Related
I'm trying to write a ruby program that contains a method that will convert a single letter amino acid code into it's corresponding amino acid name after reading from ARGF.
Here's the code that I have so far:
#!/usr/bin/ruby
def convert
aminos = Hash.new
aminos = {"A" => "alanine", "B" => "aspartate/asparagine", "C" => "cystine"}
output = aminos.values_at()
puts "#{output}"
end
ARGF.each_char do convert
end
If I run this program, it does the following:
$ ruby amino_acid.rb ABC
[]
[]
[]
When what I want it to do is this:
$ ruby amino_acid.rb ABC
alanine
aspartate/asparagine
cystine
I am not sure what to put in the parentheses after
aminos.values_at
or if I am even on the right track?
I think I have to pass a parameter to this method, maybe something like
def convert {|k,v| puts "#{v}}
Thanks in advance!
You are using ARGF when you are wanting to use ARGV based on your example code.
code review will give you other avenues for style, etc. But I think this will get you going.
#!/usr/bin/env ruby
def convert(value)
aminos = { 'A' => 'alanine', 'B' => 'aspartate/asparagine', 'C' => 'cystine' }
aminos[value.upcase]
end
ARGV.to_s.each_char do |string|
puts convert string
end
You could, of course, put that statement inside your method, but really methods should do a very focused thing. Passing it an argument, rather than it acting on ARGV directly gives it freedom to be used in different ways. A method should do one thing, generally. Keeps them easier to maintain.
Does anyone have a real-world example of a situation where Array#transpose would be useful? I'm struggling to relate the functionality to possible applications.
Consider the following example:
class Array
def mean
reduce(:+) / length
end
end
locations = [
[41.311000, -96.138319],
[41.311355, -96.130380],
[41.315319, -96.138319],
[41.316093, -96.129994],
[41.317640, -96.124372],
[41.315964, -96.121883],
[41.313128, -96.121968],
[41.313160, -96.125101],
[41.309775, -96.125316]
]
latitudes, longitudes = locations.transpose
puts latitudes.inspect
# => [41.311, 41.311355, 41.315319, 41.316093, ...
puts longitudes.inspect
# => [-96.138319, -96.13038, -96.138319, -96.129994 ...
weighted_center = [latitudes.mean, longitudes.mean]
puts weighted_center.inspect
# => [41.31371488888889, -96.12840577777779]
transpose can be thought of as the opposite of zip
It might be useful if you had a collection of names. The first element might be a first name and the second element might be a last name.
You might want to get a list of the first names or the last names
names = [["John", "Smith"],["Roger", "Jones"]]
You could get the first names by calling names.transpose.first
Given
30.02 -88.87 10.58 -99.22 107.33
to sort without the sort method. I have spent a few hours on this without any success.
def simple_sort(list) # I have to start with this method
list = list.split(' ') # I understand i need to .split to get arrays
Because they're floats I need a way to make them floats with to_f method .each(&:to_f) I saw this before but I'm not sure I understand the ":". I thought colon made objects symbols so anyone please explain (&:to_f) to me?
sorted_list = [] #thought of creating an empty array to store the new list
This is the part that gets tricky! Where do I go from here?
I want to go through each item in the array, find the smallest number and add it to the sorted_list
def sort_list(list)
list = list.split(' ').map(&:to_f)
sort = []
while sort.length < list.length
sort << list.min
list.delete(list.min)
end
sort = sort.join(' ')
return sort
end
instead of using the <=>, what would make this code work?
Open IRB and try things:
>> foo = '30.02 -88.87 10.58 -99.22 107.33'
"30.02 -88.87 10.58 -99.22 107.33"
>> foo.split
[
[0] "30.02",
[1] "-88.87",
[2] "10.58",
[3] "-99.22",
[4] "107.33"
]
So split breaks the string on whitespace, so far so good.
>> foo.split.each(&:to_f)
[
[0] "30.02",
[1] "-88.87",
[2] "10.58",
[3] "-99.22",
[4] "107.33"
]
Hmm... the values didn't change so each might not be doing what you think it does. Trying map instead:
>> foo.split.map(&:to_f)
[
[0] 30.02,
[1] -88.87,
[2] 10.58,
[3] -99.22,
[4] 107.33
]
Once the values are converted to floats then it becomes easy to sort them.
Note: You can use the <=> operator (AKA "spaceship") to tell you whether one is less-than, equal, or greater-than another, which makes it easy to know when you should swap them. For instance:
0 <=> 1 # => -1
1 <=> 1 # => 0
2 <=> 1 # => 1
You should read the documentation for the Comparable module, which makes it really easy to add additional functionally to a class by defining the <=>(other) method.
map allows us to modify/transform an array's elements, whereas each only iterates over them. You can use each to mess with the elements, but it's not generally what you want to do since map! makes it easier to transform things.
Regarding &:to_f. This was a hack on Ruby's symbols a while back, that was added to Rails. It turned out to be so useful that it was pulled into Ruby itself. It's called a "symbol to proc" and is discussed in "Ruby ampersand colon shortcut".
PHP, for all its warts, is pretty good on this count. There's no difference between an array and a hash (maybe I'm naive, but this seems obviously right to me), and to iterate through either you just do
foreach (array/hash as $key => $value)
In Ruby there are a bunch of ways to do this sort of thing:
array.length.times do |i|
end
array.each
array.each_index
for i in array
Hashes make more sense, since I just always use
hash.each do |key, value|
Why can't I do this for arrays? If I want to remember just one method, I guess I can use each_index (since it makes both the index and value available), but it's annoying to have to do array[index] instead of just value.
Oh right, I forgot about array.each_with_index. However, this one sucks because it goes |value, key| and hash.each goes |key, value|! Is this not insane?
This will iterate through all the elements:
array = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]
array.each { |x| puts x }
# Output:
1
2
3
4
5
6
This will iterate through all the elements giving you the value and the index:
array = ["A", "B", "C"]
array.each_with_index {|val, index| puts "#{val} => #{index}" }
# Output:
A => 0
B => 1
C => 2
I'm not quite sure from your question which one you are looking for.
I think there is no one right way. There are a lot of different ways to iterate, and each has its own niche.
each is sufficient for many usages, since I don't often care about the indexes.
each_ with _index acts like Hash#each - you get the value and the index.
each_index - just the indexes. I don't use this one often. Equivalent to "length.times".
map is another way to iterate, useful when you want to transform one array into another.
select is the iterator to use when you want to choose a subset.
inject is useful for generating sums or products, or collecting a single result.
It may seem like a lot to remember, but don't worry, you can get by without knowing all of them. But as you start to learn and use the different methods, your code will become cleaner and clearer, and you'll be on your way to Ruby mastery.
I'm not saying that Array -> |value,index| and Hash -> |key,value| is not insane (see Horace Loeb's comment), but I am saying that there is a sane way to expect this arrangement.
When I am dealing with arrays, I am focused on the elements in the array (not the index because the index is transitory). The method is each with index, i.e. each+index, or |each,index|, or |value,index|. This is also consistent with the index being viewed as an optional argument, e.g. |value| is equivalent to |value,index=nil| which is consistent with |value,index|.
When I am dealing with hashes, I am often more focused on the keys than the values, and I am usually dealing with keys and values in that order, either key => value or hash[key] = value.
If you want duck-typing, then either explicitly use a defined method as Brent Longborough showed, or an implicit method as maxhawkins showed.
Ruby is all about accommodating the language to suit the programmer, not about the programmer accommodating to suit the language. This is why there are so many ways. There are so many ways to think about something. In Ruby, you choose the closest and the rest of the code usually falls out extremely neatly and concisely.
As for the original question, "What is the “right” way to iterate through an array in Ruby?", well, I think the core way (i.e. without powerful syntactic sugar or object oriented power) is to do:
for index in 0 ... array.size
puts "array[#{index}] = #{array[index].inspect}"
end
But Ruby is all about powerful syntactic sugar and object oriented power, but anyway here is the equivalent for hashes, and the keys can be ordered or not:
for key in hash.keys.sort
puts "hash[#{key.inspect}] = #{hash[key].inspect}"
end
So, my answer is, "The “right” way to iterate through an array in Ruby depends on you (i.e. the programmer or the programming team) and the project.". The better Ruby programmer makes the better choice (of which syntactic power and/or which object oriented approach). The better Ruby programmer continues to look for more ways.
Now, I want to ask another question, "What is the “right” way to iterate through a Range in Ruby backwards?"! (This question is how I came to this page.)
It is nice to do (for the forwards):
(1..10).each{|i| puts "i=#{i}" }
but I don't like to do (for the backwards):
(1..10).to_a.reverse.each{|i| puts "i=#{i}" }
Well, I don't actually mind doing that too much, but when I am teaching going backwards, I want to show my students a nice symmetry (i.e. with minimal difference, e.g. only adding a reverse, or a step -1, but without modifying anything else).
You can do (for symmetry):
(a=*1..10).each{|i| puts "i=#{i}" }
and
(a=*1..10).reverse.each{|i| puts "i=#{i}" }
which I don't like much, but you can't do
(*1..10).each{|i| puts "i=#{i}" }
(*1..10).reverse.each{|i| puts "i=#{i}" }
#
(1..10).step(1){|i| puts "i=#{i}" }
(1..10).step(-1){|i| puts "i=#{i}" }
#
(1..10).each{|i| puts "i=#{i}" }
(10..1).each{|i| puts "i=#{i}" } # I don't want this though. It's dangerous
You could ultimately do
class Range
def each_reverse(&block)
self.to_a.reverse.each(&block)
end
end
but I want to teach pure Ruby rather than object oriented approaches (just yet). I would like to iterate backwards:
without creating an array (consider 0..1000000000)
working for any Range (e.g. Strings, not just Integers)
without using any extra object oriented power (i.e. no class modification)
I believe this is impossible without defining a pred method, which means modifying the Range class to use it. If you can do this please let me know, otherwise confirmation of impossibility would be appreciated though it would be disappointing. Perhaps Ruby 1.9 addresses this.
(Thanks for your time in reading this.)
Use each_with_index when you need both.
ary.each_with_index { |val, idx| # ...
The other answers are just fine, but I wanted to point out one other peripheral thing: Arrays are ordered, whereas Hashes are not in 1.8. (In Ruby 1.9, Hashes are ordered by insertion order of keys.) So it wouldn't make sense prior to 1.9 to iterate over a Hash in the same way/sequence as Arrays, which have always had a definite ordering. I don't know what the default order is for PHP associative arrays (apparently my google fu isn't strong enough to figure that out, either), but I don't know how you can consider regular PHP arrays and PHP associative arrays to be "the same" in this context, since the order for associative arrays seems undefined.
As such, the Ruby way seems more clear and intuitive to me. :)
Here are the four options listed in your question, arranged by freedom of control. You might want to use a different one depending on what you need.
Simply go through values:
array.each
Simply go through indices:
array.each_index
Go through indices + index variable:
for i in array
Control loop count + index variable:
array.length.times do | i |
Trying to do the same thing consistently with arrays and hashes might just be a code smell, but, at the risk of my being branded as a codorous half-monkey-patcher, if you're looking for consistent behaviour, would this do the trick?:
class Hash
def each_pairwise
self.each { | x, y |
yield [x, y]
}
end
end
class Array
def each_pairwise
self.each_with_index { | x, y |
yield [y, x]
}
end
end
["a","b","c"].each_pairwise { |x,y|
puts "#{x} => #{y}"
}
{"a" => "Aardvark","b" => "Bogle","c" => "Catastrophe"}.each_pairwise { |x,y|
puts "#{x} => #{y}"
}
I'd been trying to build a menu (in Camping and Markaby) using a hash.
Each item has 2 elements: a menu label and a URL, so a hash seemed right, but the '/' URL for 'Home' always appeared last (as you'd expect for a hash), so menu items appeared in the wrong order.
Using an array with each_slice does the job:
['Home', '/', 'Page two', 'two', 'Test', 'test'].each_slice(2) do|label,link|
li {a label, :href => link}
end
Adding extra values for each menu item (e.g. like a CSS ID name) just means increasing the slice value. So, like a hash but with groups consisting of any number of items. Perfect.
So this is just to say thanks for inadvertently hinting at a solution!
Obvious, but worth stating: I suggest checking if the length of the array is divisible by the slice value.
If you use the enumerable mixin (as Rails does) you can do something similar to the php snippet listed. Just use the each_slice method and flatten the hash.
require 'enumerator'
['a',1,'b',2].to_a.flatten.each_slice(2) {|x,y| puts "#{x} => #{y}" }
# is equivalent to...
{'a'=>1,'b'=>2}.to_a.flatten.each_slice(2) {|x,y| puts "#{x} => #{y}" }
Less monkey-patching required.
However, this does cause problems when you have a recursive array or a hash with array values. In ruby 1.9 this problem is solved with a parameter to the flatten method that specifies how deep to recurse.
# Ruby 1.8
[1,2,[1,2,3]].flatten
=> [1,2,1,2,3]
# Ruby 1.9
[1,2,[1,2,3]].flatten(0)
=> [1,2,[1,2,3]]
As for the question of whether this is a code smell, I'm not sure. Usually when I have to bend over backwards to iterate over something I step back and realize I'm attacking the problem wrong.
In Ruby 2.1, each_with_index method is removed.
Instead you can use each_index
Example:
a = [ "a", "b", "c" ]
a.each_index {|x| print x, " -- " }
produces:
0 -- 1 -- 2 --
The right way is the one you feel most comfortable with and which does what you want it to do. In programming there is rarely one 'correct' way to do things, more often there are multiple ways to choose.
If you are comfortable with certain way of doings things, do just it, unless it doesn't work - then it is time to find better way.
Using the same method for iterating through both arrays and hashes makes sense, for example to process nested hash-and-array structures often resulting from parsers, from reading JSON files etc..
One clever way that has not yet been mentioned is how it's done in the Ruby Facets library of standard library extensions. From here:
class Array
# Iterate over index and value. The intention of this
# method is to provide polymorphism with Hash.
#
def each_pair #:yield:
each_with_index {|e, i| yield(i,e) }
end
end
There is already Hash#each_pair, an alias of Hash#each. So after this patch, we also have Array#each_pair and can use it interchangeably to iterate through both Hashes and Arrays. This fixes the OP's observed insanity that Array#each_with_index has the block arguments reversed compared to Hash#each. Example usage:
my_array = ['Hello', 'World', '!']
my_array.each_pair { |key, value| pp "#{key}, #{value}" }
# result:
"0, Hello"
"1, World"
"2, !"
my_hash = { '0' => 'Hello', '1' => 'World', '2' => '!' }
my_hash.each_pair { |key, value| pp "#{key}, #{value}" }
# result:
"0, Hello"
"1, World"
"2, !"
Locked. This question and its answers are locked because the question is off-topic but has historical significance. It is not currently accepting new answers or interactions.
Continuing the "Hidden features of ..." meme, let's share the lesser-known but useful features of Ruby programming language.
Try to limit this discussion with core Ruby, without any Ruby on Rails stuff.
See also:
Hidden features of C#
Hidden features of Java
Hidden features of JavaScript
Hidden features of Ruby on Rails
Hidden features of Python
(Please, just one hidden feature per answer.)
Thank you
From Ruby 1.9 Proc#=== is an alias to Proc#call, which means Proc objects can be used in case statements like so:
def multiple_of(factor)
Proc.new{|product| product.modulo(factor).zero?}
end
case number
when multiple_of(3)
puts "Multiple of 3"
when multiple_of(7)
puts "Multiple of 7"
end
Peter Cooper has a good list of Ruby tricks. Perhaps my favorite of his is allowing both single items and collections to be enumerated. (That is, treat a non-collection object as a collection containing just that object.) It looks like this:
[*items].each do |item|
# ...
end
Don't know how hidden this is, but I've found it useful when needing to make a Hash out of a one-dimensional array:
fruit = ["apple","red","banana","yellow"]
=> ["apple", "red", "banana", "yellow"]
Hash[*fruit]
=> {"apple"=>"red", "banana"=>"yellow"}
One trick I like is to use the splat (*) expander on objects other than Arrays. Here's an example on a regular expression match:
match, text, number = *"Something 981".match(/([A-z]*) ([0-9]*)/)
Other examples include:
a, b, c = *('A'..'Z')
Job = Struct.new(:name, :occupation)
tom = Job.new("Tom", "Developer")
name, occupation = *tom
Wow, no one mentioned the flip flop operator:
1.upto(100) do |i|
puts i if (i == 3)..(i == 15)
end
One of the cool things about ruby is that you can call methods and run code in places other languages would frown upon, such as in method or class definitions.
For instance, to create a class that has an unknown superclass until run time, i.e. is random, you could do the following:
class RandomSubclass < [Array, Hash, String, Fixnum, Float, TrueClass].sample
end
RandomSubclass.superclass # could output one of 6 different classes.
This uses the 1.9 Array#sample method (in 1.8.7-only, see Array#choice), and the example is pretty contrived but you can see the power here.
Another cool example is the ability to put default parameter values that are non fixed (like other languages often demand):
def do_something_at(something, at = Time.now)
# ...
end
Of course the problem with the first example is that it is evaluated at definition time, not call time. So, once a superclass has been chosen, it stays that superclass for the remainder of the program.
However, in the second example, each time you call do_something_at, the at variable will be the time that the method was called (well, very very close to it)
Another tiny feature - convert a Fixnum into any base up to 36:
>> 1234567890.to_s(2)
=> "1001001100101100000001011010010"
>> 1234567890.to_s(8)
=> "11145401322"
>> 1234567890.to_s(16)
=> "499602d2"
>> 1234567890.to_s(24)
=> "6b1230i"
>> 1234567890.to_s(36)
=> "kf12oi"
And as Huw Walters has commented, converting the other way is just as simple:
>> "kf12oi".to_i(36)
=> 1234567890
Hashes with default values! An array in this case.
parties = Hash.new {|hash, key| hash[key] = [] }
parties["Summer party"]
# => []
parties["Summer party"] << "Joe"
parties["Other party"] << "Jane"
Very useful in metaprogramming.
Another fun addition in 1.9 Proc functionality is Proc#curry which allows you to turn a Proc accepting n arguments into one accepting n-1. Here it is combined with the Proc#=== tip I mentioned above:
it_is_day_of_week = lambda{ |day_of_week, date| date.wday == day_of_week }
it_is_saturday = it_is_day_of_week.curry[6]
it_is_sunday = it_is_day_of_week.curry[0]
case Time.now
when it_is_saturday
puts "Saturday!"
when it_is_sunday
puts "Sunday!"
else
puts "Not the weekend"
end
Download Ruby 1.9 source, and issue make golf, then you can do things like this:
make golf
./goruby -e 'h'
# => Hello, world!
./goruby -e 'p St'
# => StandardError
./goruby -e 'p 1.tf'
# => 1.0
./goruby19 -e 'p Fil.exp(".")'
"/home/manveru/pkgbuilds/ruby-svn/src/trunk"
Read the golf_prelude.c for more neat things hiding away.
Boolean operators on non boolean values.
&& and ||
Both return the value of the last expression evaluated.
Which is why the ||= will update the variable with the value returned expression on the right side if the variable is undefined. This is not explicitly documented, but common knowledge.
However the &&= isn't quite so widely known about.
string &&= string + "suffix"
is equivalent to
if string
string = string + "suffix"
end
It's very handy for destructive operations that should not proceed if the variable is undefined.
The Symbol#to_proc function that Rails provides is really cool.
Instead of
Employee.collect { |emp| emp.name }
You can write:
Employee.collect(&:name)
One final one - in ruby you can use any character you want to delimit strings. Take the following code:
message = "My message"
contrived_example = "<div id=\"contrived\">#{message}</div>"
If you don't want to escape the double-quotes within the string, you can simply use a different delimiter:
contrived_example = %{<div id="contrived-example">#{message}</div>}
contrived_example = %[<div id="contrived-example">#{message}</div>]
As well as avoiding having to escape delimiters, you can use these delimiters for nicer multiline strings:
sql = %{
SELECT strings
FROM complicated_table
WHERE complicated_condition = '1'
}
Use a Range object as an infinite lazy list:
Inf = 1.0 / 0
(1..Inf).take(5) #=> [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
More info here: http://banisterfiend.wordpress.com/2009/10/02/wtf-infinite-ranges-in-ruby/
I find using the define_method command to dynamically generate methods to be quite interesting and not as well known. For example:
((0..9).each do |n|
define_method "press_#{n}" do
#number = #number.to_i * 10 + n
end
end
The above code uses the 'define_method' command to dynamically create the methods "press1" through "press9." Rather then typing all 10 methods which essentailly contain the same code, the define method command is used to generate these methods on the fly as needed.
module_function
Module methods that are declared as module_function will create copies of themselves as private instance methods in the class that includes the Module:
module M
def not!
'not!'
end
module_function :not!
end
class C
include M
def fun
not!
end
end
M.not! # => 'not!
C.new.fun # => 'not!'
C.new.not! # => NoMethodError: private method `not!' called for #<C:0x1261a00>
If you use module_function without any arguments, then any module methods that comes after the module_function statement will automatically become module_functions themselves.
module M
module_function
def not!
'not!'
end
def yea!
'yea!'
end
end
class C
include M
def fun
not! + ' ' + yea!
end
end
M.not! # => 'not!'
M.yea! # => 'yea!'
C.new.fun # => 'not! yea!'
Short inject, like such:
Sum of range:
(1..10).inject(:+)
=> 55
Warning: this item was voted #1 Most Horrendous Hack of 2008, so use with care. Actually, avoid it like the plague, but it is most certainly Hidden Ruby.
Superators Add New Operators to Ruby
Ever want a super-secret handshake operator for some unique operation in your code? Like playing code golf? Try operators like
-~+~-
or
<---
That last one is used in the examples for reversing the order of an item.
I have nothing to do with the Superators Project beyond admiring it.
I'm late to the party, but:
You can easily take two equal-length arrays and turn them into a hash with one array supplying the keys and the other the values:
a = [:x, :y, :z]
b = [123, 456, 789]
Hash[a.zip(b)]
# => { :x => 123, :y => 456, :z => 789 }
(This works because Array#zip "zips" up the values from the two arrays:
a.zip(b) # => [[:x, 123], [:y, 456], [:z, 789]]
And Hash[] can take just such an array. I've seen people do this as well:
Hash[*a.zip(b).flatten] # unnecessary!
Which yields the same result, but the splat and flatten are wholly unnecessary--perhaps they weren't in the past?)
Auto-vivifying hashes in Ruby
def cnh # silly name "create nested hash"
Hash.new {|h,k| h[k] = Hash.new(&h.default_proc)}
end
my_hash = cnh
my_hash[1][2][3] = 4
my_hash # => { 1 => { 2 => { 3 =>4 } } }
This can just be damn handy.
Destructuring an Array
(a, b), c, d = [ [:a, :b ], :c, [:d1, :d2] ]
Where:
a #=> :a
b #=> :b
c #=> :c
d #=> [:d1, :d2]
Using this technique we can use simple assignment to get the exact values we want out of nested array of any depth.
Class.new()
Create a new class at run time. The argument can be a class to derive from, and the block is the class body. You might also want to look at const_set/const_get/const_defined? to get your new class properly registered, so that inspect prints out a name instead of a number.
Not something you need every day, but quite handy when you do.
create an array of consecutive numbers:
x = [*0..5]
sets x to [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
A lot of the magic you see in Rubyland has to do with metaprogramming, which is simply writing code that writes code for you. Ruby's attr_accessor, attr_reader, and attr_writer are all simple metaprogramming, in that they create two methods in one line, following a standard pattern. Rails does a whole lot of metaprogramming with their relationship-management methods like has_one and belongs_to.
But it's pretty simple to create your own metaprogramming tricks using class_eval to execute dynamically-written code.
The following example allows a wrapper object to forwards certain methods along to an internal object:
class Wrapper
attr_accessor :internal
def self.forwards(*methods)
methods.each do |method|
define_method method do |*arguments, &block|
internal.send method, *arguments, &block
end
end
end
forwards :to_i, :length, :split
end
w = Wrapper.new
w.internal = "12 13 14"
w.to_i # => 12
w.length # => 8
w.split('1') # => ["", "2 ", "3 ", "4"]
The method Wrapper.forwards takes symbols for the names of methods and stores them in the methods array. Then, for each of those given, we use define_method to create a new method whose job it is to send the message along, including all arguments and blocks.
A great resource for metaprogramming issues is Why the Lucky Stiff's "Seeing Metaprogramming Clearly".
use anything that responds to ===(obj) for case comparisons:
case foo
when /baz/
do_something_with_the_string_matching_baz
when 12..15
do_something_with_the_integer_between_12_and_15
when lambda { |x| x % 5 == 0 }
# only works in Ruby 1.9 or if you alias Proc#call as Proc#===
do_something_with_the_integer_that_is_a_multiple_of_5
when Bar
do_something_with_the_instance_of_Bar
when some_object
do_something_with_the_thing_that_matches_some_object
end
Module (and thus Class), Regexp, Date, and many other classes define an instance method :===(other), and can all be used.
Thanks to Farrel for the reminder of Proc#call being aliased as Proc#=== in Ruby 1.9.
The "ruby" binary (at least MRI's) supports a lot of the switches that made perl one-liners quite popular.
Significant ones:
-n Sets up an outer loop with just "gets" - which magically works with given filename or STDIN, setting each read line in $_
-p Similar to -n but with an automatic puts at the end of each loop iteration
-a Automatic call to .split on each input line, stored in $F
-i In-place edit input files
-l Automatic call to .chomp on input
-e Execute a piece of code
-c Check source code
-w With warnings
Some examples:
# Print each line with its number:
ruby -ne 'print($., ": ", $_)' < /etc/irbrc
# Print each line reversed:
ruby -lne 'puts $_.reverse' < /etc/irbrc
# Print the second column from an input CSV (dumb - no balanced quote support etc):
ruby -F, -ane 'puts $F[1]' < /etc/irbrc
# Print lines that contain "eat"
ruby -ne 'puts $_ if /eat/i' < /etc/irbrc
# Same as above:
ruby -pe 'next unless /eat/i' < /etc/irbrc
# Pass-through (like cat, but with possible line-end munging):
ruby -p -e '' < /etc/irbrc
# Uppercase all input:
ruby -p -e '$_.upcase!' < /etc/irbrc
# Same as above, but actually write to the input file, and make a backup first with extension .bak - Notice that inplace edit REQUIRES input files, not an input STDIN:
ruby -i.bak -p -e '$_.upcase!' /etc/irbrc
Feel free to google "ruby one-liners" and "perl one-liners" for tons more usable and practical examples. It essentially allows you to use ruby as a fairly powerful replacement to awk and sed.
The send() method is a general-purpose method that can be used on any Class or Object in Ruby. If not overridden, send() accepts a string and calls the name of the method whose string it is passed. For example, if the user clicks the “Clr” button, the ‘press_clear’ string will be sent to the send() method and the ‘press_clear’ method will be called. The send() method allows for a fun and dynamic way to call functions in Ruby.
%w(7 8 9 / 4 5 6 * 1 2 3 - 0 Clr = +).each do |btn|
button btn, :width => 46, :height => 46 do
method = case btn
when /[0-9]/: 'press_'+btn
when 'Clr': 'press_clear'
when '=': 'press_equals'
when '+': 'press_add'
when '-': 'press_sub'
when '*': 'press_times'
when '/': 'press_div'
end
number.send(method)
number_field.replace strong(number)
end
end
I talk more about this feature in Blogging Shoes: The Simple-Calc Application
Fool some class or module telling it has required something that it really hasn't required:
$" << "something"
This is useful for example when requiring A that in turns requires B but we don't need B in our code (and A won't use it either through our code):
For example, Backgroundrb's bdrb_test_helper requires 'test/spec', but you don't use it at all, so in your code:
$" << "test/spec"
require File.join(File.dirname(__FILE__) + "/../bdrb_test_helper")
Defining a method that accepts any number of parameters and just discards them all
def hello(*)
super
puts "hello!"
end
The above hello method only needs to puts "hello" on the screen and call super - but since the superclass hello defines parameters it has to as well - however since it doesn't actually need to use the parameters itself - it doesn't have to give them a name.
private unless Rails.env == 'test'
# e.g. a bundle of methods you want to test directly
Looks like a cool and (in some cases) nice/useful hack/feature of Ruby.