever seen is a cavernous nightmare of nested conditions with odd bits of work interspersed within them. I suppose that the real problem with control structures is that they are often mixed with the work. I'm sure there's some way that we can see this as a form of single responsibility violation.
Rather than slavishly try to eliminate the condition, you could simplify your code by first creating an array of IO objects from ARGV, and use STDIN if that list is empty.
io = ARGV.map { |f| File.new(f) };
io = [STDIN] if !io.length;
Then your code can do what it likes with io.
While this has strictly the same number of conditionals, it eliminates the if/else block and thus a branch: the code is linear. More importantly, since it separates gathering data from using it, you can put it in a function and reuse it further reducing complexity. Once it's in a function, we can take advantage of early return.
# I don't have a really good name for this, but it's a
# common enough idiom. Perl provides the same feature as <>
def arg_files
return ARGV.map { |f| File.new(f) } if ARGV.length;
return [STDIN];
end
Now that it's in a function, your code to cat all the files or stdin becomes very simple.
arg_files.each { |f| puts f.read }
First, although the principle is good, you have to consider other things that are more importants such as readability and perhaps speed of execution.
That said, you could monkeypatch the String class to add a read method and put STDIN and the arguments in an array and start reading from the beginning until the end of the array minus 1, so stopping before STDIN if there are arguments and go on until -1 (the end) if there are no arguments.
class String
def read
File.read self if File.exist? self
end
end
puts [*ARGV, STDIN][0..ARGV.length-1].map{|a| a.read}
Before someone notices that I still use an if to check if a File exists, you should have used two if's in your example to check this also and if you don't, use a rescue to properly inform the user.
EDIT: if you would use the patch, read about the possible problems at these links
http://blog.jayfields.com/2008/04/alternatives-for-redefining-methods.html
http://www.justinweiss.com/articles/3-ways-to-monkey-patch-without-making-a-mess/
Since the read method isn't part of String the solutions using alias and super are not necessary, if you plan to use a Module, here is how to do that
module ReadString
def read
File.read self if File.exist? self
end
end
class String
include ReadString
end
EDIT: just read about a safe way to monkey patch, for your documentation see https://solidfoundationwebdev.com/blog/posts/writing-clean-monkey-patches-fixing-kaminari-1-0-0-argumenterror-comparison-of-fixnum-with-string-failed?utm_source=rubyweekly&utm_medium=email
I have a ruby method that needs to check if a block was passed to it.
A colleague is suggesting that simply checking if block.nil? is slightly faster in performance and works for named blocks. This is already quite annoying since he is using the named block and invoking it using block.call rather than yield which has been shown to be significantly faster, since named blocks are more easy to understand in terms of readability.
Version 1:
def named_block &block
if block.nil?
puts "No block"
else
block.call
end
end
Version 2:
def named_block &block
if !block_given?
puts "No block"
else
block.call
end
end
Benchmarking shows that version 1 is slightly faster than version 2, however a quick look at the source code seems to suggest that block_given? is thread safe.
What are the main differences between the two approaches? Please help me prove him wrong!
First off, while a single nil? check might be faster than block_given?, capturing the block is slow. So unless you were going to capture it anyway, the performance argument is invalid.
Secondly, it's easier to understand. Whenever you see block_given?, you know exactly what is up. When you have x.nil?, you have to stop and think what x is.
Thirdly, it's an idiom. In my experience, the overwhelming majority of Ruby developers will prefer block_given?. When in Rome...
Lastly, you can keep it consistent. If you always use block_given? the problem is solved for you. If you use nil? checks, you have to have the block captured.
There is a performance overhead.
It's more verbose, something Rubyists try to avoid.
Naming things is one of the hardest things in programming. :) Can you think of a good name for the block Enumerable#map will get for example?
"Grepability" is a desirable trait for a codebase to have. If you want to find all the places where you check if you were given a block, doing nil? checks can prove difficult.
I think that the main difference is that block_given? can be used without explicitly defining &block in method definition:
def named_block
if !block_given?
puts "No block"
else
yield
end
end
Which version is better when it goes for readability? Sometimes explicitly naming the block can be more readable and sometimes yield can be more readable. It's also mater of personal preferences.
When it goes to speed, in benchmarks, that you've included, the yield is faster. That is because Ruby doesen't have to initialize new object (Proc) for the block and assign it to variable.
There is another way to accomplish this:
def named_block
(Proc.new rescue puts("No block") || ->{}).call
end
▶ named_block
#⇒ No block
▶ named_block { puts 'BLOCK!' }
#⇒ BLOCK!
please don’t take this too seriously
UPD: as noted by #Lukas in comments, it fails on the block, that raises an exception ⇒ FIXED
I am working with a custom testing framework and we are trying to expand some of the assert functionality to include a custom error message if the assert fails. The current assert is called like this:
assert_compare(first_term, :neq, second_term) do
puts 'foobar'
end
and we want something with the functionality of:
assert_compare(first_term, :neq, second_term, error_message) do
puts 'foobar'
end
so that if the block fails the error message will describe the failure. I think this is ugly, however, as the framework we are moving away from did this and i have to go through a lot of statements that look like:
assert.compare(variable_foo['ARRAY1'][2], variable_bar['ARRAY2'][2], 'This assert failed because someone did something unintelligent when writing the test. Probably me, since in am the one writing this really really long error statement on the same line so that you have to spend a quarter of your day scrolling to the side just to read it')
This type of method call makes it difficult to read, even when using a variable for the error message. I feel like a better way should be possible.
assert_compare(first_term, :neq, second_term) do
puts 'foobar'
end on_fail: 'This is a nice error message'
This, to me, is the best way to do it but i don't know how or if it is even possible to accomplish this in ruby.
The goal here is to make it as aesthetic as possible. Any suggestions?
You could make on_fail a method of whatever assert_compare returns and write
assert_compare(first_term, :neq, second_term) do
puts 'foobar'
end.on_fail: 'This is a nice error message'
In short, no. Methods in ruby take a block as the final parameter only. As Chuck mentioned you could attempt to make the on_fail method a method of whatever assert_compare returns and that is a good solution. The solution I've come up with is not what you are looking for, but it works:
def test block, param
block.call
puts param
end
test proc { puts "hello"}, "hi"
will result in
"hello"
"hi"
What I've done here is create a Proc (which is essentially a block) and then passed it as a regular parameter.
I recently discovered Ruby's blocks and yielding features, and I was wondering: where does this fit in terms of computer science theory? Is it a functional programming technique, or something more specific?
Ruby's yield is not an iterator like in C# and Python. yield itself is actually a really simple concept once you understand how blocks work in Ruby.
Yes, blocks are a functional programming feature, even though Ruby is not properly a functional language. In fact, Ruby uses the method lambda to create block objects, which is borrowed from Lisp's syntax for creating anonymous functions — which is what blocks are. From a computer science standpoint, Ruby's blocks (and Lisp's lambda functions) are closures. In Ruby, methods usually take only one block. (You can pass more, but it's awkward.)
The yield keyword in Ruby is just a way of calling a block that's been given to a method. These two examples are equivalent:
def with_log
output = yield # We're calling our block here with yield
puts "Returned value is #{output}"
end
def with_log(&stuff_to_do) # the & tells Ruby to convert into
# an object without calling lambda
output = stuff_to_do.call # We're explicitly calling the block here
puts "Returned value is #{output}"
end
In the first case, we're just assuming there's a block and say to call it. In the other, Ruby wraps the block in an object and passes it as an argument. The first is more efficient and readable, but they're effectively the same. You'd call either one like this:
with_log do
a = 5
other_num = gets.to_i
#my_var = a + other_num
end
And it would print the value that wound up getting assigned to #my_var. (OK, so that's a completely stupid function, but I think you get the idea.)
Blocks are used for a lot of things in Ruby. Almost every place you'd use a loop in a language like Java, it's replaced in Ruby with methods that take blocks. For example,
[1,2,3].each {|value| print value} # prints "123"
[1,2,3].map {|value| 2**value} # returns [2, 4, 8]
[1,2,3].reject {|value| value % 2 == 0} # returns [1, 3]
As Andrew noted, it's also commonly used for opening files and many other places. Basically anytime you have a standard function that could use some custom logic (like sorting an array or processing a file), you'll use a block. There are other uses too, but this answer is already so long I'm afraid it will cause heart attacks in readers with weaker constitutions. Hopefully this clears up the confusion on this topic.
There's more to yield and blocks than mere looping.
The series Enumerating enumerable has a series of things you can do with enumerations, such as asking if a statement is true for any member of a group, or if it's true for all the members, or searching for any or all members meeting a certain condition.
Blocks are also useful for variable scope. Rather than merely being convenient, it can help with good design. For example, the code
File.open("filename", "w") do |f|
f.puts "text"
end
ensures that the file stream is closed when you're finished with it, even if an exception occurs, and that the variable is out of scope once you're finished with it.
A casual google didn't come up with a good blog post about blocks and yields in ruby. I don't know why.
Response to comment:
I suspect it gets closed because of the block ending, not because the variable goes out of scope.
My understanding is that nothing special happens when the last variable pointing to an object goes out of scope, apart from that object being eligible for garbage collection. I don't know how to confirm this, though.
I can show that the file object gets closed before it gets garbage collected, which usually doesn't happen immediately. In the following example, you can see that a file object is closed in the second puts statement, but it hasn't been garbage collected.
g = nil
File.open("/dev/null") do |f|
puts f.inspect # #<File:/dev/null>
puts f.object_id # Some number like 70233884832420
g = f
end
puts g.inspect # #<File:/dev/null (closed)>
puts g.object_id # The exact same number as the one printed out above,
# indicating that g points to the exact same object that f pointed to
I think the yield statement originated from the CLU language. I always wonder if the character from Tron was named after CLU too....
I think 'coroutine' is the keyword you're looking for.
E.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yield
Yield in computing and information science:
in computer science, a point of return (and re-entry) of a coroutine