Related
I have the following ruby method: a single do iteration without any break, next, or return. Here, cats is an array of cat objects; is_cat_red evaluates to true if cat has a color property of red.
def get_non_red_cats cats
cats.each do |cat|
!is_cat_red?(cat)
end
end
What does the method return (what does the loop evaluate to)?
This is some unusual code and it depends entirely on what the cats method does. You can pass a block to any Ruby method and that method can get executed zero more more times at any point between immediately and the end of the program's execution.
The return value is whatever cats returns, which is not clear from this snippet.
Imagine this in JavaScript terms as that language is a lot less ambiguous:
function get_non_red_cats(cats) {
return cats(function(cat) {
return !is_cat_red?(cat);
}
}
Where this shows that cats is just a function that, potentially, takes a function. It might ignore your function, too.
Now if this is cats.each that changes things as that's probably the Enumerable each method which has well-defined behaviour.
In that case the return value is whatever cats is.
There is no loop in your code. Ruby has two kinds of loops: while and for/in. (Actually, the latter is just syntactic sugar for each.)
In Ruby, an expression evaluates to the value of the last sub-expression evaluated inside the expression. A message send evaluates to the return value of the method that was executed as a result of the message send. The return value of a method is either explicitly the value of the return expression that ended the method execution or implicitly the value of the last expression evaluated inside the method body. (Note that the last expression evaluated inside the body is also what a module or class definition expression evaluates to. A method definition expression however evaluates to a Symbol denoting the name of the method.)
So, what does get_non_red_cats return? Well, there is no return in it, so it returns the value of the last expression evaluated inside the method body. The last expression evaluated inside the method body is a message send of the message each to the object referenced by the parameter binding cats. Ergo, the return value of get_non_red_cats is the return value of the method that gets executed as a result of sending the each message to cats.
And that is all we positively know.
We can make some assumptions, though. In general, each should return self. That's what all implementations of each in the entire core library and standard library do, and it is part of the standard "Iterable" Protocol in Ruby. It would be highly unusual and highly confusing if that were not the case. So, we can assume that whatever implementation of each ends up being executed, it will return self, i.e. the receiver of the message send, i.e. the object referenced by the parameter binding cats.
In other words: the method get_non_red_cats simply returns whatever was passed in as an argument. It is a pretty boring method. In fact, it is the identity method, which is pretty much the most boring method possible.
However, it could have a side-effect. You didn't ask about side-effects, only the return value, but let's look at it anyway.
Since each is supposed to simply return its receiver, it is in some sense also an identity method and thus extremely boring. However, each is generally supposed to evaluate the block it is passed, passing each element of the collection in turn as an argument. But, it ignores the value that the block evaluates to; the block is evaluated purely for its side-effect. Note that each with a block that has no side-effect makes no sense whatsoever. If the block has no side-effect, then the only thing interesting about the block is its value, but each ignores the block's value, and simply returns self.
foo.each do
# something that has no side-effect
end
is fully equivalent to
foo
Another Ruby convention is that message sends that end in a question mark ? should be used for asking questions (duh!) I.e. a message send that ends in a question mark should return something that is suitable to used as a conditional. It also generally shouldn't have a side-effect. (This is called the Command-Query Separation Principle and is a fundamental design principle of Object-Oriented Software Construction.)
And lastly, the ! unary prefix operator, when applied to something that is intended to be used in a conditional (i.e. a boolean value or something equivalent) is generally not supposed to have side-effect. Ergo, since the message send in the block ends with a question mark, it is not supposed to have a side-effect, and the ! operator is also not supposed to have a side-effect, we can assume that the entire block has no side-effect.
This, in turn, means that each shouldn't have a side-effect, and thus get_non_red_cats doesn't have a side-effect. As a result, the only other thing get_non_red_cats can do, is return a value, and it very likely simply returns the value that was passed in.
Ergo, the entire method is equivalent to
def get_non_red_cats(cats)
cats
end
All of this is assuming that the author followed standard Ruby conventions. If she didn't, then this method could do and return anything whatsoever, it could format your harddrive, launch a nuclear attack, return 42, or do absolutely nothing at all.
Ruby Koans has the following exercise in about_blocks.rb:
def method_with_block_arguments
yield("Jim")
end
def test_blocks_can_take_arguments
method_with_block_arguments do |argument|
assert_equal __, argument
end
end
I know the answer is assert_equal "Jim", argument, but I'm struggling to understand what is happening. Specifically:
Is argument or assert_equal... the block?
What is yield doing given that method_with_block_arguments returns "Jim" without yield?
I think some of the above commenters are correct in saying that you currently don't have a very deep understanding of Ruby, but don't let that discourage you. It just takes time to learn. When I was first learning Ruby, the concept of blocks and their syntax did take some time to wrap my head around. Once you get it the syntax is very simple, but you until you reach that point...
Anywho, this is my attempt to help you out. :)
argument is a block variable. All the stuff between do and end is the block. assert_equal is just a regular method call, nothing to do with blocks.
What yield does is the key to understanding how blocks work. What yield does it that it "yields" control to the calling function. You may think of it as a callback. When you say "yield" in the middle of a function, you are essentially saying "in the middle of this function, I want to allow someone else to plug in their code and make decisions about what should happen." If you use yield with no arguments, no data from your method gets passed back to the caller.
In essence, yield is a way of "yielding" control to somebody else, in this case the caller of your function.
When you call yield with one or more arguments, you are passing data from the your function back up to the caller. So when you say yield("Jim") you are handing the String "Jim" back to whoever calls method_with_block_arguments.
Lastly, you have to understand that in Ruby, methods always return the result of whatever was the last expression in a particular method. That's why you usually don't need an explicit return statement.
For instance, this method will return 42.
def foo
42
end
That's because 42 is a valid expression in Ruby. It's just an identity, but it's valid Ruby, so Ruby just says "okay, you said 42 and that's the last thing in this method declaration. So when people call 'foo' they get 42 back".
I hope this helps. I think at this point you should assume that you're still pretty early on in terms of your Ruby learning, but you're on the right track investigating blocks. Once you get them you'll understand one of the most powerful parts of Ruby.
Is argument or assert_equal... the block?
No, neither argument nor assert_equal is a block, argument is the variable and anything between do and end is the block. assert_equal is a normal method call.
What is yield doing given that method_with_block_arguments returns "Jim" without yield?
Yield is what makes it special. It calls the block (ie. everything between do and end) and executes it. "Jim" is the argument to the block.
Here is a gist that I copied from Paul while I was learning ruby. That should help in learning about closures in ruby.
I've often read that Ruby is a pure object oriented language since commands are typically given as messages passed to the object.
For example:
In Ruby one writes: "A".ord to get the ascii code for A and 0x41.chr to emit the character given its ascii code.
This is in contrast to Python's: ord("A") and chr(0x41)
So far so good --- Ruby's syntax is message passing.
But the apparent inconsistency appears when considering the string output command:
Now one has: puts str or puts(str) instead of str.puts
Given the pure object orientation expectation for Ruby's syntax, I would have expected the output command to be a message passed to the string object, i.e. calling a method from the string class, hence str.puts
Any explanations? Am I missing something?
Thanks
I would have expected the output command to be a message passed to the string object, i.e. calling a method from the string class, hence str.puts
This is incorrect expectation, let's start with that. Why would you tell a string to puts itself? What would it print itself to? It knows nothing (and should know nothing) of files, I/O streams, sockets and other places you can print things to.
When you say puts str, it's actually seen as self.puts str (implicit receiver). That is, the message is sent to the current object.
Now, all objects include Kernel module. Therefore, all objects have Kernel#puts in their lists of methods. Any object can puts (including current object, self).
As the doc says,
puts str
is translated to
$stdout.puts str
That is, by default, the implementation is delegated to standard output (print to console). If you want to print to a file or a socket, you have to invoke puts on an instance of file or socket classes. This is totally OO.
Ruby isn't entirely OO (for example, methods are not objects), but in this case, it is. puts is Kernel#puts, which is shorthand for $stdout.puts. That is, you're calling the puts method of the $stdout stream and passing a string as the parameter to be output to the stream. So, when you call
puts "foo"
You're really calling:
$stdout.puts("foo")
Which is entirely consistent with OO.
puts is a method on an output streams e.g.
$stdout.puts("this", "is", "a", "test")
Printing something to somewhere at least involves two things: what is written and where it is written to. Depending on what you focus on, there can be different implementations, even in OOP. Besides that, Ruby has a way to make a method look more like a function (i.e., not being particularly tied to a receiver as in OOP) for methods that are used all over the place. So there are at least three logical options that could be thought of for such methods like printing.
An OOP method defined on the object to be printed
An OOP method defined on the object where it should be printed
A function-style method
For the second option, IO#write is one example; The receiver is the destination of writing.
The puts without an explicit receiver is actually Kernel#puts, and takes neither of the two as the arguments; it is an example of the third option; you are correct to point out that this is not so OOP, but Matz especially provided the Kernel module to be able to do things like this: a function-style method.
The first option is what you are expecting; it is nothing wrong. It happens that there is no well known method of this type, but it was proposed in the Ruby core by one of the developers, but unfortunately, it did not make it. Actually, I felt the same thing as you, and have something similar in my personal library called Object#intercept. A simplified version is this:
class Object
def intercept
tap{|x| p x}
end
end
:foo.intercept # => :foo
You can replace p with puts if you want.
What does block in Ruby mean? It looks similar with Smalltalk, but you can't send messages to it.
For example, in smalltalk:
[:x | x + 3] value: 3
returns 6. But in ruby:
{|x| x + 3}.call 3
will cause SyntaxError.
Well, you can pass messages to lambda in ruby, though:
irb(main):025:0> ->(x){x+3}.call 3
=> 6
So in Ruby, block is not a block, but lambda is a block? Is this true? I mean, are there any differences between ruby lambda and smalltalk block? If this is true, then what is a ruby block?
Update:
From the comment and answer below, together with some googling, I guess I
have more understanding of Ruby block. In Ruby, usually a piece of code evaluates an value, and every value is an object. But, block doesn't evaluate an value. So it's not an object. Instead it can act as part of an object. For example, in {|x| x + 3} can act as a part of the object proc {|x| x + 3 }.
But it did confuse me. In smalltalk, almost every expression can be divided into objects (binding to variables are exceptions). It seems in Ruby, there are more exceptions.
First and the most important thing that Ruby block isn't: an object. It is a syntactic construct, and also obviously has an equivalent implementation - but it is not an object, and thus can't receive messages. Which makes your example of
{|x| x + 3}.call 3
ungrammatical. Lambdas, procs - those are objects that wrap a block, and have a call method which executes the block.
Thus, a block is simply a piece of code which can be passed to a method, outside the argument list - no more, no less. If you pass it to Proc.new constructor, for example, it will wrap it and give you an object you can handle:
Proc.new {|x| x + 3}.call 3
A precision:
I would even say that in smalltalk even binding is made up with object.
Think of the MethodContext.
What you are actually doing is to store the object in the MethodContext.
So
a := Object new
Can be rewrite in:
thisContext at: 1 put: Object new.
But obviously you wont write it this way since you need to know were are the temps variable.
A block in Smalltalk is an anonymous object. Syntactically, it is delimited by a [ ... ] pair.
When evaluated, it will return the last expression evaluated within itself, and there are lots of methods in its protocol.
Here are the Class comments for Blocks from a Smalltalk (in this instance, Dolphin Smalltalk 6.03 Community Edition)
"Blocks encapsulate a sequence of statements to be performed at a later time. Blocks may capture (or "close over") runtime state, such as the values of temporary variables, from the enclosing lexical scope at the point where they are created. When evaluated a block executes as if in the lexical scope in which it was defined, except that blocks may have arguments that are bound at the time of evaluation. Blocks may be passed as arguments with messages to other objects and evaluated by those objects when appropriate, and thus form a very powerful and generic "pluggability" mechanism that is a core feature which provides much of the power of Smalltalk".
By contrast, a block in Ruby is simply a parameter string. It's syntactically delimited by a { ... } pair, but it has no methods of its own.
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