I have a class game which contains some arrays of custom objects (dinosaurs, cacemen etc.), that are returned by different accessors, such as game.dinosaurs, game.cavemen etc.
At present, all these accessors just return the internally stored arrays. But now I'd like to add some custom iteration methods to these arrays returned by those accessors, to be able to write code such as game.dinosaurs.each_carnivore { ... } etc. similarly to each_element and each_attr iterators in LibXML::XML::Node. But the objects returned from my accessors game.dinosaurs and game.cavemen have to behave like arrays still.
How are things like that usually done in Ruby?
Should I make the objects returned from my accessors to be some custom classes derived from Ruby's Array class? Or maybe should I just create a custom class with Enumerable mixed in?
I know I can use map or select externally on my collections, but I wanted to encapsulate these iterations internally that my class's users won't need to bother how to set up an iteration to select only carnivore dinosaurs from the internal array.
Edit: I'm not asking about how to use iterators or how to implement them, but how to add just some custom iterators to object which previously were just plain arrays (and still need to be).
It depends (as always). You could use an array subclass and you you could build a custom class and use composition and delegation. Here's a simple example with an array subclass:
class DinosaurArray < Array
def carnivores
select { |dinosaur| dinosaur.type == :carnivore }
end
def herbivores
select { |dinosaur| dinosaur.type == :herbivore }
end
def each_carnivore(&block)
carnivores.each(&block)
end
def each_herbivore(&block)
herbivores.each(&block)
end
end
And here's a simple one with composition and delegation:
class DinosaurArray
def initialize
#array = []
end
def <<(dinosaur)
#array << dinosaur
end
def carnivores
#array.select { |dinosaur| dinosaur.type == :carnivore }
end
def herbivores
#array.select { |dinosaur| dinosaur.type == :herbivore }
end
def each(&block)
#array.each(&block)
end
def each_carnivore(&block)
carnivores.each(&block)
end
def each_herbivore(&block)
herbivores.each(&block)
end
end
Both implementation can be used like this:
require 'ostruct'
dinosaurs = DinosaurArray.new
dinosaurs << OpenStruct.new(type: :carnivore, name: "Tyrannosaurus")
dinosaurs << OpenStruct.new(type: :carnivore, name: "Allosaurus")
dinosaurs << OpenStruct.new(type: :herbivore, name: "Apatosaurus")
puts "Dinosaurs:"
dinosaurs.each.with_index(1) { |dinosaur, i| puts "#{i}. #{dinosaur.name}" }
puts
But also has custom iterators:
puts "Carnivores:"
dinosaurs.each_carnivore.with_index(1) { |dinosaur, i| puts "#{i}. #{dinosaur.name}" }
puts
puts "Herbivores:"
dinosaurs.each_herbivore.with_index(1) { |dinosaur, i| puts "#{i}. #{dinosaur.name}" }
Output:
Dinosaurs:
1. Tyrannosaurus
2. Allosaurus
3. Apatosaurus
Carnivores:
1. Tyrannosaurus
2. Allosaurus
Herbivores:
1. Apatosaurus
You can do this via using ruby blocks. Read more
Simple example here:
class Game
def initialize
#carnivoures = [1,2,3]
end
def each_carnivoures
#carnivoures.each do |carni|
yield carni
end
end
end
Game.new.each_carnivoures{ |c| p c}
It also would be nice to have a possibility for chaining such filters. You can achieve this simply by wrapping select method into custom one, returning your new class instead of array. You may wrap some other methods as well, e.g. map:
class Units < Array
def select
self.class.new(super)
end
def dinosaurs
select{ |unit| unit.kind == 'dinosaur' }
end
def cavemen
select{ |unit| unit.kind == 'caveman' }
end
def carnivore
select{ |unit| unit.type == 'carnivore' }
end
def herbivore
select{ |unit| unit.type == 'herbivore' }
end
end
Units.dinosaurs.carnivore
Units.cavemen.herbivore
Related
I'm trying to wrap my head around delegation vs. inheritance so I'm manually delegating a version of Array. One of the specific reasons I read to do this is because when you use things like enumerables, your returned value on the inherited methods reverts back to the parent class (i.e. Array). So I did this:
module PeepData
# A list of Peeps
class Peeps
include Enumerable
def initialize(list = [])
#list = list
end
def [](index)
#list[index]
end
def each(...)
#list.each(...)
end
def reverse
Peeps.new(#list.reverse)
end
def last
#list.last
end
def join(...)
#list.join(...)
end
def from_csv(csv_table)
#list = []
csv_table.each { |row| #list << Peep.new(row.to_h) }
end
def include(field, value)
Peeps.new(select { |row| row[field] == value })
end
def exclude(field, value)
Peeps.new(select { |row| row[field] != value })
end
def count_by_field(field)
result = {}
#list.each do |row|
result[row[field]] = result[row[field]].to_i + 1
end
result
end
protected
attr_reader :list
end
end
When I instantiate this, my include and exclude function great and return a Peeps class but when using an enumerable like select, it returns Array, which prevents me from chaining further Peeps specific methods after the select. This is exactly what I'm trying to avoid with learning about delegation.
p = Peeps.new
p.from_csv(csv_generated_array_of_hashes)
p.select(&:certified?).class
returns Array
If I override select, wrapping it in Peeps.new(), I get a "SystemStackError: stack level too deep". It seems to be recursively burying the list deeper into the list during the select enumeration.
def select(...)
Peeps.new(#list.select(...))
end
Any help and THANKS!
I would recommend using both Forwardable and Enumerable. Use Forwardable to delegate the each method to your list (to satisfy the Enumerable interface requirement), and also forward any Array methods you might want to include that are not part of the Enumerable module, such as size. I would also suggest not overriding the behavior of select as it is supposed to return an array and would at the very least lead to confusion. I would suggest something like the subset provided below to implement the behavior you are looking for.
require 'forwardable'
class Peeps
include Enumerable
extend Forwardable
def_delegators :#list, :each, :size
def initialize(list = [])
#list = list
end
def subset(&block)
selected = #list.select(&block)
Peeps.new(selected)
end
protected
attr_reader :list
end
Example usage:
peeps = Peeps.new([:a,:b,:c])
subset = peeps.subset {|s| s != :b}
puts subset.class
peeps.each do |peep|
puts peep
end
puts peeps.size
puts subset.size
produces:
Peeps
a
b
c
3
2
I think that if Peeps#select will return an Array, then it is OK to include Enumerable. But, you want Peeps#select to return a Peeps. I don't think you should include Enumerable. It's misleading to claim to be an Enumerable if you don't conform to its interface. This is just my opinion. There is no clear consensus on this in the ecosystem. See "Examples from the ecosystem" below.
If we accept that we cannot include Enumerable, here's the first implementation that comes to my mind.
require 'minitest/autorun'
class Peeps
ARRAY_METHODS = %i[flat_map map reject select]
ELEMENT_METHODS = %i[first include? last]
def initialize(list)
#list = list
end
def inspect
#list.join(', ')
end
def method_missing(mth, *args, &block)
if ARRAY_METHODS.include?(mth)
self.class.new(#list.send(mth, *args, &block))
elsif ELEMENT_METHODS.include?(mth)
#list.send(mth, *args, &block)
else
super
end
end
end
class PeepsTest < Minitest::Test
def test_first
assert_equal('alice', Peeps.new(%w[alice bob charlie]).first)
end
def test_include?
assert Peeps.new(%w[alice bob charlie]).include?('bob')
end
def test_select
peeps = Peeps.new(%w[alice bob charlie]).select { |i| i < 'c' }
assert_instance_of(Peeps, peeps)
assert_equal('alice, bob', peeps.inspect)
end
end
I don't normally use method_missing, but it seemed convenient.
Examples from the ecosystem
There doesn't seem to be a consensus on how strictly to follow interfaces.
ActionController::Parameters used to inherit Hash. Inheritance ceased in Rails 5.1.
ActiveSupport::HashWithIndifferentAccess still inherits Hash.
As mentioned in the other answer, this isn't really proper usage of Enumerable. That said, you could still include Enumerable and use some meta-programming to override the methods that you want to be peep-chainable:
module PeepData
class Peeps
include Enumerable
PEEP_CHAINABLES = [:map, :select]
PEEP_CHAINABLES.each do |method_name|
define_method(method_name) do |&block|
self.class.new(super(&block))
end
end
# solution for select without meta-programming looks like this:
# def select
# Peeps.new(super)
# end
end
end
Just so you know, this really has nothing to do with inheritance vs delegation. If Peeps extended Array, you would have the exact same issue, and the exact solution above would still work.
I need to make a program in ruby to generate a robot name like KU765 or NG274 style
and to store them and check it to avoid repetition.
I also need to make a "reset" method to delete all stored names and start again.
This program is not working for some reason. I hope somebody helps me to find the mistake.
Thanks a lot.
class Robot
attr_accessor :named , :stored_names , :rl
def self.name
new.name
end
##rl = "_ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ"
def name
named = ""
named << ##rl[rand(26).to_i]
named << ##rl[rand(26).to_i]
named << rand(100..999).to_s
named.save_name
named.check_name
end
def save_name
stored_names = []
stored_names << named
end
def check_name
stored_names.uniq!
end
def reset
stored_names = Array.new
end
end
Here's another way to construct the Robot class that you may wish to consider. (My answers are not normally this long or detailed, but I wrote this in part to clarify aspects of Ruby's object model in my own mind. I hope it might help others do the same.)
Code
PREFACE = ('A'..'Z').to_a << ?_
SUFFIX = ('0'..'9').to_a
PREFACE_SIZE = 2
SUFFIX_SIZE = 3
class Robot
def self.reset() #bots = [] end
reset
def self.new() (#bots << super).last end
def self.bots() #bots end
def self.delete(bot) #bots.delete(bot) end
def self.bot_names() #bots.map { |b| b.name } end
attr_reader :name
def initialize() #name = add_name end
private
def add_name
loop do
#name = gen_name
return #name unless self.class.bot_names.include?(#name)
end
end
def gen_name
PREFACE.sample(PREFACE_SIZE).join << SUFFIX.sample(SUFFIX_SIZE).join
end
end
Example
Robot.bots #=> []
robbie = Robot.new #=> #<Robot:0x000001019f4988 #name="AP436">
robbie.name #=> "AP436"
Robot.bots #=> [#<Robot:0x000001019f4988 #name="AP436">]
r2d2 = Robot.new #=> #<Robot:0x000001019cd450 #name="KL628">
r2d2.name #=> "KL628"
Robot.bots #=> [#<Robot:0x000001019f4988 #name="AP436">,
# #<Robot:0x000001019cd450 #name="KL628">]
Robot.bot_names #=> ["AP436", "KL628"]
Robot.delete(robbie) #=> #<Robot:0x000001019f4988 #name="AP436">
Robot.bots #=> [#<Robot:0x000001019cd450 #name="KL628">]
Robot.bot_names #=> ["KL628"]
Robot.reset #=> []
c3po = Robot.new #=> #<Robot:0x000001018ff8c0 #name="VO975">
Robot.bots #=> [#<Robot:0x000001018ff8c0 #name="VO975">]
Explanation
When the class is parsed, the class method reset is first created, then the line reset is executed. As self => Robot when that occurs, the class method reset is executed, initializing #bots to an empty array.
The responsibility for saving and modifying a list of instances of Robot lies with the class. This list is held in the class instance variable #bots.
Instance of Robot are created by invoking Robot::new, which allocates memory and then invokes the (private) instance method initialize. Where is new? Since we have not defined it as a class method in Robot, there are two possibilities: it is inherited from one of Robot's ancestors (Robot.ancestors => [Robot, Object, Kernel, BasicObject]) or it is an instance method of the class Class, as that is the class for which Robot is an instance (i.e., Robot.class => Class) Let's find out which: Class.instance_method(:new) => #<UnboundMethod: Class#new> (or Class.instance_methods.include?(:new) => true), Object.method(:new) => #<Method: Class#new>. It's both! But that makes sense, because all classes are instances of Class, including Robot's superclass, Object. #<Method: Class#new> returned by Object.method(:new) shows new is defined in Class (which can alternatively be seen with Robot.method(:new).owner => Class. Very cool, eh? If you didn't know this already, and can follow what I've said in this paragraph, you've just learned the essence of Ruby's object model!
Suppose we add the class method new, shown below, to Robot. super invokes the class method Object::new (which is the instance method Class#new), passing any arguments of new (here there aren't any). Object::new returns the instance that it creates, which Robot::new in turn returns. Therefore, this method would simply be a conduit and and have no effect on the results.
def self.new
super
end
We can make a small change to the above method to add a copy of the instance that is created by Object::new to the array #bots:
def self.new
instance = super
#bots << instance
instance
end
I have written this a little more compactly as:
def self.new
(#bots << super).last
end
I've used the method Array#sample to randomly draw PREFACE_SIZE characters from PREFACE and SUFFIX_SIZE characters from SUFFIX_SIZE. sample samples without replacement, so you will not get, for example, "UU112". If you want to sample with replacement, replace the method gen_name with the following:
def gen_name
str = PREFACE_SIZE.times.with_object('') { |_,s| s << PREFACE.sample }
SUFFIX_SIZE.times { str << SUFFIX.sample }
str
end
I have created a class method bots to return the value of the class instance variable #bots. This could alternatively be done by defining a read accessor for #bots on Robots' singleton class:
class << self
attr_reader :name
end
When Robot.reset is invoked, what happens to all the instances of Robot it had contained? Will they be left to wander the forest, rejected and homeless? In languages like C you need to release their memory before casting them aside. In Ruby and many other modern languages that's not necessary (and generally can't be done). Ruby's "garbage collection" keeps track of all objects, and kills off (after releasing memory) any that are no longer referenced by any other object. Nice, eh?
The task itself is not hard, but I don't like the way your code is organised. This is what I would do in the first stage:
class Robot
class Name < String
class << self
def sign
"#{[*?A..?Z].sample}#{[*?A..?Z].sample}"
end
def number
"#{rand 1..9}#{rand 0..9}#{rand 0..9}"
end
def new
super << sign << number
end
end
end
end
And then:
Robot::Name.new
When constructing a list of names it is easy to check that they are unique. This is how I'd go about it:
class Robot
class Names < Array
def self.generate n
new.tap { |array| n.times do array.add_random_name end }
end
def add_random_name
name = Name.new
include?( name ) ? add_random_name : self << name
end
end
end
And then:
Robot::Names.generate 7
def save_name
stored_names = []
stored_names << named
end
Every time, you create a name, and call save_name you delete all previously created names, by assigning an empty array to stored_names
EDIT:
There were a few more errors, let me first post a working solution:
class Robot
attr_accessor :named , :stored_names , :rl
def initialize()
#stored_names = []
end
##rl = "_ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ".chars.to_a
def name
#named = ""
#named << ##rl.sample
#named << ##rl.sample
#named << rand(100..999).to_s
save_name
check_name
end
def save_name
#stored_names << #named
end
def check_name
#stored_names.uniq!
end
def reset
#stored_names = Array.new
end
end
To access the members of your object, you have to prefix them with #.
You called save_name and check_name on #named, which is a string and doesn't provide these methods
#stored_names must be initialized to an empty array, before you can push elements into it with <<. This is normally done in the class's constructor initialize()
I understand this isn't efficient, but this will work.
letters = [*'A'..'Z'] =>
numbers = [*100..999]
names = []
2.times{names.push(letters.shuffle.first)} => Randomizing array and choosing element
names.push(numbers.shuffle.first)
names.join => Creates a String object out of the array elements
This isn't pretty, but it gets the job done.
This is how I automate Cary's approach with my y_support/name_magic:
require 'y_support/all'
class Robot
★ NameMagic
def name_yourself
begin
self.name = "#{[*?A..?Z].sample( 2 ).join}#{rand 100..999}"
rescue NameError; retry end
end
end
3.times { Robot.new.name_yourself }
Robot.instances #=> [PR489, NS761, OE663]
Robot.forget "PR489"
Robot.instances #=> [NS761, OE663]
Robot.forget_all_instances
Robot.instances #=> []
Robot.new.name_yourself
Robot.instances #=> [IB573]
Quiet new to ruby I can't figure out something.
Here's a Sample code
class Big
def self.metaclass; class << self; self; end; end
def self.convertor b
metaclass.instance_eval do
define_method( :convert ) do |val|
return b val
end
end
end
end
class Small < Big
convertor { |v| v.to_i + 1 }
end
puts Small.convert('18')
The aim is to have a lot of subclass to Big and i like to avoid to define in each
def convert(val)
return conversion_specific_to_subclass(val)
end
Doing the former way i just have one line for each subclass. But can't get it to work.
What is it i'm doing wrong? Is there a better way to accomplish what i wish?
Thanks in advance
edit: As asked here are the errors this code produce (with ruby 2.1.0)
test2.rb:4:in `convertor': wrong number of arguments (0 for 1) (ArgumentError)
from test2.rb:14:in `<class:Small>'`
You're overcomplicating this - since all you want is the ability to bind a block to a specific method name, just do that!
class Big
def self.converter(&block)
define_singleton_method :convert, &block
end
end
class Small < Big
converter {|v| v.to_i + 1 }
end
That way, when you invoke Small::converter, it will define a class method that accepts a parameter list as defined in your block args, and the return value will be the return value of your block.
Try this code:
class Big
def self.metaclass; class << self; self; end; end
def self.convertor(&b)
metaclass.instance_eval do
define_method( :convert ) do |val|
return b[val]
end
end
end
end
class Small < Big
convertor { |v| v.to_i + 1 }
end
puts Small.convert('18')
There were two problems in your code. One, you have to capture the block using an & argument. So, this is the new method declaration:
def self.convertor(&b)
And finally, you have to call the block using block call syntax in your return, like this:
return b[val]
Or this:
return b.call(val)
You cannot call a block like b val.
Also, it's good style in Ruby to always include the parenthesis everywhere.
I have a Ruby class, and each method on it keeps indices of an array of hashes based on certain conditions.
For example (code has been edited since original posting)
module Dronestream
class Strike
class << self
...
def strike
#strike ||= all
end
def all
response['strike'] # returns an array of hashes, each individual strike
end
def in_country(country)
strike.keep_if { |strike| strike['country'] == country }
self
end
def in_town(town)
strike.keep_if { |strike| strike['town'] == town }
self
end
...
end
end
This way, you can do Dronestream::Strike.in_country('Yemen'), or Dronestream::Strike.in_town('Taizz'), and each returns an array. But I'd like to be able to do Dronestream::Strike.in_country('Yemen').in_town('Taizz'), and have it return only the strikes in that town in Yemen.
But as of now, each separate method returns an array. I know that if I have them return self, they'll have the method I need. But then they won't return an array, and I can't call, for example, first or each on them, like I could an array, which I need to do. I tried to make Strike < Array, but then, first is an instance method on Array, not a class method.
What should I do?
EDIT
Here is a part of my test suite. Following the answer below, the tests pass individually, but then fail.
describe Dronestream::Strike do
let(:strike) { Dronestream::Strike }
before :each do
VCR.insert_cassette 'strike', :record => :new_episodes
#strike = nil
end
after do
VCR.eject_cassette
end
...
# passes when run by itself and when the whole file runs together
describe '#country' do
let(:country_name) { 'Yemen' }
it 'takes a country and returns strikes from that country' do
expect(strike.in_country(country_name).first['country']).to eq(country_name)
end
end
# passes when run by itself, but fails when the whole file runs together
describe '#in_town' do
let(:town_name) { 'Wadi Abida' }
it 'returns an array of strikes for a given town' do
expect(strike.in_town(town_name).first['town'].include?(town_name)).to be_true
end
end
...
end
You can overwrite the method_missing to handle this.
Return self in your in_country or in_town method. Then when called first to it, delivery it to the all array to handle.
the code may be like this:
module Dronestream
class Strike
class << self
...
def all
...
end
def in_country(country)
all.keep_if { |strike| strike['country'] == country }
self
end
def in_town(town)
all.keep_if { |strike| strike['town'] == town }
self
end
...
def method_missing(name,*args,&block)
return all.send(name.to_sym, *args, &block) if all.respond_to? name.to_sym
super
end
end
I have an object Results that contains an array of result objects along with some cached statistics about the objects in the array. I'd like the Results object to be able to behave like an array. My first cut at this was to add methods like this
def <<(val)
#result_array << val
end
This feels very c-like and I know Ruby has better way.
I'd also like to be able to do this
Results.each do |result|
result.do_stuff
end
but am not sure what the each method is really doing under the hood.
Currently I simply return the underlying array via a method and call each on it which doesn't seem like the most-elegant solution.
Any help would be appreciated.
For the general case of implementing array-like methods, yes, you have to implement them yourself. Vava's answer shows one example of this. In the case you gave, though, what you really want to do is delegate the task of handling each (and maybe some other methods) to the contained array, and that can be automated.
require 'forwardable'
class Results
include Enumerable
extend Forwardable
def_delegators :#result_array, :each, :<<
end
This class will get all of Array's Enumerable behavior as well as the Array << operator and it will all go through the inner array.
Note, that when you switch your code from Array inheritance to this trick, your << methods would start to return not the object intself, like real Array's << did -- this can cost you declaring another variable everytime you use <<.
each just goes through array and call given block with each element, that is simple. Since inside the class you are using array as well, you can just redirect your each method to one from array, that is fast and easy to read/maintain.
class Result
include Enumerable
def initialize
#results_array = []
end
def <<(val)
#results_array << val
end
def each(&block)
#results_array.each(&block)
end
end
r = Result.new
r << 1
r << 2
r.each { |v|
p v
}
#print:
# 1
# 2
Note that I have mixed in Enumerable. That will give you a bunch of array methods like all?, map, etc. for free.
BTW with Ruby you can forget about inheritance. You don't need interface inheritance because duck-typing doesn't really care about actual type, and you don't need code inheritance because mixins are just better for that sort of things.
Your << method is perfectly fine and very Ruby like.
To make a class act like an array, without actually inheriting directly from Array, you can mix-in the Enumerable module and add a few methods.
Here's an example (including Chuck's excellent suggestion to use Forwardable):
# You have to require forwardable to use it
require "forwardable"
class MyArray
include Enumerable
extend Forwardable
def initialize
#values = []
end
# Map some of the common array methods to our internal array
def_delegators :#values, :<<, :[], :[]=, :last
# I want a custom method "add" available for adding values to our internal array
def_delegator :#values, :<<, :add
# You don't need to specify the block variable, yield knows to use a block if passed one
def each
# "each" is the base method called by all the iterators so you only have to define it
#values.each do |value|
# change or manipulate the values in your value array inside this block
yield value
end
end
end
m = MyArray.new
m << "fudge"
m << "icecream"
m.add("cake")
# Notice I didn't create an each_with_index method but since
# I included Enumerable it knows how and uses the proper data.
m.each_with_index{|value, index| puts "m[#{index}] = #{value}"}
puts "What about some nice cabbage?"
m[0] = "cabbage"
puts "m[0] = #{m[0]}"
puts "No! I meant in addition to fudge"
m[0] = "fudge"
m << "cabbage"
puts "m.first = #{m.first}"
puts "m.last = #{m.last}"
Which outputs:
m[0] = fudge
m[1] = icecream
m[2] = cake
What about some nice cabbage?
m[0] = cabbage
No! I meant in addition to fudge
m.first = fudge
m.last = cabbage
This feels very c-like and I know Ruby
has better way.
If you want an object to 'feel' like an array, than overriding << is a good idea and very 'Ruby'-ish.
but am not sure what the each method
is really doing under the hood.
The each method for Array just loops through all the elements (using a for loop, I think). If you want to add your own each method (which is also very 'Ruby'-ish), you could do something like this:
def each
0.upto(#result_array.length - 1) do |x|
yield #result_array[x]
end
end
If you create a class Results that inherit from Array, you will inherit all the functionality.
You can then supplement the methods that need change by redefining them, and you can call super for the old functionality.
For example:
class Results < Array
# Additional functionality
def best
find {|result| result.is_really_good? }
end
# Array functionality that needs change
def compact
delete(ininteresting_result)
super
end
end
Alternatively, you can use the builtin library forwardable. This is particularly useful if you can't inherit from Array because you need to inherit from another class:
require 'forwardable'
class Results
extend Forwardable
def_delegator :#result_array, :<<, :each, :concat # etc...
def best
#result_array.find {|result| result.is_really_good? }
end
# Array functionality that needs change
def compact
#result_array.delete(ininteresting_result)
#result_array.compact
self
end
end
In both of these forms, you can use it as you want:
r = Results.new
r << some_result
r.each do |result|
# ...
end
r.compact
puts "Best result: #{r.best}"
Not sure I'm adding anything new, but decided to show a very short code that I wish I could have found in the answers to quickly show available options. Here it is without the enumerator that #shelvacu talks about.
class Test
def initialize
#data = [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,11,12,12,13,14,15,16,172,28,38]
end
# approach 1
def each_y
#data.each{ |x| yield(x) }
end
#approach 2
def each_b(&block)
#data.each(&block)
end
end
Lets check performance:
require 'benchmark'
test = Test.new
n=1000*1000*100
Benchmark.bm do |b|
b.report { 1000000.times{ test.each_y{|x| #foo=x} } }
b.report { 1000000.times{ test.each_b{|x| #foo=x} } }
end
Here's the result:
user system total real
1.660000 0.000000 1.660000 ( 1.669462)
1.830000 0.000000 1.830000 ( 1.831754)
This means yield is marginally faster than &block what we already know btw.
UPDATE: This is IMO the best way to create an each method which also takes care of returning an enumerator
class Test
def each
if block_given?
#data.each{|x| yield(x)}
else
return #data.each
end
end
end
If you really do want to make your own #each method, and assuming you don't want to forward, you should return an Enumerator if no block is given
class MyArrayLikeClass
include Enumerable
def each(&block)
return enum_for(__method__) if block.nil?
#arr.each do |ob|
block.call(ob)
end
end
end
This will return an Enumerable object if no block is given, allowing Enumerable method chaining