With XPath, I know that you can use the union operator in the following way:
//*[#id="Catalog"]/thead | //*[#id="Catalog"]/tbody
This seems to be a little awkward to me though. Is there a way to do something similar to one of these instead?
//*[#id="Catalog"]/(thead|tbody)
//*[#id="Catalog"]/(thead or tbody)
//*[#id="Catalog"]/*[nodename="thead" or nodename="tbody"]
That seems a lot more readable and intuitive to me...
While the expression:
//*[#id="Catalog"]/*[name()="thead" or name()="tbody"]
is correct
This expression is more efficient:
//*[#id="Catalog"]/*[self::thead or self::tbody]
There is yet a third way to check if the name of an element is one of a specified sequence of strings:
//*[#id="Catalog"]/*[contains('|thead|tbody|',concat('|',name(),'|'))]
Using this last technique can be especially practical in case the number of possible names is very long (of unlimited and unknown length). The pipe-delimited string of possible names can even be passed as an external parameter to the transformation, which greatly increases its generality, re-usability and "DRY"-ness.
You are looking for the name() function:
//*[#id="Catalog"]/*[name()="thead" or name()="tbody"]
Note that with XPath 2.0 your attempt //*[#id="Catalog"]/(thead|tbody) is correct. That approach does not work however with XPath 1.0.
Yes you can use:
//*[#id="Catalog"]/[nodename='thead' or nodename='tbody']
EDIT:
Just re-read your original post and realised what you were asking. The above syntax wouldn't be correct for this situation. Not sure how to get the name of the node to use but nodename isn't right...
Related
I have this parameter as an array. The array is big, 100 cells. It is a parameter that can be initiated in omnet.ini file. The cells with even numbers should get value A and odd numbers should get value B. How can I do this in an automated manner?
Is there a way besides having all odd and even indices initiated one by one manually?
Wildcards can be useful but I do not know how to use them to separate odd and even indices.
Thanks.
You can access the actual module index with the index operator. Combining this with the conditional operator ?: you can easily define the value:
**.myModule[*].myParameter = index % 2 == 0 ? "A" : "B"
I'm not aware of any feature like this. There are a number of work-arounds you could use:
Provide two parameters and select the correct one in code
Use the volatile keyword (probably not appropriate here)
Put the entire thing in your .ini file
I'd personally implement the first approach, that way you can use the wildcard to pass both parameters ([*].myNode.parameterEven and [*].myNode.parameterUneven) and then set the correct values in your array in a for loop.
However, you could also use the volatile keyword in your NED file, see the manual for more details. However, this approach mostly works well if you have different parameters depending on which node you are assigning it to. For this case I think the first approach is better.
The last alternative is just putting the entire thing in your .ini file, which may be useful if you want to parameterize the array later.
What is the name of the method corresponding to the ternary operator? By name I mean :+ for addition, :== for equality, etc.
I want to override the ternary operator to build a proxy class (same idea as Javascript proxies) but I can't seem to find the name for this.
There are two names that this is known by, if you are talking about the ? : operator, and that is ternary operator or conditional operator.
But it is not a method, as you can see in this table.
You would need to go to Ruby Source itself to override the behavior. Probably not what you would want to do.
I'm pretty sure it's just known as the ternary operator. Usually people know what you mean when you say that, and I've never heard or seen another name, even during research.
If you mean symbol, I'd call it:
?:
(Question mark, Colon)
I have a function that manipulates a string; however, sometimes my input isn't already a string. For example it could be a path object. I need to convert it to a string because I want to call methods like .gsub.
My question seems a bit simple, but I'm debating on the best approach for converting the object to a string.
I currently have two options:
str = str.to_s unless str.is_a? String
or
str = str.to_s
The second method is much simpler, but the first method actually describes what's going on. I'm wondering which of these two methods is better to use or if there's a better approach I haven't thought of?
I would prefer the second one.
I'd prefer the parameter/variable wasn't named str if it isn't a string.
Naming it str implies string, but then the code looks silly, and is harder to reason about.
I prefer second one. It is shorter, simplier and also describes what you want (any programmer will understand what will heppen). Also there is no notable difference in perfomance.
Go for the second approach without hesitation.
The first one is convoluted and doesn't really add any meaning.
Not sure if this is possible but can I call a method from an irb shell with spaces between parameters rather than commas (don't ask) ? Lets say I have a method
def start_band(member1, member2, member3, member4)
#do something
end
And then I call it like the following:
irb>> start_band "John" "Paul" "George" "Ringo"
EDIT: Would it be possible to detect every keypress instead?
No, you can't do that. Not with strings anyway.
No.
You could use something like treetop to write a really simple DSL, or just play monkey-parsing games, but that won't solve your exact question.
The other obvious answer is this, which also fails:
irb>> start_band %W(John Paul George Ringo)
Creating an irb-like CLI isn't difficult, and may be adequate, depending on what your actual requirements are.
There is actually a very easy way to get rid of the commas. You can even get rid of the quotes, too:
def start_band(members)
#members is an array
end
start_band %w(John Paul George Ringo)
The limitation is that you can't use spaces inside your strings, and you still need start-end terminations (can use other characters instead of parenthesis though).
Durr! I really approached this the wrong way. I simply needed to run
#members = gets
to allow the input as required. Thanks for the responses nonetheless.
A Ruby dev I know asked this; my answer is below... Are there other, better reasons?
Why do so many Ruby programmers do
"#{string}"
rather than
string
since the second form is simpler and more efficient?
Is this a common idiom for Ruby developers? I don't see it that much.
Smaller changes when you later need to do more than simply get the value of the string, but also prepend/append to it at the point of use seems to be the best motivation I can find for that idiom.
There is only one case where this is a recommended idiom :
fname = 'john'
lname = 'doe'
name = "#{fname} #{lname}"
The code above is more efficient than :
name = fname + ' ' + lname
or
name = [fname, lname].join(' ')
What's the broader context of some of the usages? The only thing I can come up with beyond what's already been mentioned is as a loose attempt at type safety; that is, you may receive anything as an argument, and this could ensure that whatever you pass in walks like a duck..or, well, a string (though string.to_s would arguably be clearer).
In general though, this is probably a code smell that someone along the way thought was Best Practices.
I use this kind of code, so that I can pass nil as string and it still will work on a string, rather than seeing some exceptions flying:
def short(string = nil)
"#{string}"[0..7]
end
And it's easier/faster to append some debug code, if it's already in quotes.
So in short: It's more convenient.
Interesting answers, everyone. I'm the developer who asked the original question. To give some more context, I see this occasionally at my current job, and also sometimes in sample code on the Rails list, with variables that are known in advance to contain strings. I could sort of understand it as a substitute for to_s, but I don't think that's what's going on here; I think people just forget that you don't need the interpolation syntax if you're just passing a string variable.
If anyone tried to tell me this was a best practice, I'd run away at top speed.
maybe it is easy way to convert any to string? Because it is the same as call to_s method. But it is quite strange way :).
a = [1,2,3]
"#{a}"
#=> "123"
a.to_s
#=> "123"
I could image this being useful in cases where the object being interpolated is not always a String, as the interpolation implicitly calls #to_s:
"#{'bla'}" => "bla"
"#{%r([a-z])}" => "(?-mix:[a-z])"
"#{{:bla => :blub}}" => "blablub"
May make sense when logging something, where you don't care so much about the output format, but never want an error because of a wrong argument type.