This question already has answers here:
What does ||= (or-equals) mean in Ruby?
(23 answers)
What does the "||=" operand stand for in ruby [duplicate]
(1 answer)
Closed 9 years ago.
I am new to Ruby.
What is the difference between || and ||=?
>> a = 6 || 4
=> 6
>> a ||= 6
=> 6
Sounds like they are the same.
||= will set the left-hand value to the right hand value only if the left-hand value is falsey.
In this case, both 6 and 4 are truthy, so a = 6 || 4 will set a to the first truthy value, which is 6.
a ||= 6 will set a to 6 only if a is falsey. That is, if it's nil or false.
a = nil
a ||= 6
a ||= 4
a # => 6
x ||= y means assigning y to x if x is null or undefined or false ; it is a shortcut to x = y unless x.
With Ruby short-circuit operator || the right operand is not evaluated if the left operand is truthy.
Now some quick examples on my above lines on ||= :
when x is undefined and n is nil:
with unless
y = 2
x = y unless x
x # => 2
n = nil
m = 2
n = m unless n
m # => 2
with =||
y = 2
x ||= y
x # => 2
n = nil
m = 2
n ||= m
m # => 2
a ||= 6 only assigns 6 if it wasn't already assigned. ( actually, falsey, as Chris said)
a = 4
a ||= 6
=> 4
a = 4 || 6
=> 4
You can expand a ||= 6 as
a || a = 6
So you can see that it use a if a is not nil or false, otherwise it will assign value to a and return that value. This is commonly used for memoization of values.
Update
Thanks to the first comment for pointing out the true expansion of the ||= (or equal) operator. I learned something new and found this interesting post that talks about it. http://dablog.rubypal.com/2008/3/25/a-short-circuit-edge-case
Both expressions a = 6 || 4 and a ||= 6 return the same result but the difference is that ||= assigns value to variable if this variable is nil or false.
Related
I have been attempting the test below on codewars. I am relatively new to coding and will look for more appropriate solutions as well as asking you for feedback on my code. I have written the solution at the bottom and for the life of me cannot understand what is missing as the resultant figure is always 0. I'd very much appreciate feedback on my code for the problem and not just giving your best solution to the problem. Although both would be much appreciated. Thank you in advance!
The test posed is:
If we list all the natural numbers below 10 that are multiples of 3 or
5, we get 3, 5, 6 and 9. The sum of these multiples is 23.
Finish the solution so that it returns the sum of all the multiples of
3 or 5 below the number passed in. Additionally, if the number is
negative, return 0 (for languages that do have them).
Note: If the number is a multiple of both 3 and 5, only count it once.
My code is as follows:
def solution(number)
array = [1..number]
multiples = []
if number < 0
return 0
else
array.each { |x|
if x % 3 == 0 || x % 5 == 0
multiples << x
end
}
end
return multiples.sum
end
In a situation like this, when something in your code produces an unexpected result you should debug it, meaning, run it line by line with the same argument and see what each variable holds. Using some kind of interactive console for running code (like irb) is very helpfull.
Moving to your example, let's start from the beginning:
number = 10
array = [1..number]
puts array.size # => 1 - wait what?
puts array[0].class # => Range
As you can see the array variable doesn't contain numbers but rather a Range object. After you finish filtering the array the result is an empty array that sums to 0.
Regardless of that, Ruby has a lot of built-in methods that can help you accomplish the same problem typing fewer words, for example:
multiples_of_3_and_5 = array.select { |number| number % 3 == 0 || number % 5 == 0 }
When writing a multiline block of code, prefer the do, end syntax, for example:
array.each do |x|
if x % 3 == 0 || x % 5 == 0
multiples << x
end
end
I'm not suggesting that this is the best approach per se, but using your specific code, you could fix the MAIN problem by editing the first line of your code in one of 2 ways:
By either converting your range to an array. Something like this would do the trick:
array = (1..number).to_a
or by just using a range INSTEAD of an array like so:
range = 1..number
The latter solution inserted into your code might look like this:
number = 17
range = 1..number
multiples = []
if number < 0
return 0
else range.each{|x|
if x % 3 == 0 || x % 5 == 0
multiples << x
end
}
end
multiples.sum
#=> 60
The statement return followed by end suggests that you were writing a method, but the def statement is missing. I believe that should be
def tot_sum(number, array)
multiples = []
if number < 0
return 0
else array.each{|x|
if x % 3 == 0 || x % 5 == 0
multiples << x
end
}
end
return multiples.sum
end
As you point out, however, this double-counts numbers that are multiples of 15.
Let me suggest a more efficient way of writing that. First consider the sum of numbers that are multiples of 3 that do not exceed a given number n.
Suppose
n = 3
m = 16
then the total of numbers that are multiples of three that do not exceed 16 can be computed as follows:
3 * 1 + 3 * 2 + 3 * 3 + 3 * 4 + 3 * 5
= 3 * (1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5)
= 3 * 5 * (1 + 5)/2
= 45
This makes use of the fact that 5 * (1 + 5)/2 equals the sum of an algebraic series: (1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5).
We may write a helper method to compute this sum for any number n, with m being the number that multiples of n cannot exceed:
def tot_sum(n, m)
p = m/n
n * p * (1 + p)/2
end
For example,
tot_sum(3, 16)
#=> 45
We may now write a method that gives the desired result (remembering that we need to account for the fact that multiples of 15 are multiples of both 3 and 5):
def tot(m)
tot_sum(3, m) + tot_sum(5, m) - tot_sum(15, m)
end
tot( 9) #=> 23
tot( 16) #=> 60
tot(9999) #=> 23331668
My question was triggered by this discussion on SO, which did not lead to an answer that would really explain the issue. I am "rewriting" it here in a slightly different way, because I want to make it more clear what the real problem is and therefore hope to get an answer here.
Consider the following two Ruby expressions:
1 * a - 3
1 && a = 3
From the Ruby precedence table, we know that of the operators mentioned here, * has the highest precedence, followed by -, then by && and finally by =.
The expressions don't have parenthesis, but - as we can verify in irb, providing a suitable value for a in the first case - they are evaluated as if the bracketing were written as (1*a) - 3, respectively 1 && (a=3).
The first one is easy to understand, since * binds stronger than -.
The second one can't be explained in this way. && binds stronger than =, so if precedence only would matter, the interpretation should be (1 && a) = 3.
Associativity (= is right-associative and - is left-associative) can't explain the effect either, because associativity is only important if we have several operators of the same kind (such as x-y-z or x=y=z).
There must be some special rule in the assignment operator, which I did not find in the docs I checked in particular the docs for assignment and syntax.
Could someone point out, where this special behaviour of the assignment operator is documented? Or did I miss / misunderstand something here?
From the doc: https://ruby-doc.org/docs/ruby-doc-bundle/Manual/man-1.4/syntax.html#assign
Assignment expression are used to assign objects to the variables or such. Assignments sometimes work as declarations for local variables or class constants. The left hand side of the assignment expressions can be either:
variables
variables `=' expression
On the right there is an expression, so the result of the expression is assigned to the variable.
So, you should look for expressions (*) before following the precedence.
1 && a = 3 are basically two "chained" expressions:
3 and 1 && 3
Maybe it is more readable as:
1 && a = 3 + 4 where the expressions are 3 + 4 and 1 && 7, see:
1 && a = 3 + 4 #=> 7
1 && 7 #=> 7
res = 1 && a = 3 + 4
res #=> 7
(*) The precedence table also helps to find the expression (Find the precedence table in the linked doc at the Operator expressions paragraph):
What's above the = in the table "forms" an expression to be assigned by =, what's below does not.
For example:
1 + 3 and 2 + 4 #=> 4
a = 1 + 3 and b = 2 + 4 #=> 4
(a = 1 + 3) and (b = 2 + 4) #=> 4
a = (1 + 3 and b = 2 + 4) #=> 6
You can also check these examples respect to the precedence table:
1 && 3 #=> 3
1 && a = 3 #=> 3
a #=> 3
3 and 1 #=> 3
3 and b = 1 #=> 3
b #=> 1
2 ** c = 2 + 1 #=> 8
c #=> 3
d = 2 ** 3
d #=> 8
e = 3
e **= 2
e #=> 9
I think the understanding of 1 && (a = 3) is, understandably, mislead.
a = false
b = 1
b && a = 3
b
=> 1
a
=> 3
Why is a being assigned to in the && expression when a is false? Should the && expression not return when encountering a false value? Spoiler, it does return!
Taking a step back, we think of the purpose of the && operator to control the flow of logic. Our disposition to the statement
1 && a = 3
is to assume the entire statement is returned if a is nil or false. Well no, the interpreter is evaluating like so:
(1 && a) = 3
The interpreter does not raise a if it is nil or false nor does it return the left side if a is nil or false
a = nil
1 && a
=> nil # a was returned
The interpreter returns the variable, this is why the original statement can be read:
a = 3
due to 1 && a returning a which is a variable that can be assigned to by the = operand on the second half of the statement.
TLDR
In your origin example: 1 is neither nil nor false so the variable a is returned in (1 && a) which is subsequently assigned in a = 3
Probably because the other interpretation does not work:
irb(main):003:0> (1 && a) = 3
Traceback (most recent call last):
3: from /home/w/.rbenv/versions/2.7/bin/irb:23:in `<main>'
2: from /home/w/.rbenv/versions/2.7/bin/irb:23:in `load'
1: from /home/w/.rbenv/versions/2.7.1/lib/ruby/gems/2.7.0/gems/irb-1.2.3/exe/irb:11:in `<top (required)>'
SyntaxError ((irb):3: syntax error, unexpected '=', expecting `end')
(1 && a) = 3
^
So, perhaps Ruby parenthesizes 1 && a = 3 in the only way that is legally interpretable by the language.
x = 16
while x != 1 do
if x % 2 == 0
x = x / 2
print "#{x} "
end
break if x < 0
end
Hi, the result I get from above is 8 4 2 1 . Is there any way to remove the space at the end?
One of Rubys main features is its beauty - you can shorten that loop to a nice one liner when using an array:
x = 16
arr = []
arr.push(x /= 2) while x.even?
puts arr.join(' ')
# => "8 4 2 1"
* As sagarpandya82 suggested x.even? is the same as using x % 2 == 0, leading to even more readable code
Don't print the values into the loop. Put them into a list (array) then, after the loop, join the array items using space as glue.
x = 16
a = []
while x != 1 do
if x % 2 == 0
x = x / 2
a << x
end
break if x < 0
end
puts '<' + a.join(' ') + '>'
The output is:
<8 4 2 1>
As #Bathsheba notes in a comment, this solution uses extra memory (the array) to store the values and also the call to Array#join generates a string that doubles the memory requirements. This is not an issue for small lists as the one in the question but needs to be considered the list becomes very large.
loop.reduce([[], 16]) do |(acc, val), _|
break acc if val <= 1
acc << val / 2 if val.even?
[acc, val / 2]
end.join ' '
if x != 0
print " "
end
is one way, having dropped the suffixed space from the other print. I/O will always be the performance bottleneck; an extra if will have a negligible effect on performance, and the extra print will merely contribute to the output stream which is normally buffered.
How can this be achieved in Ruby? Can it be done without repeating the variable?
Javascript:
b = a || 7
This assigns a if a is not 0 and 7 otherwise
One specific case is converting date.wday to 7 if it returns 0 (Sunday).
Just out of curiosity:
class Object
def javascript_or?(other)
(is_a?(FalseClass) || nil? || '' == self || 0 == self) ? nil : self
end
end
and:
a = b.javascript_or?(7)
There are only two falsy values in Ruby: nil and false. So, if you really want this approach
a = b == 0 ? 7 : b
is a plausible solution, because 0 can't be evaluated as false.
However, a better option for your need is cwday, and not wday. Then you don't need to make this comparison anymore, because it returns 1 for Monday, 2 for Tuesday, and finally 7 for Sunday, as you need.
date = Date.new(2016,19,6) # => Jun 19 2016, Sunday
date.cwday # => 7
For the particular case of 0 and 7:
a = (b + 6) % 7 + 1
:)
You can use ternary operator:
date.wday == 0 ? 7 : date.wday
What you're describing here is less of a logical problem and more of a mapping one:
WEEKDAY_MAP = Hash.new { |h,k| h[k] = k < 7 ? k : nil }.merge(0 => 7)
This one re-writes 1..6 to be the same, but 0 becomes 7. All other values are nil.
Then you can use this to re-write your day indicies:
b = WEEKDAY_MAP[a]
If at some point you want to tinker with the logic some more, that's also possible.
For some reason I'm getting the error undefined method '%' for 1..100:Range when I run the following code:
[1..100].each do |x|
if x % 3 == 0 && x % 5 == 0
puts "CracklePop"
elsif x % 3 == 0
puts "Crackle"
elsif x % 5 == 0
puts "Pop"
else
puts x
end
end
Any idea what's going on? Any help is much appreciated.
That's the wrong syntax for ranges.
You've made an array with 1 element, and that element is itself the range 1..100. What you've written is equivalent to [(1.100)]. You're iterating over the outer array one time, and setting x to (1..100)
You want (1..100).each, which invokes each on the range, not on an array containing the range.
By doing [1..100] you are not looping from 1 to 100 but on 1..100, which is a Range object, what you really want to do is:-
(1..100).step do |x|
if x % 3 == 0 && x % 5 == 0
puts "CracklePop"
elsif x % 3 == 0
puts "Crackle"
elsif x % 5 == 0
puts "Pop"
else
puts x
end
end
Basically, Range represents an interval, you can iterate over Range as explained here, create an array from Range as explained here and more details on range can be found here.
Just as it says. 1..100 does not have a method %. The expression (1..100) % 3 is undefined.