Related
I'm trying to return a list of values based on user defined arguments, from hashes defined in the local environment.
def my_method *args
#initialize accumulator
accumulator = Hash.new(0)
#define hashes in local environment
foo=Hash["key1"=>["var1","var2"],"key2"=>["var3","var4","var5"]]
bar=Hash["key3"=>["var6"],"key4"=>["var7","var8","var9"],"key5"=>["var10","var11","var12"]]
baz=Hash["key6"=>["var13","var14","var15","var16"]]
#iterate over args and build accumulator
args.each do |x|
if foo.has_key?(x)
accumulator=foo.assoc(x)
elsif bar.has_key?(x)
accumulator=bar.assoc(x)
elsif baz.has_key?(x)
accumulator=baz.assoc(x)
else
puts "invalid input"
end
end
#convert accumulator to list, and return value
return accumulator = accumulator.to_a {|k,v| [k].product(v).flatten}
end
The user is to call the method with arguments that are keywords, and the function to return a list of values associated with each keyword received.
For instance
> my_method(key5,key6,key1)
=> ["var10","var11","var12","var13","var14","var15","var16","var1","var2"]
The output can be in any order. I received the following error when I tried to run the code:
undefined method `assoc' for #<Hash:0x10f591518> (NoMethodError)
Please would you point me how to troubleshoot this? In Terminal assoc performs exactly how I expect it to:
> foo.assoc("key1")
=> ["var1","var2"]
I'm guessing you're coming to Ruby from some other language, as there is a lot of unnecessary cruft in this method. Furthermore, it won't return what you expect for a variety of reasons.
`accumulator = Hash.new(0)`
This is unnecessary, as (1), you're expecting an array to be returned, and (2), you don't need to pre-initialize variables in ruby.
The Hash[...] syntax is unconventional in this context, and is typically used to convert some other enumerable (usually an array) into a hash, as in Hash[1,2,3,4] #=> { 1 => 2, 3 => 4}. When you're defining a hash, you can just use the curly brackets { ... }.
For every iteration of args, you're assigning accumulator to the result of the hash lookup instead of accumulating values (which, based on your example output, is what you need to do). Instead, you should be looking at various array concatenation methods like push, +=, <<, etc.
As it looks like you don't need the keys in the result, assoc is probably overkill. You would be better served with fetch or simple bracket lookup (hash[key]).
Finally, while you can call any method in Ruby with a block, as you've done with to_a, unless the method specifically yields a value to the block, Ruby will ignore it, so [k].product(v).flatten isn't actually doing anything.
I don't mean to be too critical - Ruby's syntax is extremely flexible but also relatively compact compared to other languages, which means it's easy to take it too far and end up with hard to understand and hard to maintain methods.
There is another side effect of how your method is constructed wherein the accumulator will only collect the values from the first hash that has a particular key, even if more than one hash has that key. Since I don't know if that's intentional or not, I'll preserve this functionality.
Here is a version of your method that returns what you expect:
def my_method(*args)
foo = { "key1"=>["var1","var2"],"key2"=>["var3","var4","var5"] }
bar = { "key3"=>["var6"],"key4"=>["var7","var8","var9"],"key5"=>["var10","var11","var12"] }
baz = { "key6"=>["var13","var14","var15","var16"] }
merged = [foo, bar, baz].reverse.inject({}, :merge)
args.inject([]) do |array, key|
array += Array(merged[key])
end
end
In general, I wouldn't define a method with built-in data, but I'm going to leave it in to be closer to your original method. Hash#merge combines two hashes and overwrites any duplicate keys in the original hash with those in the argument hash. The Array() call coerces an array even when the key is not present, so you don't need to explicitly handle that error.
I would encourage you to look up the inject method - it's quite versatile and is useful in many situations. inject uses its own accumulator variable (optionally defined as an argument) which is yielded to the block as the first block parameter.
I can only find methods that look for specific elements of an array.
During my objects.each |a| loop, I want to know when I'm at the final element so I can have a loop like:
objects.each |a|
if objects.hasNext()
puts a.name + ","
else
puts a.name
Iterator's hasNext() determines if the Array's iterator has another element after the one currently being evaluated.
I want to emphasize that I'm looking to print out these values, not turn them in to an Array. .join is not what I'm looking for here.
No, there isn't. However, note that hasNext is not an Array operation in Java, either. It's an Iterator operation, and Ruby's equivalent to Java's Iterator is Enumerator, not Array.
However, Ruby's Enumerator works a little bit different than Java's: instead of asking whether there is a next element, and then advancing the iterator, you simply try to look at the next element and it throws a StopIteration exception when there are no more elements.
So, the equivalent to Java's
iter.hasNext);
would be roughly
begin
enum.peek
true
rescue StopIteration
false
end
However, you almost never iterate manually in Ruby. Instead, you use higher-level iteration methods such as join, flat_map, group_by, uniq, sort, sort_by, inject, map, each_with_object, each etc.
For example:
%w(pretty ugly stupid).join(', ') # => 'pretty, ugly, stupid'
Is there a comparable Array operation to Java's hasNext() in ruby?
First of all Java's Array doesn't have any hasNext method per se because it wouldn't make any sense. It's the iterator that has it. In Ruby there's no such a thing as a list and the powerful iterator methods (each and the each_* family) would make it pretty useless:
my_array.each do |current|
// operations
// implicit:
// if (current.has_next) current = current.next
// else break
end
So, no there's no such a thing.
I'm using .each |a| to run the loop. I want to print a comma each time through unless it's the last. I want this list (pretty, ugly, stupid) not (pretty, ugly, stupid,). Any thoughts
You should take a look at the .join method.
It is common that, when leaning a new language, people tend to looking for something that familiar with:)
Your specific questions could easily be solved by using each_with_index.
objects.each_with_index do |object ,index|
if index == (object.length -1) then
puts a.name + ","
else
puts a.name
end
end
In the Ruby library iterators are implemented as internal iterators in contrast to Java which implements external iterators. The key difference between the two is that the former are designed to not let the client control the iteration, while the latter leave to the client this responsibility.
The purpose of a method like hasNext is to control iteration directly, thus in Ruby no such thing exists. Methods like peek and next defined by Enumerator are, I guess, not intended to control iteration directly but to implement custom internal iterators.
That said, your problem is easily solved with this code:
puts objects.map(&:name).join(', ')
However sometimes could be useful to concoct your own internal iterator using an Enumerator object:
module Enumerable
def puts_each_with_separator(separator)
enum = each
loop do
print yield(enum.next)
enum.peek rescue break
print separator
end
puts
end
end
objects.puts_each_with_separator(', ', &:name)
I want to emphasize that I'm looking to print out these values, not
turn them in to an Array. .join is not what I'm looking for here.
Actually, I think .join is exactly what you're looking for. The result of .join is a string, not an array, so
puts objects.join(",")
does what you say you want.
To check what #some_var is, I am doing a
if #some_var.class.to_s == 'Hash'
I am sure that there is a more elegant way to check if #some_var is a Hash or an Array.
You can just do:
#some_var.class == Hash
or also something like:
#some_var.is_a?(Hash)
It's worth noting that the "is_a?" method is true if the class is anywhere in the objects ancestry tree. for instance:
#some_var.is_a?(Object) # => true
the above is true if #some_var is an instance of a hash or other class that stems from Object. So, if you want a strict match on the class type, using the == or instance_of? method is probably what you're looking for.
First of all, the best answer for the literal question is
Hash === #some_var
But the question really should have been answered by showing how to do duck-typing here.
That depends a bit on what kind of duck you need.
#some_var.respond_to?(:each_pair)
or
#some_var.respond_to?(:has_key?)
or even
#some_var.respond_to?(:to_hash)
may be right depending on the application.
Usually in ruby when you are looking for "type" you are actually wanting the "duck-type" or "does is quack like a duck?". You would see if it responds to a certain method:
#some_var.respond_to?(:each)
You can iterate over #some_var because it responds to :each
If you really want to know the type and if it is Hash or Array then you can do:
["Hash", "Array"].include?(#some_var.class) #=> check both through instance class
#some_var.kind_of?(Hash) #=> to check each at once
#some_var.is_a?(Array) #=> same as kind_of
Hash === #some_var #=> return Boolean
this can also be used with case statement
case #some_var
when Hash
...
when Array
...
end
You can use instance_of?
e.g
#some_var.instance_of?(Hash)
I use this:
#var.respond_to?(:keys)
It works for Hash and ActiveSupport::HashWithIndifferentAccess.
In practice, you will often want to act differently depending on whether a variable is an Array or a Hash, not just mere tell. In this situation, an elegant idiom is the following:
case item
when Array
#do something
when Hash
#do something else
end
Note that you don't call the .class method on item.
If you want to test if an object is strictly or extends a Hash, use:
value = {}
value.is_a?(Hash) || value.is_a?(Array) #=> true
But to make value of Ruby's duck typing, you could do something like:
value = {}
value.respond_to?(:[]) #=> true
It is useful when you only want to access some value using the value[:key] syntax.
Please note that Array.new["key"] will raise a TypeError.
irb(main):005:0> {}.class
=> Hash
irb(main):006:0> [].class
=> Array
This is for an already existing public API that I cannot break, but I do wish to extend.
Currently the method takes a string or a symbol or anything else that makes sense when passed as the first parameter to send
I'd like to add the ability to send a list of strings, symbols, et cetera. I could just use is_a? Array, but there are other ways of sending lists, and that's not very ruby-ish.
I'll be calling map on the list, so the first inclination is to use respond_to? :map. But a string also responds to :map, so that won't work.
How about treating them all as Arrays? The behavior you want for Strings is the same as for an Array containing only that String:
def foo(obj, arg)
[*arg].each { |method| obj.send(method) }
end
The [*arg] trick works because the splat operator (*) turns a single element into itself or an Array into an inline list of its elements.
Later
This is basically just a syntactically sweetened version or Arnaud's answer, though there are subtle differences if you pass an Array containing other Arrays.
Later still
There's an additional difference having to do with foo's return value. If you call foo(bar, :baz), you might be surprised to get [baz] back. To solve this, you can add a Kestrel:
def foo(obj, arg)
returning(arg) do |args|
[*args].each { |method| obj.send(method) }
end
end
which will always return arg as passed. Or you could do returning(obj) so you could chain calls to foo. It's up to you what sort of return-value behavior you want.
A critical detail that was overlooked in all of the answers: strings do not respond to :map, so the simplest answer is in the original question: just use respond_to? :map.
Since Array and String are both Enumerables, there's not an elegant way to say "a thing that's an Enumberable, but not a String," at least not in the way being discussed.
What I would do is duck-type for Enumerable (responds_to? :[]) and then use a case statement, like so:
def foo(obj, arg)
if arg.respond_to?(:[])
case arg
when String then obj.send(arg)
else arg.each { |method_name| obj.send(method_name) }
end
end
end
or even cleaner:
def foo(obj, arg)
case arg
when String then obj.send(arg)
when Enumerable then arg.each { |method| obj.send(method) }
else nil
end
end
Perhaps the question wasn't clear enough, but a night's sleep showed me two clean ways to answer this question.
1: to_sym is available on String and Symbol and should be available on anything that quacks like a string.
if arg.respond_to? :to_sym
obj.send(arg, ...)
else
# do array stuff
end
2: send throws TypeError when passed an array.
begin
obj.send(arg, ...)
rescue TypeError
# do array stuff
end
I particularly like #2. I severely doubt any of the users of the old API are expecting TypeError to be raised by this method...
Let's say your function is named func
I would make an array from the parameters with
def func(param)
a = Array.new
a << param
a.flatten!
func_array(a)
end
You end up with implementing your function func_array for arrays only
with func("hello world") you'll get a.flatten! => [ "hello world" ]
with func(["hello", "world"] ) you'll get a.flatten! => [ "hello", "world" ]
Can you just switch behavior based on parameter.class.name? It's ugly, but if I understand correctly, you have a single method that you'll be passing multiple types to - you'll have to differentiate somehow.
Alternatively, just add a method that handles an array type parameter. It's slightly different behavior so an extra method might make sense.
Use Marshal to serialize your objects before sending these.
If you don't want to monkeypatch, just massage the list to an appropriate string before the send. If you don't mind monkeypatching or inheriting, but want to keep the same method signature:
class ToBePatched
alias_method :__old_takes_a_string, :takes_a_string
#since the old method wanted only a string, check for a string and call the old method
# otherwise do your business with the map on things that respond to a map.
def takes_a_string( string_or_mappable )
return __old_takes_a_string( string_or_mappable ) if String === string_or_mappable
raise ArgumentError unless string_or_mappable.responds_to?( :map )
# do whatever you wish to do
end
end
Between those 3 types I'd do this
is_array = var.respond_to?(:to_h)
is_string = var.respond_to?(:each_char)
is_symbol = var.respond_to?(:to_proc)
Should give a unique answer for [], :sym, 'str'
I'm not entirely sure if this is possible in Ruby, but hopefully there's an easy way to do this. I want to declare a variable and later find out the name of the variable. That is, for this simple snippet:
foo = ["goo", "baz"]
How can I get the name of the array (here, "foo") back? If it is indeed possible, does this work on any variable (e.g., scalars, hashes, etc.)?
Edit: Here's what I'm basically trying to do. I'm writing a SOAP server that wraps around a class with three important variables, and the validation code is essentially this:
[foo, goo, bar].each { |param|
if param.class != Array
puts "param_name wasn't an Array. It was a/an #{param.class}"
return "Error: param_name wasn't an Array"
end
}
My question is then: Can I replace the instances of 'param_name' with foo, goo, or bar? These objects are all Arrays, so the answers I've received so far don't seem to work (with the exception of re-engineering the whole thing ala dbr's answer)
What if you turn your problem around? Instead of trying to get names from variables, get the variables from the names:
["foo", "goo", "bar"].each { |param_name|
param = eval(param_name)
if param.class != Array
puts "#{param_name} wasn't an Array. It was a/an #{param.class}"
return "Error: #{param_name} wasn't an Array"
end
}
If there were a chance of one the variables not being defined at all (as opposed to not being an array), you would want to add "rescue nil" to the end of the "param = ..." line to keep the eval from throwing an exception...
You need to re-architect your solution. Even if you could do it (you can't), the question simply doesn't have a reasonable answer.
Imagine a get_name method.
a = 1
get_name(a)
Everyone could probably agree this should return 'a'
b = a
get_name(b)
Should it return 'b', or 'a', or an array containing both?
[b,a].each do |arg|
get_name(arg)
end
Should it return 'arg', 'b', or 'a' ?
def do_stuff( arg )
get_name(arg)
do
do_stuff(b)
Should it return 'arg', 'b', or 'a', or maybe the array of all of them? Even if it did return an array, what would the order be and how would I know how to interpret the results?
The answer to all of the questions above is "It depends on the particular thing I want at the time." I'm not sure how you could solve that problem for Ruby.
It seems you are trying to solve a problem that has a far easier solution..
Why not just store the data in a hash? If you do..
data_container = {'foo' => ['goo', 'baz']}
..it is then utterly trivial to get the 'foo' name.
That said, you've not given any context to the problem, so there may be a reason you can't do this..
[edit] After clarification, I see the issue, but I don't think this is the problem.. With [foo, bar, bla], it's equivalent like saying ['content 1', 'content 2', 'etc']. The actual variables name is (or rather, should be) utterly irrelevant. If the name of the variable is important, that is exactly why hashes exist.
The problem isn't with iterating over [foo, bar] etc, it's the fundamental problem with how the SOAP server is returing the data, and/or how you're trying to use it.
The solution, I would say, is to either make the SOAP server return hashes, or, since you know there is always going to be three elements, can you not do something like..
{"foo" => foo, "goo" => goo, "bar"=>bar}.each do |param_name, param|
if param.class != Array
puts "#{param_name} wasn't an Array. It was a/an #{param.class}"
puts "Error: #{param_name} wasn't an Array"
end
end
OK, it DOES work in instance methods, too, and, based on your specific requirement (the one you put in the comment), you could do this:
local_variables.each do |var|
puts var if (eval(var).class != Fixnum)
end
Just replace Fixnum with your specific type checking.
I do not know of any way to get a local variable name. But, you can use the instance_variables method, this will return an array of all the instance variable names in the object.
Simple call:
object.instance_variables
or
self.instance_variables
to get an array of all instance variable names.
Building on joshmsmoore, something like this would probably do it:
# Returns the first instance variable whose value == x
# Returns nil if no name maps to the given value
def instance_variable_name_for(x)
self.instance_variables.find do |var|
x == self.instance_variable_get(var)
end
end
There's Kernel::local_variables, but I'm not sure that this will work for a method's local vars, and I don't know that you can manipulate it in such a way as to do what you wish to acheive.
Great question. I fully understand your motivation. Let me start by noting, that there are certain kinds of special objects, that, under certain circumstances, have knowledge of the variable, to which they have been assigned. These special objects are eg. Module instances, Class instances and Struct instances:
Dog = Class.new
Dog.name # Dog
The catch is, that this works only when the variable, to which the assignment is performed, is a constant. (We all know that Ruby constants are nothing more than emotionally sensitive variables.) Thus:
x = Module.new # creating an anonymous module
x.name #=> nil # the module does not know that it has been assigned to x
Animal = x # but will notice once we assign it to a constant
x.name #=> "Animal"
This behavior of objects being aware to which variables they have been assigned, is commonly called constant magic (because it is limited to constants). But this highly desirable constant magic only works for certain objects:
Rover = Dog.new
Rover.name #=> raises NoMethodError
Fortunately, I have written a gem y_support/name_magic, that takes care of this for you:
# first, gem install y_support
require 'y_support/name_magic'
class Cat
include NameMagic
end
The fact, that this only works with constants (ie. variables starting with a capital letter) is not such a big limitation. In fact, it gives you freedom to name or not to name your objects at will:
tmp = Cat.new # nameless kitty
tmp.name #=> nil
Josie = tmp # by assigning to a constant, we name the kitty Josie
tmp.name #=> :Josie
Unfortunately, this will not work with array literals, because they are internally constructed without using #new method, on which NameMagic relies. Therefore, to achieve what you want to, you will have to subclass Array:
require 'y_support/name_magic'
class MyArr < Array
include NameMagic
end
foo = MyArr.new ["goo", "baz"] # not named yet
foo.name #=> nil
Foo = foo # but assignment to a constant is noticed
foo.name #=> :Foo
# You can even list the instances
MyArr.instances #=> [["goo", "baz"]]
MyArr.instance_names #=> [:Foo]
# Get an instance by name:
MyArr.instance "Foo" #=> ["goo", "baz"]
MyArr.instance :Foo #=> ["goo", "baz"]
# Rename it:
Foo.name = "Quux"
Foo.name #=> :Quux
# Or forget the name again:
MyArr.forget :Quux
Foo.name #=> nil
# In addition, you can name the object upon creation even without assignment
u = MyArr.new [1, 2], name: :Pair
u.name #=> :Pair
v = MyArr.new [1, 2, 3], ɴ: :Trinity
v.name #=> :Trinity
I achieved the constant magic-imitating behavior by searching all the constants in all the namespaces of the current Ruby object space. This wastes a fraction of second, but since the search is performed only once, there is no performance penalty once the object figures out its name. In the future, Ruby core team has promised const_assigned hook.
You can't, you need to go back to the drawing board and re-engineer your solution.
Foo is only a location to hold a pointer to the data. The data has no knowledge of what points at it. In Smalltalk systems you could ask the VM for all pointers to an object, but that would only get you the object that contained the foo variable, not foo itself. There is no real way to reference a vaiable in Ruby. As mentioned by one answer you can stil place a tag in the data that references where it came from or such, but generally that is not a good apporach to most problems. You can use a hash to receive the values in the first place, or use a hash to pass to your loop so you know the argument name for validation purposes as in DBR's answer.
The closest thing to a real answer to you question is to use the Enumerable method each_with_index instead of each, thusly:
my_array = [foo, baz, bar]
my_array.each_with_index do |item, index|
if item.class != Array
puts "#{my_array[index]} wasn't an Array. It was a/an #{item.class}"
end
end
I removed the return statement from the block you were passing to each/each_with_index because it didn't do/mean anything. Each and each_with_index both return the array on which they were operating.
There's also something about scope in blocks worth noting here: if you've defined a variable outside of the block, it will be available within it. In other words, you could refer to foo, bar, and baz directly inside the block. The converse is not true: variables that you create for the first time inside the block will not be available outside of it.
Finally, the do/end syntax is preferred for multi-line blocks, but that's simply a matter of style, though it is universal in ruby code of any recent vintage.