Related
I'm unclear on why there is a need to pass block arguments when calling a function.
why not just pass in as function arguments and what happens to the block arguments, how are they passed and used?
m.call(somevalue) {|_k, v| v['abc'] = 'xyz'}
module m
def call ( arg1, *arg2, &arg3)
end
end
Ruby, like almost all mainstream programming languages, is a strict language, meaning that arguments are fully evaluated before being passed into the method.
Now, imagine you want to implement (a simplified version of) Integer#times. The implementation would look a little bit like this:
class Integer
def my_times(action_to_be_executed)
raise ArgumentError, "`self` must be non-negative but is `#{inspect}`" if negative?
return if zero?
action_to_be_executed
pred.my_times(action_to_be_executed)
end
end
3.my_times(puts "Hello")
# Hello
0.my_times(puts "Hello")
# Hello
-1.my_times(puts "Hello")
# Hello
# ArgumentError (`self` must be non-negative but is `-1`)
As you can see, 3.my_times(puts "Hello") printed Hello exactly once, instead of thrice, as it should do. Also, 0.my_times(puts "Hello") printed Hello exactly once, instead of not at all, as it should do, despite the fact that it returns in the second line of the method, and thus action_to_be_executed is never even evaluated. Even -1.my_times(puts "Hello") printed Hello exactly once, despite that fact that it raises an ArgumentError exception as the very first thing in the method and thus the entire rest of the method body is never evaluated.
Why is that? Because Ruby is strict! Again, strict means that arguments are fully evaluated before being passed. So, what this means is that before my_times even gets called, the puts "Hello" is evaluated (which prints Hello to the standard output stream), and the result of that evaluation (which is just nil because Kernel#puts always returns nil) is passed into the method.
So, what we need to do, is somehow delay the evaluation of the argument. One way we know how to delay evaluation, is by using a method: methods are only evaluated when they are called.
So, we take a page out of Java's playbook, and define a Single Abstract Method Protocol: the argument that is being passed to my_each must be an object which implements a method with a specific name. Let's call it call, because, well, we are going to call it.
This would look a little bit like this:
class Integer
def my_times(action_to_be_executed)
raise ArgumentError, "`self` must be non-negative but is `#{inspect}`" if negative?
return if zero?
action_to_be_executed.call
pred.my_times(action_to_be_executed)
end
end
def (hello = Object.new).call
puts "Hello"
end
3.my_times(hello)
# Hello
# Hello
# Hello
0.my_times(hello)
-1.my_times(hello)
# ArgumentError (`self` must be non-negative but is `-1`)
Nice! It works! The argument that is passed is of course still strictly evaluated before being passed (we can't change the fundamental nature of Ruby from within Ruby itself), but this evaluation only results in the object that is bound by the local variable hello. The code that we want to run is another layer of indirection away and will only be executed at the point where we actually call it.
It also has another advantage: Integer#times actually makes the index of the current iteration available to the action as an argument. This was impossible to implement with our first solution, but here we can do it, because we are using a method and methods can take arguments:
class Integer
def my_times(action_to_be_executed)
raise ArgumentError, "`self` must be non-negative but is `#{inspect}`" if negative?
__my_times_helper(action_to_be_executed)
end
protected
def __my_times_helper(action_to_be_executed, index = 0)
return if zero?
action_to_be_executed.call(index)
pred.__my_times_helper(action_to_be_executed, index + 1)
end
end
def (hello = Object.new).call(i)
puts "Hello from iteration #{i}"
end
3.my_times(hello)
# Hello from iteration 0
# Hello from iteration 1
# Hello from iteration 2
0.my_times(hello)
-1.my_times(hello)
# ArgumentError (`self` must be non-negative but is `-1`)
However, this is not actually very readable. If you didn't want to give a name to this action that we are trying to pass but instead simply literally write it down inside the argument list, it would look something like this:
3.my_times(Object.new.tap do |obj|
def obj.call(i)
puts "Hello from iteration #{i}"
end
end)
# Hello from iteration 0
# Hello from iteration 1
# Hello from iteration 2
or on one line:
3.my_times(Object.new.tap do |obj| def obj.call; puts "Hello from iteration #{i}" end end)
# Hello from iteration 0
# Hello from iteration 1
# Hello from iteration 2
# or:
3.my_times(Object.new.tap {|obj| def obj.call; puts "Hello from iteration #{i}" end })
# Hello from iteration 0
# Hello from iteration 1
# Hello from iteration 2
Now, I don't know about you, but I find that pretty ugly.
In Ruby 1.9, Ruby added Proc literals aka stabby lambda literals to the language. Lambda literals are a concise literal syntax for writing objects with a call method, specifically Proc objects with Proc#call.
Using lambda literals, and without any changes to our existing code, it looks something like this:
3.my_times(-> i { puts "Hello from iteration #{i}" })
# Hello from iteration 0
# Hello from iteration 1
# Hello from iteration 2
This does not look bad!
When Yukihiro "matz" Matsumoto designed Ruby almost thirty years ago in early 1993, he did a survey of the core libraries and standard libraries of languages like Smalltalk, Scheme, and Common Lisp to figure out how such methods that take a piece of code as an argument are actually used, and he found that the overwhelming majority of such methods take exactly one code argument and all they do with that argument is call it.
So, he decided to add special language support for a single argument that contains code and can only be called. This argument is both syntactically and semantically lightweight, in particular, it looks syntactically exactly like any other control structure, and it is semantically not an object.
This special language feature, you probably guessed it, are blocks.
Every method in Ruby has an optional block parameter. I can always pass a block to a method. It's up to the method to do anything with the block. Here, for example, the block is useless because Kernel#puts doesn't do anything with a block:
puts("Hello") { puts "from the block" }
# Hello
Because blocks are not objects, you cannot call methods on them. Also, because there can be only one block argument, there is no need to give it a name: if you refer to a block, it's always clear which block because there can be only one. But, if the block doesn't have methods and doesn't have a name, how can we call it?
That's what the yield keyword is for. It temporarily "yields" control flow to the block, or, in other words, it calls the block.
With blocks, our solution would look like this:
class Integer
def my_times(&action_to_be_executed)
raise ArgumentError, "`self` must be non-negative but is `#{inspect}`" if negative?
return enum_for(__callee__) unless block_given?
__my_times_helper(&action_to_be_executed)
end
protected
def __my_times_helper(&action_to_be_executed, index = 0)
return if zero?
yield index
pred.__my_times_helper(&action_to_be_executed, index + 1)
end
end
3.my_times do
puts "Hello from iteration #{i}"
end
# Hello from iteration 0
# Hello from iteration 1
# Hello from iteration 2
0.my_times do
puts "Hello from iteration #{i}"
end
-1.my_times do
puts "Hello from iteration #{i}"
end
# ArgumentError (`self` must be non-negative but is `-1`)
Okay, you might notice that I simplified a bit when I wrote above that the only thing you can do with a block is call it. There are two other things you can do with it:
You can check whether a block argument was passed using Kernel#block_given?. Since blocks are always optional, and blocks have no names, there must be a way to check whether a block was passed or not.
You can "roll up" a block (which is not an object and doesn't have a name) into a Proc object (which is an object) and bind it to a parameter (which gives it a name) using the & ampersand unary prefix sigil in the parameter list of the method. Now that we have an object, and a way to refer to it, we can store it in a variable, return it from a method, or (as we are doing here) pass it along as an argument to a different method, which otherwise wouldn't be possible.
There is also the opposite operation: with the & ampersand unary prefix operator, you can "unroll" a Proc object into a block in an argument list; this makes it so that the method behaves as if you had passed the code that is stored inside the Proc as a literal block argument to the method.
And there you have it! That's what blocks are for: a semantically and syntactically lightweight form of passing code to a method.
There are other possible approaches, of course. The approach that is closest to Ruby is probably Smalltalk. Smalltalk also has a concept called blocks (in fact, that is where Ruby got both the idea and the name from). Similarly to Ruby, Smalltalk blocks have a syntactically light-weight literal form, but they are objects, and you can pass more than one to a method. Thanks to Smalltalk's generally light-weight and simple syntax, especially the keyword method syntax which intersperses parts of the method name with the arguments, even passing multiple blocks to a method call is very concise and readable.
For example, Smalltalk actually does not have an if / then / else conditional expression, in fact, Smalltalk has no control structures at all. Everything is done with methods. So, the way that a conditional works, is that the two boolean classes TrueClass and FalseClass each have a method named ifTrue:ifFalse: which takes two block arguments, and the two implementations will simply either evaluate the first or the second block. For example, the implementation in TrueClass might look a little bit like this (note that Smalltalk has no syntax for classes or methods, instead classes and methods are created in the IDE by creating class objects and method objects via the GUI):
True>>ifTrue: trueBlock ifFalse: falseBlock
"Answer with the value of `trueBlock`."
↑trueBlock value
The corresponding implementation in FalseClass would then look like this:
FalseClass>>ifTrue: trueBlock ifFalse: falseBlock
"Answer with the value of `falseBlock`."
↑falseBlock value
And you would call it like this:
2 < 3 ifTrue: [ Transcript show: 'yes' ] ifFalse: [ Transcript show: 'no' ].
"yes"
4 < 3 ifTrue: [ Transcript show: 'yes' ] ifFalse: [ Transcript show: 'no' ].
"no"
In ECMAScript, you can simply use function definitions as expressions, and there is also lightweight syntax for functions.
In the various Lisps, code is just data, and data is code, so you can just pass the code as an argument as data, then inside the function, treat that data as code again.
Scala has call-by-name parameters which are only evaluated when you use their name, and they are evaluated every time you use their name. It would look something like this:
implicit class IntegerTimes(val i: Int) extends AnyVal {
#scala.annotation.tailrec
def times(actionToBeExecuted: => Unit): Unit = {
if (i < 0) throw new Error()
if (i == 0) () else { actionToBeExecuted; (i - 1).times(actionToBeExecuted) }
}
}
3.times { println("Hello") }
// Hello
// Hello
// Hello
Example: LinkedList printing method.
For this object, you will find a printing method using block, proc, and lambda.
It is not clear to me what the advantages/disadvantages are (if any).
Thank you
What is a LinkedList?
A LinkedList is a node that has a specific value attached to it (which is sometimes called a payload), and a link to another node (or nil if there is no next item).
class LinkedListNode
attr_accessor :value, :next_node
def initialize(value, next_node = nil)
#value = value
#next_node = next_node
end
def method_print_values(list_node)
if list_node
print "#{list_node.value} --> "
method_print_values(list_node.next_node)
else
print "nil\n"
return
end
end
end
node1 = LinkedListNode.new(37)
node2 = LinkedListNode.new(99, node1)
node3 = LinkedListNode.new(12, node2)
#printing the linked list through a method defined within the scope of the class
node3.method_print_values(node3)
#---------------------------- Defining the printing method through a BLOCK
def block_print_value(list_node, &block)
if list_node
yield list_node
block_print_value(list_node.next_node, &block)
else
print "nil\n"
return
end
end
block_print_value(node3) { |list_node| print "#{list_node.value} --> " }
#---------------------------- Defining the printing method through a PROC
def proc_print_value(list_node, callback)
if list_node
callback.call(list_node) #this line invokes the print function defined below
proc_print_value(list_node.next_node, callback)
else
print "nil\n"
end
end
proc_print_value(node3, Proc.new {|list_node| print "#{list_node.value} --> "})
#---------------------------- Defining the printing method through a LAMBDA
def lambda_print_value(list_node, callback)
if list_node
callback.call(list_node) #this line invokes the print function defined below
lambda_print_value(list_node.next_node, callback)
else
print "nil\n"
end
end
lambda_print_value(node3, lambda {|list_node| print "#{list_node.value} --> "})
#---------------------------- Defining the printing method outside the class
def print_values(list_node)
if list_node
print "#{list_node.value} --> "
print_values(list_node.next_node)
else
print "nil\n"
return
end
end
print_values(node3)
Examples display how to use different things to do the same. So, there is no principal difference between them in this context:
my_proc = Proc.new { |list_node| print "#{list_node.value} --> " }
node3.block_print_values(node3, &my_proc)
node3.proc_print_value(node3, my_proc)
node3.lambda_print_value(node3, my_proc)
Also, there is possible to define a method by using any of them:
define_method(:my_method, p, &proc { puts p })
my_method 'hello' #=> hello
define_method(:my_method, p, &-> { puts p })
my_method 'hello' #=> hello
But Proc, Lambda, block are not the same. Firstly, need a bit more display how to works magic &. The great article can help with that:
&object is evaluated in the following way:
if object is a block, it converts the block into a simple proc.
if object is a Proc, it converts the object into a block while preserving the lambda? status of the object.
if object is not a Proc, it first calls #to_proc on the object and then converts it into a block.
But this does not show the differences between them. So, now let go to the ruby source:
Proc objects are blocks of code that have been bound to a set of local variables. Once bound, the code may be called in different contexts and still access those variables.
And
+lambda+, +proc+ and Proc.new preserve the tricks of a Proc object given by & argument.
lambda(&lambda {}).lambda? #=> true
proc(&lambda {}).lambda? #=> true
Proc.new(&lambda {}).lambda? #=> true
lambda(&proc {}).lambda? #=> false
proc(&proc {}).lambda? #=> false
Proc.new(&proc {}).lambda? #=> false
Proc created as:
VALUE block = proc_new(klass, FALSE);
rb_obj_call_init(block, argc, argv);
return block;
When lambda:
return proc_new(rb_cProc, TRUE);
Both are Proc. In this case, the difference is just in TRUE or FALSE. TRUE, FALSE - check the number of parameters passed when called.
So, lambda is like more strict Proc:
is_proc = !proc->is_lambda;
Summary of Lambda vs Proc:
Lambdas check the number of arguments, while procs do not.
Return within the proc would exit the method from where it is called.
Return within a lambda would exit it from the lambda and the method would continue executing.
Lambdas are closer to a method.
Blocks: They are called closures in other languages, it is a way of grouping code/statements. In ruby single line blocks are written in {} and multi-line blocks are represented using do..end.
Block is not an object and can not be saved in a variable. Lambda and Proc are both an object.
So, let do small code test based on this answer:
# ruby 2.5.1
user system total real
0.016815 0.000000 0.016815 ( 0.016823)
0.023170 0.000001 0.023171 ( 0.023186)
0.117713 0.000000 0.117713 ( 0.117775)
0.217361 0.000000 0.217361 ( 0.217388)
This shows that using block.call is almost 2x slower than using yield.
Thanks, #engineersmnky, for good references in comments.
Proc is an object wrapper over block. Lambda basically is a proc with different behavior.
AFAIK pure blocks are more rational to use compared to procs.
def f
yield 123
end
Should be faster than
def g(&block)
block.call(123)
end
But proc can be passed on further.
I guess you should find some articles with performance comparison on the toppic
IMO, your block_print_value method is poorly designed/named, which makes it impossible to answer your question directly. From the name of the method, we would expect that the method "prints" something, but the only printing is the border condition, which does a
print "nil\n"
So, while I would strongly vote against using this way to print the tree, it doesn't mean that the whole idea of using a block for the printing problem is bad.
Since your problem looks like a programming assignment, I don't post a whole solution, but give a hint:
Replace your block_print_value by a, say block_visit_value, which does the same like your current method, but doesn't do any printing. Instead, the "else" part could also invoke the block to let it do the printing.
I'm sure that you will see afterwards the advantage of this method. If not, come back here for a discussion.
At a high level, procs are methods that can be stored inside variables like so:
full_name = Proc.new { |first,last| first + " " + last }
I can call this in two ways, using the bracket syntax followed by the arguments I want to pass to it or use the call method to run the proc and pass in arguments inside of parentheses like so:
p full_name.call("Daniel","Cortes")
What I did with the first line above is create a new instance of Proc and assigned it to a variable called full_name. Procs can take a code block as a parameter so I passed it two different arguments, arguments go inside the pipes.
I can also make it print my name five times:
full_name = Proc.new { |first| first * 5 }
The block I was referring to is called a closure in other programming languages. Blocks allow you to group statements together and encapsulate behavior. You can create blocks with curly braces or do...end syntax.
Why use Procs?
The answer is Procs give you more flexibility than methods. With Procs you can store an entire set of processes inside a variable and then call the variable anywhere else in your program.
Similar to Procs, Lambdas allow you to store functions inside a variable and call the method from other parts of the program. So really the same code I had above can be used like so:
full_name = lambda { |first,last| first + " " + last }
p full_name["daniel","cortes"]
So what is the difference between the two?
There are two key differences in addition to syntax. Please note that the differences are subtle, even to the point that you may never even notice them while programming.
The first key difference is that Lambdas count the arguments you pass to them whereas Procs do not. For example:
full_name = lambda { |first,last| first + " " + last }
p full_name.call("Daniel","Cortes")
The code above works, however, if I pass it another argument:
p full_name.call("Daniel","Abram","Cortes")
The application throws an error saying that I am passing in the wrong number of arguments.
However, with Procs it will not throw an error. It simply looks at the first two arguments and ignores anything after that.
Secondly, Lambdas and Procs have different behavior when it comes to returning values from methods, for example:
def my_method
x = lambda { return }
x.call
p "Text within method"
end
If I run this method, it prints out Text within method. However, if we try the same exact implementation with a Proc:
def my_method
x = Proc.new { return }
x.call
p "Text within method"
end
This will return a nil value.
Why did this occur?
When the Proc saw the word return it exited out of the entire method and returned a nil value. However, in the case of the Lambda, it processed the remaining part of the method.
I always thought that rubyists choose to make returns in ruby implicit because of a style preference (less words = more concise). However, can someone confirm with me that in the following example you actually have to make the returns implicit or else the intended functionality won't work? (The intended functionality is to be able to split a sentence into words and return either "Begins with a vowel" or "Begins with a consonant" for each word)
# With Implicit Returns
def begins_with_vowel_or_consonant(words)
words_array = words.split(" ").map do |word|
if "aeiou".include?(word[0,1])
"Begins with a vowel" # => This is an implicit return
else
"Begins with a consonant" # => This is another implicit return
end
end
end
# With Explicit Returns
def begins_with_vowel_or_consonant(words)
words_array = words.split(" ").map do |word|
if "aeiou".include?(word[0,1])
return "Begins with a vowel" # => This is an explicit return
else
return "Begins with a consonant" # => This is another explicit return
end
end
end
Now, I know there are definitely many ways to make this code more efficient and better, but the reason I've laid it out like this is to illustrate the need for the implicit returns. Can someone confirm with me that implicit returns are indeed needed and not just a stylistic choice?
EDIT:
Here's an example to illustrate what I'm trying to show:
# Implicit Return
begins_with_vowel_or_consonant("hello world") # => ["Begins with a consonant", "Begins with a consonant"]
# Explicit Return
begins_with_vowel_or_consonant("hello world") # => "Begins with a consonant"
The implicit return value of a method is the last expression evaluated in the method.
In your case, neither of the two lines you annotated are the last expression. The last expression that gets evaluated is the assignment to words_array (which BTW is completely useless since because it is the last expression there is no way to use that variable afterwards).
Now, what is the value of an assignment expression? It is the value being assigned, in this particular case, the return value of the map method, which is an Array. So, that is what the method returns.
In the second example, at the very first iteration of the map, you will hit one of the two returns and thus immediately return from the method. In the first example, however, you will always iterate through the entire words array.
The problem is not that implicit and explicit returns are different, the problem is that the two lines you claim are implicit returns aren't.
This reason this is happening is because the return statement is inside of a block. If the return statement was inside of just a function, execution flow would be as you expect. Blocks and returns in ruby (and break statements for that matter) are a weird beast. Let's take a simplier example to capture what you're asking:
def no_return()
(1..10).each do |i|
puts i
end
puts 'end'
end
def yes_return()
(1..10).each do |i|
puts i
return
end
puts 'end'
end
If you run both of these, you'll see that the first will print out the numbers 1-10 and the word 'end' as you would expect, but the second function only prints out 1. This is because ruby internally implements returns (and break statements) as exceptions. When these exceptions are thrown, a lookup table called a "catch table" is used to try and find where the flow of execution should continue. If none is found, ruby internally will search down through the stacks of rb_control_frame structures looking for the pointer that points to the code that we are executing. So in your case, the exception is thrown and the closest pointer (in terms of stack frames) is at the end of the method, essentially causing a termination of the entire method. That's why you won't even see the 'end' being printed.
no_return instructions:
0000 trace 1 ( 3)
0002 putnil
0003 getdynamic i, 0
0006 send :puts, 1, nil, 8, <ic:0>
0012 leave
yes_return instructions:
0000 trace 1 ( 3)
0002 putnil
0003 getdynamic i, 0
0006 send :puts, 1, nil, 8, <ic:0>
0012 pop
0013 trace 1 ( 4)
0015 putnil
0016 throw 1
0018 leave
The important bit is in the yes_return instructions, there's that 'throw 1' that is actually the return statement implemented as a thrown (and caught) exception. Breaks work in the same way except they 'throw 2'.
To see the actual instructions with all of the frames and catch table yourself, check out this app I put together not too long ago:
http://rubybytes.herokuapp.com/
For more information, check out Pat Shaughnessy's blog, in particular this entry for more information:
http://patshaughnessy.net/2012/6/29/how-ruby-executes-your-code
And another shameless plug, if you're into java, check out my java version of rubybytes at
javabytes.herokuapp.com to see disassembled java bytecode (sorry for it being linkless, you'll have to copy and paste the url into your browser).
return will return from the method that yielded to the block, so you either need to be implicit or use next
Trying to create objects and call methods dynamically by
Object.const_get(class_name).new.send(method_name,parameters_array)
which is working fine when
Object.const_get(RandomClass).new.send(i_take_arguments,[10.0])
but throwing wrong number of arguments 1 for 2 for
Object.const_get(RandomClass).new.send(i_take_multiple_arguments,[25.0,26.0])
The Random Class defined is
class RandomClass
def i_am_method_one
puts "I am method 1"
end
def i_take_arguments(a)
puts "the argument passed is #{a}"
end
def i_take_multiple_arguments(b,c)
puts "the arguments passed are #{b} and #{c}"
end
end
Can someone help me on how to send mutiple parameters to a ruby method dynamically
send("i_take_multiple_arguments", *[25.0,26.0]) #Where star is the "splat" operator
or
send(:i_take_multiple_arguments, 25.0, 26.0)
You can alternately call send with it's synonym __send__:
r = RandomClass.new
r.__send__(:i_take_multiple_arguments, 'a_param', 'b_param')
By the way* you can pass hashes as params comma separated like so:
imaginary_object.__send__(:find, :city => "city100")
or new hash syntax:
imaginary_object.__send__(:find, city: "city100", loc: [-76, 39])
According to Black, __send__ is safer to namespace.
“Sending is a broad concept: email is sent, data gets sent to I/O sockets, and so forth. It’s not uncommon for programs to define a method called send that conflicts with Ruby’s built-in send method. Therefore, Ruby gives you an alternative way to call send: __send__. By convention, no one ever writes a method with that name, so the built-in Ruby version is always available and never comes into conflict with newly written methods. It looks strange, but it’s safer than the plain send version from the point of view of method-name clashes”
Black also suggests wrapping calls to __send__ in if respond_to?(method_name).
if r.respond_to?(method_name)
puts r.__send__(method_name)
else
puts "#{r.to_s} doesn't respond to #{method_name}"
end
Ref: Black, David A. The well-grounded Rubyist. Manning, 2009. P.171.
*I came here looking for hash syntax for __send__, so may be useful for other googlers. ;)
In my journey of a thousand lines of Ruby, I'm having a really hard time with the concept of anonymous functions. Wikipedia says something about there being some nameless soul in the code and it submitting to a higher order, but my understanding ends there.
Or in other words, how would I (when I understand it) explain anonymous functions to my mom?
An anonymous function has these characteristics:
It has no name (hence anonymous)
Is defined inline
Used when you don't want the overhead/formality of a normal function
Is not explicitly referenced more than once, unless passed as an argument to another function
Here's one example of an anonymous function in Ruby (called a block in this case):
my_array.each{ |item| puts item }
Where's the anonymous function in the above? Why, it's the one that receives a single parameter, names it 'item', and then prints it. In JavaScript, the above might be written as...
Array.prototype.each = function(anon){
for (var i=0,len=this.length;i<len;++i) anon(this[i]);
};
myArray.each(function(item){ console.log(item); });
...which both makes it a little bit more clear that a function is being passed as an argument, and also helps one appreciate Ruby's syntax. :)
Here's another anonymous function (back in Ruby):
def count_to(n)
puts "I'm going to count to #{n}"
count = lambda do |i|
if (i>0)
count[i-1]
puts i
end
end
count[n]
puts "I'm done counting!"
end
count_to(3)
#=> I'm going to count to 3
#=> 1
#=> 2
#=> 3
#=> I'm done counting!
Although the example is obviously contrived, it shows how you can create a new function (in this case named count) and assign it to a variable, and use that for recursive calls inside a master method. (Some feel that this is better than creating a second method just for the recursion, or re-using the master method for recursion with very different parameters.)
The function doesn't have a name, the variable does. You could assign it to any number of variables, all with different names.
Returning to the first example, there's even a syntax in Ruby for passing a lambda as the single, blessed block:
print_it = lambda{ |item| puts item }
%w[a b c].each(&print_it)
#=> a
#=> b
#=> c
...but you can also pass a lambda as a normal parameter and call it later, as illustrated here:
module Enumerable
def do_both_to_each( f1, f2 )
each do |item|
f1[item]
f2[item]
end
end
end
print_prefix = lambda{ |i| print "#{i}*#{i} -> " }
print_squared = lambda{ |i| puts i*i }
(1..4).do_both_to_each(print_prefix,print_squared)
#=> 1*1 -> 1
#=> 2*2 -> 4
#=> 3*3 -> 9
#=> 4*4 -> 16
In addiction to previous answers, the anonymous functions are very usefull when you working with closures:
def make_adder n
lambda { |x|
x + n
}
end
t = make_adder 100
puts t.call 1
Or (in Ruby 1.9):
def make_adder_1_9 n
->(x) {
x + n
}
end
t_1_9 = make_adder_1_9 100
puts t_1_9.call 1
Just as Wikipedia says: a function with no name.
It means that you cannot invoke the function in the typical way, by using its name and parameters. Rather the function itself is usually a parameter to another function. A function that operates on functions is called a "higher order function".
Consider this JavaScript(I know you tagged this ruby but...):
window.onload=function(){
//some code here
}
The function will execute when the page loads, but you cannot invoke it by name, because it does not have a name.
What is the point of an anonymous method?
Explanation by Analogy:
When I order my favourite burger (a greasy Big Nac), I don't want to spend 5 minutes filling out a formal order application: name, address, phone number etc. I ain't got time for that. I want to use my mouth: "give me a burger", nice and quick and easy.
Anonymous methods are kinda like the same thing, except when coding:
It's kinda like throwaway method allowing you to code faster
It's the same when coding. If you have to define a function, you have to put it somewhere (else), you have to call it something, and that's a pain, especially if you know you'll never, ever need it again. And when you read the code, you might have to use a complicated IDE to find that method again, and a reference to it. What a pain! You need a throwaway method that you can write directly in your code, where you need it, and just get it done, and move one. Anonymous methods solve this particular problem.
Anonymous functions have the following characteristics:
No name
Inline declaration
Executed directly when declared