Lazy-evaluation of a "#{}"-string in ruby - ruby

I started to put print-statements throughout my code. So as not to clutter up the output, I did something like:
dputs LEVEL, "string"
where LEVEL is 0 for errors, 1 for important .. 5 for verbose and is compared to DEBUG_LEVEL. Now my problem is, that in a statement like:
dputs 5, "#{big_class.inspect}"
the string is always evaluated, also if I set DEBUG_LEVEL to 1. And this evaluation can take a long time. My favourite solution would be something like:
dputs 5, '#{big_class.inspect}'
and then evaluate the string if desired. But I don't manage to get the string in a form I can evaluate. So the only think I could come up with is:
dputs( 5 ){ "#{big_class.inspect}" }
but this looks just ugly. So how can I evaluate a '#{}' string?

You could do this by having dputs use sprintf (via %). That way it can decide not to build the interpolated string unless it knows it's going to print it:
def dputs(level, format_str, *vars)
puts(format_str % vars) if level <= LEVEL
end
LEVEL = 5
name = 'Andrew'
dputs 5, 'hello %s', name
#=> hello Andrew
Or, as you suggest, you can pass a block which would defer the interpolation till the block actually runs:
def dputs(level, &string)
raise ArgumentError.new('block required') unless block_given?
puts string.call if level <= LEVEL
end

I think it's of no value whatsoever, but I just came up with:
2.3.1 :001 > s = '#{a}'
=> "\#{a}"
2.3.1 :002 > a = 1
=> 1
2.3.1 :003 > instance_eval s.inspect.gsub('\\', '')
=> "1"
2.3.1 :004 > s = 'Hello #{a} and #{a+1}!'
=> "Hello \#{a} and \#{a+1}!"
2.3.1 :005 > instance_eval s.inspect.gsub('\\', '')
=> "Hello 1 and 2!"
Don't use that in production :)

I don't think you can dodge the ugly there. The interpolation happens before the call to dputs unless you put it inside a block, which postpones it until dputs evaluates it. I don't know where dputs comes from, so I'm not sure what its semantics are, but my guess is the block would get you the lazy evaluation you want. Not pretty, but it does the job.

OK, obviously I was just too lazy. I thought there must be a more clean way to do this, Ruby being the best programming language and all ;) To evaluate a string like
a = '#{1+1} some text #{big_class.inspect}'
only when needed, I didn't find a better way than going through the string and eval all "#{}" encountered:
str = ""
"#{b}\#{}".scan( /(.*?)(#\{[^\}]*\})/ ){
str += $1
str += eval( $2[2..-2] ).to_s
}
if you're not into clarity, you can get rid of the temporary-variable str:
"#{b}\#{}".scan( /(.*?)(#\{[^\}]*\})/ ).collect{|c|
c[0] + eval( c[1][2..-2] ).to_s
}.join
The String.scan-method goes through every '#{}'-block, as there might be more than one, evaluating it (the 2..-2 cuts out the "#{" and "}") and putting it together with the rest of the string.
For the corner-case of the string not ending with a '#{}'-block, an empty block is added, just to be sure.
But well, after being some years in Ruby, this still feels clunky and C-ish. Perhaps it's time to learn a new language!

Related

Ruby - Converting Strings to CamelCase

I'm working on an exercise from Codewars. The exercise is to convert a string into camel case. For example, if I had
the-stealth-warrior
I need to convert it to
theStealthWarrior
Here is my code
def to_camel_case(str)
words = str.split('-')
a = words.first
b = words[1..words.length - 1].map{|x|x.capitalize}
new_array = []
new_array << a << b
return new_array.flatten.join('')
end
I just tested it out in IRB and it works, but in codewars, it won't let me pass. I get this error message.
NoMethodError: undefined method 'map' for nil:NilClass
I don't understand this, my method was definitely right.
You need to think about edge cases. In particular in this situation if the input was an empty string, then words would be [], and so words[1..words.length - 1] would be nil.
Codewars is probably testing your code with a range of inputs, including the emplty string (and likely other odd cases).
The following works in Ruby 2 for me, even if there's only one word in the input string:
def to_camel_case(str)
str.split('-').map.with_index{|x,i| i > 0 ? x.capitalize : x}.join
end
to_camel_case("the-stealth-warrior") # => "theStealthWarrior"
to_camel_case("warrior") # => "warrior"
I know .with_index exists in 1.9.3, but I can't promise it will work with earlier versions of Ruby.
A simpler way to change the text is :
irb(main):022:0> 'the-stealth-warrior'.gsub('-', '_').camelize
=> "TheStealthWarrior"
This should do the trick:
str.gsub("_","-").split('-').map.with_index{|x,i| i > 0 ? x.capitalize : x}.join
It accounts for words with underscores
Maybe there's a test case with only one word?
In that case, you'd be trying to do a map on words[1..0], which is nil.
Add logic to handle that case and you should be fine.

Ruby if statement multiline condition syntax?

Hi all new to ruby is this if statement valid syntax?
if (verify_login_id = Login.where(params[:email_address], "active" =>1).select('id')# => [#<Login id: 767>]
verify_admin_id = Admin.where("login_id" => verify_login_id.first.id).exists? #=> true)
puts "trueee"
else
raise(ActiveRecord::RecordNotFound.new("Authorization is required to access this endpoint!"))
end
Although setting variable values within an if statement is syntactically valid, it is very problematic.
It can be mistakenly read as a comparison rather than assignment, and in many cases it is a result of someone trying to make a comparison and confusing the equals predicate == with the assignment operator =. That's why a lot of IDEs today mark such code as a warning and a probable error.
In your code it also seems quite unneeded... Break it into two more readable lines:
verified_login = Login.where(params[:email_address], "active" =>1).select('id').first # => [#<Login id: 767>]
if verified_login && Admin.where("login_id" => verified_login.id).exists? #=> true
puts "trueee"
else
raise(ActiveRecord::RecordNotFound.new("Authorization is required to access this endpoint!"))
end
Some more observations - your assignment to verify_login_id is not an id, but a Login object, and your assignment to verify_admin_id is not an id either - but a boolean (and you are not using it anyway). This might seem besides the point - but it adds up to an unreadable and an unmaintainable code.
No it is not a valid code. In the second line, it contains an invalid #-comment that has removed a single ) from the code. (exact snip is #=>true) and should be ) #=>true)
I've removed the comments from the code, added the missing parenthesis and the parser seems to accept it. I couldn't run it of course. So, try this one, it might work:
if (verify_login_id = Login.where(params[:email_address], "active" =>1).select('id')
verify_admin_id = Admin.where("login_id" => verify_login_id.first.id).exists?)
puts "trueee"
else
raise(ActiveRecord::RecordNotFound.new("Authorization is required to access this endpoint!"))
end
Regarding multiline condition in the if - yes, it is possible. Sometimes directly, sometimes with a small trick. Try this:
if (1+2 >=
3)
puts "as"
end
It works (at least on Ruby 1.9.3). However, this will not:
if (1+2
>=
3)
puts "as"
end
This is because of some internal specific of how Ruby interpreter/compiler is designed. In the last example, to make it work, you need to inform Ruby that the line has not ended. The following example works:
if (1+2 \
>=
3)
puts "as"
end
Note the \ added at the end of problematic line

Using a different result for each instance of insertion in gsub

Say my program such was thus:
my_string = "I think we should implement <random_plan> instead of <random_plan>"
def generate_random_plan
#Some code that returns a string that is not the same every time the method is called, involving randomness.
end
puts my_string.gsub("<random_plan>", generate_random_plan)
So as I have written it, it would print something like "I think we should implement plan H instead of plan H". When what I really want is for gsub to call the method each time it performs a substitution, so I can end up with "I think we should implement plan D instead of plan Q". I have a sneaking suspicious the gsub method just isn't built for that and it can't be done, so could you suggest the easiest way to make this happen?
One basic principle in Ruby is "when in doubt, try a code block." In fact, gsub() accepts a code block in place of a string for its second parameter.
Here's an example that is something like what you're looking for:
'axbxcxdxe'.gsub( 'x' ) { rand(9) }
Try that code in irb and you'll get random digits for the x's:
a0b6c0d3e
The replacement code block is a powerful feature, especially because it receives the original matched string as a parameter. As a contrived example, suppose you wanted to convert only the vowels in a string to uppercase:
def vowelup( s )
s.gsub( /[aeiouy]/ ) { |c| c.upcase }
end
print vowelup( 'Stack Overflow' )
This prints:
StAck OvErflOw
JavaScript has essentially the same feature too:
function vowelup( s ) {
return s.replace( /[aeiouy]/g, function( c ) {
return c.toUpperCase();
});
}
console.log( vowelup('Stack Overflow') );
gsub accepts a block and, if given, calls it on each match. Return your random value from it.
my_string = "I think we should implement <random_plan> instead of <random_plan>"
def generate_random_plan s
plans = ('A'..'Z').to_a
s.gsub('<random_plan>') do
plans.sample # random plan
end
end
generate_random_plan my_string # => "I think we should implement A instead of J"
generate_random_plan my_string # => "I think we should implement Q instead of A"
generate_random_plan my_string # => "I think we should implement Z instead of H"

Type-indifferent comparison in Ruby

I'm sure this is a basic question in Ruby:
Is there a way to check if
a == b
even if a is an integer and b is a string? I realize that I can do
a.to_s == b.to_s
but I'd like to know if there's some other, better way.
I'm not sure that I understand the question. If I do understand it, I think you're trying to slip one by the interpreter:
telemachus ~ $ irb
irb(main):001:0> a = 1
=> 1
irb(main):002:0> b = '1'
=> "1"
irb(main):003:0> a == b
=> false
You can compare 1 and '1' all you like, but they aren't equal according to the way Ruby handles strings and numbers. In a nutshell, Ruby ain't Perl. (Edit: I should clarify. Clearly the number 1 is not the same thing as the string '1'. So it's not really a question of how Ruby handles them. If you compare them directly, they're just not the same. I just meant that Ruby doesn't do automatic conversions the way that Perl would. Depending on what language you come from and your attitude towards typing, this will make you happy or suprised or annoyed or some combination of these.)
What about something like:
class Object
def compare_as_strings(other)
return self.to_s == other.to_s
end
end
I hate extending something that fundamental, but this DOES work...
>> a = 1
=> 1
>> b = "1"
=> "1"
>> a.compare_as_strings(b)
=> true
I haven't run into one, and Rails gets tripped up by this regularly, so I suspect that there's no slick way to do it - you have to force the to_s.

Hidden features of Ruby

Locked. This question and its answers are locked because the question is off-topic but has historical significance. It is not currently accepting new answers or interactions.
Continuing the "Hidden features of ..." meme, let's share the lesser-known but useful features of Ruby programming language.
Try to limit this discussion with core Ruby, without any Ruby on Rails stuff.
See also:
Hidden features of C#
Hidden features of Java
Hidden features of JavaScript
Hidden features of Ruby on Rails
Hidden features of Python
(Please, just one hidden feature per answer.)
Thank you
From Ruby 1.9 Proc#=== is an alias to Proc#call, which means Proc objects can be used in case statements like so:
def multiple_of(factor)
Proc.new{|product| product.modulo(factor).zero?}
end
case number
when multiple_of(3)
puts "Multiple of 3"
when multiple_of(7)
puts "Multiple of 7"
end
Peter Cooper has a good list of Ruby tricks. Perhaps my favorite of his is allowing both single items and collections to be enumerated. (That is, treat a non-collection object as a collection containing just that object.) It looks like this:
[*items].each do |item|
# ...
end
Don't know how hidden this is, but I've found it useful when needing to make a Hash out of a one-dimensional array:
fruit = ["apple","red","banana","yellow"]
=> ["apple", "red", "banana", "yellow"]
Hash[*fruit]
=> {"apple"=>"red", "banana"=>"yellow"}
One trick I like is to use the splat (*) expander on objects other than Arrays. Here's an example on a regular expression match:
match, text, number = *"Something 981".match(/([A-z]*) ([0-9]*)/)
Other examples include:
a, b, c = *('A'..'Z')
Job = Struct.new(:name, :occupation)
tom = Job.new("Tom", "Developer")
name, occupation = *tom
Wow, no one mentioned the flip flop operator:
1.upto(100) do |i|
puts i if (i == 3)..(i == 15)
end
One of the cool things about ruby is that you can call methods and run code in places other languages would frown upon, such as in method or class definitions.
For instance, to create a class that has an unknown superclass until run time, i.e. is random, you could do the following:
class RandomSubclass < [Array, Hash, String, Fixnum, Float, TrueClass].sample
end
RandomSubclass.superclass # could output one of 6 different classes.
This uses the 1.9 Array#sample method (in 1.8.7-only, see Array#choice), and the example is pretty contrived but you can see the power here.
Another cool example is the ability to put default parameter values that are non fixed (like other languages often demand):
def do_something_at(something, at = Time.now)
# ...
end
Of course the problem with the first example is that it is evaluated at definition time, not call time. So, once a superclass has been chosen, it stays that superclass for the remainder of the program.
However, in the second example, each time you call do_something_at, the at variable will be the time that the method was called (well, very very close to it)
Another tiny feature - convert a Fixnum into any base up to 36:
>> 1234567890.to_s(2)
=> "1001001100101100000001011010010"
>> 1234567890.to_s(8)
=> "11145401322"
>> 1234567890.to_s(16)
=> "499602d2"
>> 1234567890.to_s(24)
=> "6b1230i"
>> 1234567890.to_s(36)
=> "kf12oi"
And as Huw Walters has commented, converting the other way is just as simple:
>> "kf12oi".to_i(36)
=> 1234567890
Hashes with default values! An array in this case.
parties = Hash.new {|hash, key| hash[key] = [] }
parties["Summer party"]
# => []
parties["Summer party"] << "Joe"
parties["Other party"] << "Jane"
Very useful in metaprogramming.
Another fun addition in 1.9 Proc functionality is Proc#curry which allows you to turn a Proc accepting n arguments into one accepting n-1. Here it is combined with the Proc#=== tip I mentioned above:
it_is_day_of_week = lambda{ |day_of_week, date| date.wday == day_of_week }
it_is_saturday = it_is_day_of_week.curry[6]
it_is_sunday = it_is_day_of_week.curry[0]
case Time.now
when it_is_saturday
puts "Saturday!"
when it_is_sunday
puts "Sunday!"
else
puts "Not the weekend"
end
Download Ruby 1.9 source, and issue make golf, then you can do things like this:
make golf
./goruby -e 'h'
# => Hello, world!
./goruby -e 'p St'
# => StandardError
./goruby -e 'p 1.tf'
# => 1.0
./goruby19 -e 'p Fil.exp(".")'
"/home/manveru/pkgbuilds/ruby-svn/src/trunk"
Read the golf_prelude.c for more neat things hiding away.
Boolean operators on non boolean values.
&& and ||
Both return the value of the last expression evaluated.
Which is why the ||= will update the variable with the value returned expression on the right side if the variable is undefined. This is not explicitly documented, but common knowledge.
However the &&= isn't quite so widely known about.
string &&= string + "suffix"
is equivalent to
if string
string = string + "suffix"
end
It's very handy for destructive operations that should not proceed if the variable is undefined.
The Symbol#to_proc function that Rails provides is really cool.
Instead of
Employee.collect { |emp| emp.name }
You can write:
Employee.collect(&:name)
One final one - in ruby you can use any character you want to delimit strings. Take the following code:
message = "My message"
contrived_example = "<div id=\"contrived\">#{message}</div>"
If you don't want to escape the double-quotes within the string, you can simply use a different delimiter:
contrived_example = %{<div id="contrived-example">#{message}</div>}
contrived_example = %[<div id="contrived-example">#{message}</div>]
As well as avoiding having to escape delimiters, you can use these delimiters for nicer multiline strings:
sql = %{
SELECT strings
FROM complicated_table
WHERE complicated_condition = '1'
}
Use a Range object as an infinite lazy list:
Inf = 1.0 / 0
(1..Inf).take(5) #=> [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
More info here: http://banisterfiend.wordpress.com/2009/10/02/wtf-infinite-ranges-in-ruby/
I find using the define_method command to dynamically generate methods to be quite interesting and not as well known. For example:
((0..9).each do |n|
define_method "press_#{n}" do
#number = #number.to_i * 10 + n
end
end
The above code uses the 'define_method' command to dynamically create the methods "press1" through "press9." Rather then typing all 10 methods which essentailly contain the same code, the define method command is used to generate these methods on the fly as needed.
module_function
Module methods that are declared as module_function will create copies of themselves as private instance methods in the class that includes the Module:
module M
def not!
'not!'
end
module_function :not!
end
class C
include M
def fun
not!
end
end
M.not! # => 'not!
C.new.fun # => 'not!'
C.new.not! # => NoMethodError: private method `not!' called for #<C:0x1261a00>
If you use module_function without any arguments, then any module methods that comes after the module_function statement will automatically become module_functions themselves.
module M
module_function
def not!
'not!'
end
def yea!
'yea!'
end
end
class C
include M
def fun
not! + ' ' + yea!
end
end
M.not! # => 'not!'
M.yea! # => 'yea!'
C.new.fun # => 'not! yea!'
Short inject, like such:
Sum of range:
(1..10).inject(:+)
=> 55
Warning: this item was voted #1 Most Horrendous Hack of 2008, so use with care. Actually, avoid it like the plague, but it is most certainly Hidden Ruby.
Superators Add New Operators to Ruby
Ever want a super-secret handshake operator for some unique operation in your code? Like playing code golf? Try operators like
-~+~-
or
<---
That last one is used in the examples for reversing the order of an item.
I have nothing to do with the Superators Project beyond admiring it.
I'm late to the party, but:
You can easily take two equal-length arrays and turn them into a hash with one array supplying the keys and the other the values:
a = [:x, :y, :z]
b = [123, 456, 789]
Hash[a.zip(b)]
# => { :x => 123, :y => 456, :z => 789 }
(This works because Array#zip "zips" up the values from the two arrays:
a.zip(b) # => [[:x, 123], [:y, 456], [:z, 789]]
And Hash[] can take just such an array. I've seen people do this as well:
Hash[*a.zip(b).flatten] # unnecessary!
Which yields the same result, but the splat and flatten are wholly unnecessary--perhaps they weren't in the past?)
Auto-vivifying hashes in Ruby
def cnh # silly name "create nested hash"
Hash.new {|h,k| h[k] = Hash.new(&h.default_proc)}
end
my_hash = cnh
my_hash[1][2][3] = 4
my_hash # => { 1 => { 2 => { 3 =>4 } } }
This can just be damn handy.
Destructuring an Array
(a, b), c, d = [ [:a, :b ], :c, [:d1, :d2] ]
Where:
a #=> :a
b #=> :b
c #=> :c
d #=> [:d1, :d2]
Using this technique we can use simple assignment to get the exact values we want out of nested array of any depth.
Class.new()
Create a new class at run time. The argument can be a class to derive from, and the block is the class body. You might also want to look at const_set/const_get/const_defined? to get your new class properly registered, so that inspect prints out a name instead of a number.
Not something you need every day, but quite handy when you do.
create an array of consecutive numbers:
x = [*0..5]
sets x to [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
A lot of the magic you see in Rubyland has to do with metaprogramming, which is simply writing code that writes code for you. Ruby's attr_accessor, attr_reader, and attr_writer are all simple metaprogramming, in that they create two methods in one line, following a standard pattern. Rails does a whole lot of metaprogramming with their relationship-management methods like has_one and belongs_to.
But it's pretty simple to create your own metaprogramming tricks using class_eval to execute dynamically-written code.
The following example allows a wrapper object to forwards certain methods along to an internal object:
class Wrapper
attr_accessor :internal
def self.forwards(*methods)
methods.each do |method|
define_method method do |*arguments, &block|
internal.send method, *arguments, &block
end
end
end
forwards :to_i, :length, :split
end
w = Wrapper.new
w.internal = "12 13 14"
w.to_i # => 12
w.length # => 8
w.split('1') # => ["", "2 ", "3 ", "4"]
The method Wrapper.forwards takes symbols for the names of methods and stores them in the methods array. Then, for each of those given, we use define_method to create a new method whose job it is to send the message along, including all arguments and blocks.
A great resource for metaprogramming issues is Why the Lucky Stiff's "Seeing Metaprogramming Clearly".
use anything that responds to ===(obj) for case comparisons:
case foo
when /baz/
do_something_with_the_string_matching_baz
when 12..15
do_something_with_the_integer_between_12_and_15
when lambda { |x| x % 5 == 0 }
# only works in Ruby 1.9 or if you alias Proc#call as Proc#===
do_something_with_the_integer_that_is_a_multiple_of_5
when Bar
do_something_with_the_instance_of_Bar
when some_object
do_something_with_the_thing_that_matches_some_object
end
Module (and thus Class), Regexp, Date, and many other classes define an instance method :===(other), and can all be used.
Thanks to Farrel for the reminder of Proc#call being aliased as Proc#=== in Ruby 1.9.
The "ruby" binary (at least MRI's) supports a lot of the switches that made perl one-liners quite popular.
Significant ones:
-n Sets up an outer loop with just "gets" - which magically works with given filename or STDIN, setting each read line in $_
-p Similar to -n but with an automatic puts at the end of each loop iteration
-a Automatic call to .split on each input line, stored in $F
-i In-place edit input files
-l Automatic call to .chomp on input
-e Execute a piece of code
-c Check source code
-w With warnings
Some examples:
# Print each line with its number:
ruby -ne 'print($., ": ", $_)' < /etc/irbrc
# Print each line reversed:
ruby -lne 'puts $_.reverse' < /etc/irbrc
# Print the second column from an input CSV (dumb - no balanced quote support etc):
ruby -F, -ane 'puts $F[1]' < /etc/irbrc
# Print lines that contain "eat"
ruby -ne 'puts $_ if /eat/i' < /etc/irbrc
# Same as above:
ruby -pe 'next unless /eat/i' < /etc/irbrc
# Pass-through (like cat, but with possible line-end munging):
ruby -p -e '' < /etc/irbrc
# Uppercase all input:
ruby -p -e '$_.upcase!' < /etc/irbrc
# Same as above, but actually write to the input file, and make a backup first with extension .bak - Notice that inplace edit REQUIRES input files, not an input STDIN:
ruby -i.bak -p -e '$_.upcase!' /etc/irbrc
Feel free to google "ruby one-liners" and "perl one-liners" for tons more usable and practical examples. It essentially allows you to use ruby as a fairly powerful replacement to awk and sed.
The send() method is a general-purpose method that can be used on any Class or Object in Ruby. If not overridden, send() accepts a string and calls the name of the method whose string it is passed. For example, if the user clicks the “Clr” button, the ‘press_clear’ string will be sent to the send() method and the ‘press_clear’ method will be called. The send() method allows for a fun and dynamic way to call functions in Ruby.
%w(7 8 9 / 4 5 6 * 1 2 3 - 0 Clr = +).each do |btn|
button btn, :width => 46, :height => 46 do
method = case btn
when /[0-9]/: 'press_'+btn
when 'Clr': 'press_clear'
when '=': 'press_equals'
when '+': 'press_add'
when '-': 'press_sub'
when '*': 'press_times'
when '/': 'press_div'
end
number.send(method)
number_field.replace strong(number)
end
end
I talk more about this feature in Blogging Shoes: The Simple-Calc Application
Fool some class or module telling it has required something that it really hasn't required:
$" << "something"
This is useful for example when requiring A that in turns requires B but we don't need B in our code (and A won't use it either through our code):
For example, Backgroundrb's bdrb_test_helper requires 'test/spec', but you don't use it at all, so in your code:
$" << "test/spec"
require File.join(File.dirname(__FILE__) + "/../bdrb_test_helper")
Defining a method that accepts any number of parameters and just discards them all
def hello(*)
super
puts "hello!"
end
The above hello method only needs to puts "hello" on the screen and call super - but since the superclass hello defines parameters it has to as well - however since it doesn't actually need to use the parameters itself - it doesn't have to give them a name.
private unless Rails.env == 'test'
# e.g. a bundle of methods you want to test directly
Looks like a cool and (in some cases) nice/useful hack/feature of Ruby.

Resources