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
Related
So the goal here is to print the index of the element if the element is in the array or print -1 if the element is not in the array. I have to do this using loops. PLEASE HELP!
def element_index(element, my_array)
while my_array.map.include? element do
puts my_array.index(element)
break
end
until my_array.include? element do
puts -1
break
end
end
p element_index("c", ["a","b","c"])
If it's OK to use Array#index, then
def element_index(elem, collection)
collection.index(elem) || -1
end
Or if it's a homework that you should not use Array#index, or you want to do this on arbitrary collections, then
def element_index(elem, collection)
collection.each_with_index.reduce(-1) do |default, (curr, index)|
curr == elem ? (return index) : default
end
end
By the way, I always turn to Enumerable#reduce when I want to iterate over a collection (array, map, set, ...) to compute one value.
This is an easy way but maybe it doesn't meet the criteria for "using loops":
def element_index(x, arr)
arr.index(x) || -1
end
element_index("c", ["a","b","c"]) #=> 2
element_index("d", ["a","b","c"]) #=> -1
To explicitly use a loop:
def element_index(x, arr)
arr.each_index.find { |i| arr[i] == x } || -1
end
As pointed out in the comments, we could instead write
arr.each_index.find(->{-1}) { |i| arr[i] == x }
element_index("c", ["a","b","c"]) #=> 2
element_index("d", ["a","b","c"]) #=> -1
I know this is an assignment, but I'll first cover this as if it were real code because it's teaching you some not-so-great Ruby.
Ruby has a method for doing this, Array#index. It returns the index of the first matching element (there can be more than one), or nil.
p ["a","b","c"].index("c") # 2
p ["a","b","c"].index("d") # nil
Returning -1 is inadvisable. nil is a safer "this thing does not exist" value because its never a valid value, always false (-1 and 0 are true in Ruby), and does not compare equal to anything but itself. Returning -1 indicates whomever came up with this exercise is converting it from another language like C.
If you must, a simple wrapper will do.
def element_index(element, array)
idx = array.index(element)
if idx == nil
return -1
else
return idx
end
end
I have to do this using loops.
Ok, it's homework. Let's rewrite Array#index.
The basic idea is to loop through each element until you find one which matches. Iterating through each element of an array is done with Array#each, but you need each index, that's done with Array#each_index. The element can be then gotten with array[idx].
def index(array, want)
# Run the block for each index of the array.
# idx will be assigned the index: 0, 1, 2, ...
array.each_index { |idx|
# If it's the element we want, return the index immediately.
# No need to spend more time searching.
if array[idx] == want
return idx
end
}
# Otherwise return -1.
# nil is better, but the assignment wants -1.
return -1
end
# It's better to put the thing you're working on first,
# and the thing you're looking for second.
# Its like verb( subject, object ) or subject.verb(object) if this were a method.
p index(["a","b","c"], "c")
p index(["a","b","c"], "d")
Get used to using list.each { |thing| ... }, that's how you loop in Ruby, along with many other similar methods. There's little call for while and for loops in Ruby. Instead, you ask the object to loop and tell it what to do with each thing. It's very powerful.
I have to do this using loops.
You approach is very creative. You have re-created an if statement using a while loop:
while expression do
# ...
break
end
Is equivalent to:
if expression
# ...
end
With expression being something like array.include? element.
How can I do the opposite?
To invert a (boolean) expression, you just prepend !:
if !expression
# ...
end
Applied to your while-hack:
while !expression do
# ...
break
end
The whole method would look like this:
def element_index(element, my_array)
while my_array.include? element do
puts my_array.index(element)
break
end
while !my_array.include? element do
puts -1
break
end
end
element_index("c", ["a","b","c"])
# prints 2
element_index("d", ["a","b","c"])
# prints -1
As I said at the beginning, this approach is very "creative". You are probably supposed to find the index using a loop (see Schwern's answer) instead of calling the built-in index.
I'm new to ruby and this looks wrong but works fine
def get_internal_deps
self.internal_dependencies = self.sources.map do |f|
s = File.open(File.join(self.dir, f)).grep(/\d{8}-\w{5}/)
if s.length > 0
{:file => f, :line => s}
end
end.compact
#how crazy does that look?
end
So how do I do this without having an end.compact?
Some notes
Your method is called get_internal_deps, but it looks like it actually sets an instance variable.
You could define internal_dependencies and use caching.
In this case, you'd need to remove any attr_reader/writer/accessor for #internal_dependencies.
File.open(f) isn't really clean.
You don't need self in self.dir or self.sources
:line is an Array. Shouldn't it be called :lines?
2 separate, short methods might be better than a bigger one.
Refactored code
def internal_dependencies
#internal_dependencies ||= sources.map{|s| parse_dependency(s) }
.reject{|h| h[:line].empty? }
end
private
def parse_dependency(source)
{
file: source,
line: File.readlines(File.join(dir, source)).grep(/\d{8}-\w{5}/)
}
end
To avoid compact one might use reduce (Enumerable#each_with_object in this particular case) instead of map:
def get_internal_deps
self.internal_dependencies = sources.each_with_object do |f, acc|
s = File.open(File.join(self.dir, f)).grep(/\d{8}-\w{5}/)
acc << {:file => f, :line => s} if s.length > 0
end
end
Also, note that an explicit self receiver might make sense in a case of assignment, but it is completely redundant in RHO (sources in this snippet.)
Currently I am doing the following, but I am sure there must be a better way:
def birthday_defined?(map)
map && map[:extra] && map[:extra][:raw_info] && map[:extra][:raw_info][:birthday]
end
There may be cases where only map[:extra] is defined, and then I will end up getting Nil exception errors cause map[:extra][:raw_info] doesn't exist if I dont use my checked code above.
If you're using Rails, then you can use try (and NilClass#try):
value = map.try(:[], :extra).try(:[], :raw_info).try(:[], :birthday)
That looks a bit repetitive: it is just doing the same thing over and over again while feeding the result of one step into the next step. That code pattern means that we have a hidden injection:
value = [:extra, :raw_info, :birthday].inject(map) { |h, k| h.try(:[], k) }
This approach nicely generalizes to any path into map that you have in mind:
path = [ :some, :path, :of, :keys, :we, :care, :about ]
value = path.inject(map) { |h, k| h.try(:[], k) }
Then you can look at value.nil?.
Of course, if you're not using Rails then you'll need a replacement for try but that's not difficult.
I have two ways. Both have the same code but subtly different:
# Method 1
def birthday_defined?(map)
map[:extra][:raw_info][:birthday] rescue nil # rescues current line
end
# Method 2
def birthday_defined?(map)
map[:extra][:raw_info][:birthday]
rescue # rescues whole method
nil
end
Use a begin/rescue block.
begin
map[:extra][:raw_info][:birthday]
rescue Exception => e
'No birthday! =('
end
That's idiomatic why to do it. And yes it can be a little cumbersome.
If you want to extend Hash a bit though, you can do some cool stuff with something like a key path. See Access Ruby Hash Using Dotted Path Key String
def birthday_defined?
map.dig('extra.raw_info.birthday')
end
This is a little hacky but it will work:
def birthday_defined?(map)
map.to_s[":birthday"]
end
If map contains :birthday then it will return the string which will evaluate to true in a conditional statement while if it doesn't contain :birthday, it will return nil.
Note: This assumes the key :birthday does not appear at potentially multiple locations in map.
This should work for you:
def birthday_defined?(map)
map
.tap{|x| (x[:extra] if x)
.tap{|x| (x[:raw_info] if x)
.tap{|x| (x[:birthday] if x)
.tap{|x| return x}}}}
end
I have a ruby hash like this
h = {"a" => "1", "b" => "", "c" => "2"}
Now I have a ruby function which evaluates this hash and returns true if it finds a key with an empty value. I have the following function which always returns true even if all keys in the hash are not empty
def hash_has_blank(hsh)
hsh.each do |k,v|
if v.empty?
return true
end
end
return false
end
What am I doing wrong here?
Try this:
def hash_has_blank hsh
hsh.values.any? &:empty?
end
Or:
def hash_has_blank hsh
hsh.values.any?{|i|i.empty?}
end
If you are using an old 1.8.x Ruby
I hope you're ready to learn some ruby magic here. I wouldn't define such a function globally like you did. If it's an operation on a hash, than it should be an instance method on the Hash class you can do it like this:
class Hash
def has_blank?
self.reject{|k,v| !v.nil? || v.length > 0}.size > 0
end
end
reject will return a new hash with all the empty strings, and than it will be checked how big this new hash is.
a possibly more efficient way (it shouldn't traverse the whole array):
class Hash
def has_blank?
self.values.any?{|v| v.nil? || v.length == 0}
end
end
But this will still traverse the whole hash, if there is no empty value
I've changed the empty? to !nil? || length >0 because I don't know how your empty method works.
If you just want to check if any of the values is an empty string you could do
h.has_value?('')
but your function seems to work fine.
I'd consider refactoring your model domain. Obviously the hash represents something tangible. Why not make it an object? If the item can be completely represented by a hash, you may wish to subclass Hash. If it's more complicated, the hash can be an attribute.
Secondly, the reason for which you are checking blanks can be named to better reflect your domain. You haven't told us the "why", but let's assume that your Item is only valid if it doesn't have any blank values.
class MyItem < Hash
def valid?
!invalid?
end
def invalid?
values.any?{|i| i.empty?}
end
end
The point is, if you can establish a vocabulary that makes sense in your domain, your code will be cleaner and more understandable. Using a Hash is just a means to an end and you'd be better off using more descriptive, domain-specific terms.
Using the example above, you'd be able to do:
my_item = MyItem["a" => "1", "b" => "", "c" => "2"]
my_item.valid? #=> false
I have the following method and want to make it more readable:
def value_format(value)
if value.respond_to? :to_actor
value.to_actor
elsif value.respond_to? :to_subject
value.to_subject
elsif value.respond_to? :to_json
value.to_json
elsif value.respond_to? :to_hash
value.to_hash
else
value.inspect
end
end
This is my solution. What do you think?
def value_format(value)
methods = [:to_actor, :to_subject, :to_json, :to_hash, :inspect]
value.send(methods.find_all { |m| m if value.respond_to? m }.first)
end
Your solution looks fine, but you might as well use find instead of find_all:
METHODS = [:to_actor, :to_subject, :to_json, :to_hash, :inspect]
def value_format(value)
value.send(METHODS.find { |m| value.respond_to? m })
end
Using a constant has the advantage of not creating a new array every time value_format is ran.
Seems there's a pretty simple optimization to your solution:
def value_format(value)
methods = [:to_actor, :to_subject, :to_json, :to_hash]
value.send(methods.find(:inspect) { |m| value.respond_to? m })
end
The facets gem provides an elegant solution (I think) to this problem. It combines the two steps of checking if an object responds to a method and actually calling that method into a single step.
So your example could be rewritten as this:
require 'facets/kernel/respond'
def value_format(v)
v.respond.to_actor || v.respond.to_subject || v.respond.to_json || v.respond.to_hash || v.respond.inspect
end
Note that this method only works if it is safe to assume that none of these methods are going to return nil or false (because respond returns nil if the object doesn't respond, that is what allows us to chain it together with a bunch of ors).
Since all of the methods you listed should return strings, I believe this approach would work fine in your example.
Documentation:
# Like #respond_to? but returns the result of the call
# if it does indeed respond.
#
# class RespondExample
# def f; "f"; end
# end
#
# x = RespondExample.new
# x.respond(:f) #=> "f"
# x.respond(:g) #=> nil
#
# or
#
# x.respond.f #=> "f"
# x.respond.g #=> nil