When programming in Ruby I quite often have assignments like the following
test = some_function if some_function
With that assignments I want to assign the output of a function, but if it returns nil I want to keep the content of the variable. I know there are conditional assignments, but neither ||= nor &&= can be used here. The shortest way I found to describe the statement above is
test = (some_function or test)
Is there a better / shorter way to do this?
I don't think there's anything better than the last snippet you showed but note that or is used for flow control, use || instead:
test = some_function || test
It's usually better to assign new values to new names, the resulting code is easier to understand and debug since variables/symbols have the same value throughout the scope:
some_different_and_descriptive_name_here = some_function || test
I'd just add parentheses
(a = b) unless b.nil?
(a = b) if b
being inferior because if b is false then a remains as before
Keep in mind that this evaluates b twice, so if b is a function with side-effects (such as changing variables outside of its scope or printing) it will do that twice; to avoid this you must use
temp = b; (a = temp) unless temp.nil?
(which can, of course, be split into)
temp = b
(a = temp) unless temp.nil?
Related
I am looking for a concise way to deal with the following situation: Given a variable (in practince, an instance variable in a class, though I don't think this matters here), which is known to be either nil or hold some Integer. If it is an Integer, the variable should be incremented. If it is nil, it should be initialized with 1.
These are obvious solutions to this, taking #counter as the variable to deal with:
# Separate the cases into two statements
#counter ||= 0
#counter += 1
or
# Separate the cases into one conditional
#counter = #counter ? (#counter + 1) : 1
I don't like these solutions because they require to repeat the name of the variable. The following attempt failed:
# Does not work
(#counter ||= 0) += 1
This can't be done, because the result of the assignment operators is not an lvalue, though the actual error message is a bit obscure. In this case, you get the error _unexpected tOP_ASGN, expecting end_.
Is there a good idiom to code my problem, or do I have to stick with one of my clumsy solutions?
The question is clear:
A variable is known to hold nil or an integer. If nil the variable is to be set equal to 1, else it is to be set equal to its value plus 1.
What is the best way to implement this in Ruby?
First, two points.
The question states, "If it is nil, it should be initialized with 1.". This contradicts the statement that the variable is known to be nil or an integer, meaning that it has already been initialized, or more accurately, defined. In the case of an instance variable, this distinction is irrelevant as Ruby initializes undefined instance variables to nil when they are referenced as rvalues. It's an important distinction for local variables, however, as an exception is raised when an undefined local variable is referenced as an rvalue.
The comments largely address situations where the variable holds an object other than nil or an integer. They are therefore irrelevant. If the OP wishes to broaden the question to allow the variable to hold objects other than nil or an integer (an array or hash, for example), a separate question should be asked.
What criteria should be used in deciding what code is best? Of the various possibilities that have been mentioned, I do not see important differences in efficiency. Assuming that to be the case, or that relative efficiency is not important in the application, we are left with readability (and by extension, maintainability) as the sole criterion. If x equals nil or an integer, or is an undefined instance variable, perhaps the clearest code is the following:
x = 0 if x.nil?
x += 1
or
x = x.nil? ? 1 : x+1
Ever-so-slightly less readable:
x = (x || 0) + 1
and one step behind that:
x = x.to_i + 1
which requires the reader to know that nil.to_i #=> 0.
The OP may regard these solutions as "clumsy", but I think they are all beautiful.
Can an expression be written that references x but once? I can't think of a way and one has not been suggested in the comments, so if there is a way (doubtful, I believe) it probably would not meet the test for readability.
Consider now the case where the local variable x may not have been defined. In that case we might write:
x = (defined?(x) ? (x || 0) : 0) + 1
defined? is a Ruby keyword.
I'm trying to set a value to a variable inside a function in Enum.each, but at the end of loop, variable is empty and I don't know exactly why this behaviour.
Code:
base = "master"
candidates = ["stream", "pigeons", "maters"]
return = []
Enum.each(candidates, fn candidate ->
cond do
String.length(base) == String.length(candidate) ->
return = return ++ [candidate]
true ->
true
end
end)
IO.inspect return
At this example, return is expected to be ["stream", "maters"], but instead, it is only an empty list: []
My question is why this happens.
When dealing with languages like Elixir, it is better to think in terms of "values" and "names" instead of "variables".
The reason you cannot do what you want is that Elixir has "lexical scoping".
When you assign to a "variable", you create a new value in the inner scope. You never change the "value" of a "name" defined in the outer scope.
(you probably can get what you want with Enum.filter/2, but I'm guessing this is just an illustrative example)
EDIT:
As of today, Elixir will allow you to write something like this:
if condition_that_evals_to_false do
x = 1
else
x = 2
end
IO.inspect x # => 2
```
But this will be deprecated in Elixir 1.3
Any reason why you don't just filter?
Anyways it seems like you're trying to mutate the value of return which is not possible with Elixir.
base = "master"
candidates = ["stream", "pigeon", "maters"]
result = Enum.filter(candidates, fn(candidate) ->
length(candidate) == length(base)
end
IO.inspect result
Edit: I'd also like to add that based on your logic, all of the candidates would be returned
Not sure, since I've never worked with the language, but a couple things spring to mind:
String.length(base) == String.length(candidate) can be equivalent to true, which is already a pattern in your set.
It could also be a scope issue with the return variable. It could be that the local return is hiding the global return. You could check this by outputting return every iteration. Each iteration the return should contain a single entry.
This is a bug. From Elixir's documentation:
Note: due to a bug in the 0.12.x series, cond‘s conditions actually
leak bindings to the surrounding scope. This should be fixed in
0.13.1.
You should use filtering like #{Christopher Yammine} suggested.
def success?
return #fhosts.empty? and #khosts.empty? and #shosts.any?
end
When I run that instance method, I get an error:
/home/fandingo/code/management/lib/ht.rb:37: void value expression
return #fhosts.empty? and #khosts.empty? and #shosts.any?
I'm confused by what's happening since this works
def success?
#fhosts.empty? and #khosts.empty? and #shosts.any?
# This also works
# r = #fhosts.empty? and #khosts.empty? and #shosts.any?
# return r
end
I'm coming from a Python background, and I don't want anything to do with implicit returns. Programming has plenty of landmines as it is.
If we have an arbitrary expression, E, that consists of boolean operations and and or together, here are some operations we could perform:
if E -- works
E -- works
* v = E -- works
return E -- broken
Why doesn't the last case work?
Edit: Actually v = E doesn't work. Only
v = Ei
is evaluated. Ei+1...k are ignored.
This is likely due to the very weak binding of and which causes it to parse out differently than you expect:
return x and y
This actually means:
(return x) and y
Since you're returning immediately it doesn't have a chance to evaluate the remainder of the expression.
Your version without return is correct:
x and y
This doesn't have a binding issue and is more idiomatic Ruby. Remember you only need to put an explicit return if you're trying to force an exit before the last line of the method. Being opposed to implicit returns is going to make your code look heavily non-Ruby. They're one of the reasons Ruby is so clean and simple, and how things like a.map { |v| v * 2 } works.
The When in Rome principle applies here. If you want to write Python-style Ruby you're going to be going against the grain. It's like saying "I don't like how you say X in your spoken language, so I'll just ignore that and do it my way."
This should also work:
return x && y
The && method is very strongly bound so return is the last thing evaluated here.
Or if you really want to use and for whatever reason:
return (x and y)
I have a function that takes a variable amount of ints as arguments.
thisFunction(1,1,1,2,2,2,2,3,4,4,7,4,2)
this function was given in a framework and I'd rather not change the code of the function or the .lua it is from. So I want a function that repeats a number for me a certain amount of times so this is less repetitive. Something that could work like this and achieve what was done above
thisFunction(repeatNum(1,3),repeatNum(2,4),3,repeatNum(4,2),7,4,2)
is this possible in Lua? I'm even comfortable with something like this:
thisFunction(repeatNum(1,3,2,4,3,1,4,2,7,1,4,1,2,1))
I think you're stuck with something along the lines of your second proposed solution, i.e.
thisFunction(repeatNum(1,3,2,4,3,1,4,2,7,1,4,1,2,1))
because if you use a function that returns multiple values in the middle of a list, it's adjusted so that it only returns one value. However, at the end of a list, the function does not have its return values adjusted.
You can code repeatNum as follows. It's not optimized and there's no error-checking. This works in Lua 5.1. If you're using 5.2, you'll need to make adjustments.
function repeatNum(...)
local results = {}
local n = #{...}
for i = 1,n,2 do
local val = select(i, ...)
local reps = select(i+1, ...)
for j = 1,reps do
table.insert(results, val)
end
end
return unpack(results)
end
I don't have 5.2 installed on this computer, but I believe the only change you need is to replace unpack with table.unpack.
I realise this question has been answered, but I wondered from a readability point of view if using tables to mark the repeats would be clearer, of course it's probably far less efficient.
function repeatnum(...)
local i = 0
local t = {...}
local tblO = {}
for j,v in ipairs(t) do
if type(v) == 'table' then
for k = 1,v[2] do
i = i + 1
tblO[i] = v[1]
end
else
i = i + 1
tblO[i] = v
end
end
return unpack(tblO)
end
print(repeatnum({1,3},{2,4},3,{4,2},7,4,2))
I'm working on a project. Currently I have a fairly large conditional statement, that assigns a value to a variable based on some input parameters. So, I have something like this.
if some condition
x = some value
elsif another condition
x = a different value
...
What's the best way to refactor this? I'm hoping that I might end up with something like
x = some value if some condition || another value if another condition
Is there a pattern for this sort of thing?
Just put the assignment outside the if.
x = if some condition
some value
elsif another condition
a different value
Or you could use a Hash.
x = dict[some condition]
It's not a pattern, but an operator. The one you're referring to is the ternary operator:
If Condition is true ? Then value X : Otherwise value Y
Here is an example:
speed = 90
speed > 55 ? puts("I can't drive 55!") : puts("I'm a careful driver")
Using the ternary statement is short, sweet, and does the job.
x = some condition ? some value :
another condition ? a different value : ...
A conditional statement is also an expression, so one of the first things you can do, if the variable is the same in each condition, is:
x = if cond1
expr1
elsif cond2
expr2
....
end
If the conditions are all states of a single expression, you can make this even neater, using a case statement.
However, the next most obvious re-factoring exercise is to get the big conditional isolated into a method, which should be fed the bare minimum data required to evaluate all the conditions and expressions.
E.g.
# Where conditional is currently, and x assigned, assuming the conditionals
# need a couple of variables . . .
x = foo param1, param2
# Elsewhere
private
def foo p1, p2
if cond1
expr1
elsif cond2
expr2
....
end
end
If you want to refactor for code clarity and flexibility, consider the replacing conditional with polymorphism refactor.
There's not enough detail in your question to go much further with recommendations, but this refactor will make your code base much more resistant to change. If you receive a new requirement, it's bad form to break open the conditional and modify it (more prone to introducing bugs, more difficult to do); it's preferable to create a new object that you can plug into the existing codebase. This flexibility what the Open/Closed Principle (the "O" in the SOLID acronym) describes.