I'm doing a SaaS course with Ruby. On an exercise, I'm asked to calculate the cartesian product of two sequences by using iterators, blocks and yield.
I ended up with this, by pure guess-and-error, and it seems to work. But I'm not sure about how. I seem to understand the basic blocks and yield usage, but this? Not at all.
class CartProd
include Enumerable
def initialize(a,b)
#a = a
#b = b
end
def each
#a.each{|ae|
#b.each{|be|
yield [ae,be]
}
}
end
end
Some explanation for a noob like me, please?
(PS: I changed the required class name to CartProd so people doing the course can't find the response by googling it so easily)
Let's build this up step-by-step. We will simplify things a bit by taking it out of the class context.
For this example it is intuitive to think of an iterator as being a more-powerful replacement for a traditional for-loop.
So first here's a for-loop version:
seq1 = (0..2)
seq2 = (0..2)
for x in seq1
for y in seq2
p [x,y] # shorthand for puts [x, y].inspect
end
end
Now let's replace that with more Ruby-idiomatic iterator style, explicitly supplying blocks to be executed (i.e., the do...end blocks):
seq1.each do |x|
seq2.each do |y|
p [x,y]
end
end
So far, so good, you've printed out your cartesian product. Now your assignment asks you to use yield as well. The point of yield is to "yield execution", i.e., pass control to another block of code temporarily (optionally passing one or more arguments).
So, although it's not really necessary for this toy example, instead of directly printing the value like above, you can yield the value, and let the caller supply a block that accepts that value and prints it instead.
That could look like this:
def prod(seq1, seq2)
seq1.each do |x|
seq2.each do |y|
yield [x,y]
end
end
end
Callable like this:
prod (1..2), (1..2) do |prod| p prod end
The yield supplies the product for each run of the inner loop, and the yielded value is printed by the block supplied by the caller.
What exactly do you not understand here? You've made an iterator that yields all possible pairs of elements. If you pass CartProd#each a block, it will be executed a.length*b.length times. It's like having two different for cycles folded one into another in any other programming language.
yield simply passes (yields) control to a block of code that has been passed in as part of the method call. The values after the yield keyword are passed into the block as arguments. Once the block has finished execution it passes back control.
So, in your example you could call #each like this:
CartProd.new([1, 2], [3, 4]).each do |pair|
# control is yielded to this block
p pair
# control is returned at end of block
end
This would output each pair of values.
Related
I was trying to make my bubble sort shorter and I came up with this
class Array
def bubble_sort!(&block)
block = Proc.new { |a, b| a <=> b } unless block_given?
sorted = each_index.each_cons(2).none? do |i, next_i|
if block.call(self[i], self[next_i]) == 1
self[i], self[next_i] = self[next_i], self[i]
end
end until sorted
self
end
def bubble_sort(&prc)
self.dup.bubble_sort!(&prc)
end
end
I don't particularly like the thing with sorted = --sort code-- until sorted.
I just want to run the each_index.each_cons(s).none? code until it returns true. It's a weird situation that I use until, but the condition is a code I want to run. Any way, my try seems awkward, and ruby usually has a nice concise way of putting things. Is there a better way to do this?
This is just my opinion
have you ever read the ruby source code of each and map to understand what they do?
No, because they have a clear task expressed from the method name and if you test them, they will take an object, some parameters and then return a value to you.
For example if I want to test the String method split()
s = "a new string"
s.split("new")
=> ["a ", " string"]
Do you know if .split() takes a block?
It is one of the core ruby methods, but to call it I don't pass a block 90% of the times, I can understand what it does from the name .split() and from the return value
Focus on the objects you are using, the task the methods should accomplish and their return values.
I read your code and I can not refactor it, I hardly can understand what the code does.
I decided to write down some points, with possibility to follow up:
1) do not use the proc for now, first get the Object Oriented code clean.
2) split bubble_sort! into several methods, each one with a clear task
def ordered_inverted! (bubble_sort!), def invert_values, maybe perform a invert_values until sorted, check if existing methods already perform this sorting functionality
3) write specs for those methods, tdd will push you to keep methods simple and easy to test
4) If those methods do not belong to the Array class, include them in the appropriate class, sometimes overly complicated methods are just performing simple String operations.
5) Reading books about refactoring may actually help more then trying to force the usage of proc and functional programming when not necessary.
After looking into it further I'm fairly sure the best solution is
loop do
break if condition
end
Either that or the way I have it in the question, but I think the loop do version is clearer.
Edit:
Ha, a couple weeks later after I settled for the loop do solution, I stumbled into a better one. You can just use a while or until loop with an empty block like this:
while condition; end
until condition; end
So the bubble sort example in the question can be written like this
class Array
def bubble_sort!(&block)
block = Proc.new { |a, b| a <=> b } unless block_given?
until (each_index.each_cons(2).none? do |i, next_i|
if block.call(self[i], self[next_i]) == 1
self[i], self[next_i] = self[next_i], self[i]
end
end); end
self
end
def bubble_sort(&prc)
self.dup.bubble_sort!(&prc)
end
end
Why is each loop preferred over for loop in Ruby? Is there a difference in time complexity or are they just syntactically different?
Yes, these are two different ways of iterating over, But hope this calculation helps.
require 'benchmark'
a = Array( 1..100000000 )
sum = 0
Benchmark.realtime {
a.each { |x| sum += x }
}
This takes 5.866932 sec
a = Array( 1..100000000 )
sum = 0
Benchmark.realtime {
for x in a
sum += x
end
}
This takes 6.146521 sec.
Though its not a right way to do the benchmarking, there are some other constraints too. But on a single machine, each seems to be a bit faster than for.
The variable referencing an item in iteration is temporary and does not have significance outside of the iteration. It is better if it is hidden from outside of the iteration. With external iterators, such variable is located outside of the iteration block. In the following, e is useful only within do ... end, but is separated from the block, and written outside of it; it does not look easy to a programmer:
for e in [:foo, :bar] do
...
end
With internal iterators, the block variable is defined right inside the block, where it is used. It is easier to read:
[:foo, :bar].each do |e|
...
end
This visibility issue is not just for a programmer. With respect to visibility in the sense of scope, the variable for an external iterator is accessible outside of the iteration:
for e in [:foo] do; end
e # => :foo
whereas in internal iterator, a block variable is invisible from outside:
[:foo].each do |e|; end
e # => undefined local variable or method `e'
The latter is better from the point of view of encapsulation.
When you want to nest the loops, the order of variables would be somewhat backwards with external iterators:
for a in [[:foo, :bar]] do
for e in a do
...
end
end
but with internal iterators, the order is more straightforward:
[[:foo, :bar]].each do |a|
a.each do |e|
...
end
end
With external iterators, you can only use hard-coded Ruby syntax, and you also have to remember the matching between the keyword and the method that is internally called (for calls each), but for internal iterators, you can define your own, which gives flexibility.
each is the Ruby Way. Implements the Iterator Pattern that has decoupling benefits.
Check also this: "for" vs "each" in Ruby
An interesting question. There are several ways of looping in Ruby. I have noted that there is a design principle in Ruby, that when there are multiple ways of doing the same, there are usually subtle differences between them, and each case has its own unique use, its own problem that it solves. So in the end you end up needing to be able to write (and not just to read) all of them.
As for the question about for loop, this is similar to my earlier question whethe for loop is a trap.
Basically there are 2 main explicit ways of looping, one is by iterators (or, more generally, blocks), such as
[1, 2, 3].each { |e| puts e * 10 }
[1, 2, 3].map { |e| e * 10 )
# etc., see Array and Enumerable documentation for more iterator methods.
Connected to this way of iterating is the class Enumerator, which you should strive to understand.
The other way is Pascal-ish looping by while, until and for loops.
for y in [1, 2, 3]
puts y
end
x = 0
while x < 3
puts x; x += 1
end
# same for until loop
Like if and unless, while and until have their tail form, such as
a = 'alligator'
a.chop! until a.chars.last == 'g'
#=> 'allig'
The third very important way of looping is implicit looping, or looping by recursion. Ruby is extremely malleable, all classes are modifiable, hooks can be set up for various events, and this can be exploited to produce most unusual ways of looping. The possibilities are so endless that I don't even know where to start talking about them. Perhaps a good place is the blog by Yusuke Endoh, a well known artist working with Ruby code as his artistic material of choice.
To demonstrate what I mean, consider this loop
class Object
def method_missing sym
s = sym.to_s
if s.chars.last == 'g' then s else eval s.chop end
end
end
alligator
#=> "allig"
Aside of readability issues, the for loop iterates in the Ruby land whereas each does it from native code, so in principle each should be more efficient when iterating all elements in an array.
Loop with each:
arr.each {|x| puts x}
Loop with for:
for i in 0..arr.length
puts arr[i]
end
In the each case we are just passing a code block to a method implemented in the machine's native code (fast code), whereas in the for case, all code must be interpreted and run taking into account all the complexity of the Ruby language.
However for is more flexible and lets you iterate in more complex ways than each does, for example, iterating with a given step.
EDIT
I didn't come across that you can step over a range by using the step() method before calling each(), so the flexibility I claimed for the for loop is actually unjustified.
Consider a simple Enumerator like this:
natural_numbers = Enumerator.new do |yielder|
number = 1
loop do
yielder.yield number
number += 1
end
end
My question is: Why does ruby require that we invoke yield on the yielder object? Said another way: Why can't we replace yielder.yield number with yield number? In this example, it would be appear to be the same thing, if it were allowed. Are there examples where yielder is used in a nontrivial way? If so, can you give one? If not, what is the purpose of yielder?
Thanks.
Not 100% sure if that's the reason, but yield alone (always) applies to the block submitted to the method which calls yield: in your case the method which contains natural_numbers assignment; and it's not possible for it to perform what is desired for Enumerator, i.e. to emit the Enumerator element. Although bearing the same name, Yielder#yield is a method, and Ruby's yield is a statement.
In other words, it would not be possible to implement Enumerator constructor which would work with yield statement.
I have a method that accepts a block, lets call it outer. It in turn calls a method that accepts another block, call it inner.
What I would like to have happen is for outer to call inner, passing it a new block which calls the first block.
Here's a concrete example:
class Array
def delete_if_index
self.each_with_index { |element, i| ** A function that removes the element from the array if the block passed to delete_if_index is true }
end
end
['a','b','c','d'].delete_if_index { |i| i.even? }
=> ['b','d']
the block passed to delete_if_index is called by the block passed to each_with_index.
Is this possible in Ruby, and, more broadly, how much access do we have to the block within the function that receives it?
You can wrap a block in another block:
def outer(&block)
if some_condition_is_true
wrapper = lambda {
p 'Do something crazy in this wrapper'
block.call # original block
}
inner(&wrapper)
else
inner(&passed_block)
end
end
def inner(&block)
p 'inner called'
yield
end
outer do
p 'inside block'
sleep 1
end
I'd say opening up an existing block and changing its contents is Doing it WrongTM, maybe continuation-passing would help here? I'd also be wary of passing around blocks with side-effects; I try and keep lambdas deterministic and have actions like deleting stuff in the method body. In a complex application this will likely make debugging a lot easier.
Maybe the example is poorly chosen, but your concrete example is the same as:
[1,2,3,4].reject &:even?
Opening up and modifying a block strikes me as code smell. It'd be difficult to write it in a way that makes the side effects obvious.
Given your example, I think a combination of higher order functions will do what you're looking to solve.
Update: It's not the same, as pointed out in the comments. [1,2,3,4].reject(&:even?) looks at the contents, not the index (and returns [1,3], not [2,4] as it would in the question). The one below is equivalent to the original example, but isn't vary pretty.
[1,2,3,4].each_with_index.reject {|element, index| index.even? }.map(&:first)
So here's a solution to my own question. The passed in block is implicitly converted into a proc which can be received with the & parameter syntax. The proc then exists inside the closure of any nested block, as it is assigned to a local variable in scope, and can be called by it:
class Array
def delete_if_index(&proc)
ary = []
self.each_with_index { |a, i| ary << self[i] unless proc.call(i) }
ary
end
end
[0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10].delete_if_index {|index| index.even?}
=> [1, 3, 5, 7, 9]
Here the block is converted into a proc, and assigned to the variable proc, which is then available within the block passed to each_with_index.
In my journey of a thousand lines of Ruby, I'm having a really hard time with the concept of anonymous functions. Wikipedia says something about there being some nameless soul in the code and it submitting to a higher order, but my understanding ends there.
Or in other words, how would I (when I understand it) explain anonymous functions to my mom?
An anonymous function has these characteristics:
It has no name (hence anonymous)
Is defined inline
Used when you don't want the overhead/formality of a normal function
Is not explicitly referenced more than once, unless passed as an argument to another function
Here's one example of an anonymous function in Ruby (called a block in this case):
my_array.each{ |item| puts item }
Where's the anonymous function in the above? Why, it's the one that receives a single parameter, names it 'item', and then prints it. In JavaScript, the above might be written as...
Array.prototype.each = function(anon){
for (var i=0,len=this.length;i<len;++i) anon(this[i]);
};
myArray.each(function(item){ console.log(item); });
...which both makes it a little bit more clear that a function is being passed as an argument, and also helps one appreciate Ruby's syntax. :)
Here's another anonymous function (back in Ruby):
def count_to(n)
puts "I'm going to count to #{n}"
count = lambda do |i|
if (i>0)
count[i-1]
puts i
end
end
count[n]
puts "I'm done counting!"
end
count_to(3)
#=> I'm going to count to 3
#=> 1
#=> 2
#=> 3
#=> I'm done counting!
Although the example is obviously contrived, it shows how you can create a new function (in this case named count) and assign it to a variable, and use that for recursive calls inside a master method. (Some feel that this is better than creating a second method just for the recursion, or re-using the master method for recursion with very different parameters.)
The function doesn't have a name, the variable does. You could assign it to any number of variables, all with different names.
Returning to the first example, there's even a syntax in Ruby for passing a lambda as the single, blessed block:
print_it = lambda{ |item| puts item }
%w[a b c].each(&print_it)
#=> a
#=> b
#=> c
...but you can also pass a lambda as a normal parameter and call it later, as illustrated here:
module Enumerable
def do_both_to_each( f1, f2 )
each do |item|
f1[item]
f2[item]
end
end
end
print_prefix = lambda{ |i| print "#{i}*#{i} -> " }
print_squared = lambda{ |i| puts i*i }
(1..4).do_both_to_each(print_prefix,print_squared)
#=> 1*1 -> 1
#=> 2*2 -> 4
#=> 3*3 -> 9
#=> 4*4 -> 16
In addiction to previous answers, the anonymous functions are very usefull when you working with closures:
def make_adder n
lambda { |x|
x + n
}
end
t = make_adder 100
puts t.call 1
Or (in Ruby 1.9):
def make_adder_1_9 n
->(x) {
x + n
}
end
t_1_9 = make_adder_1_9 100
puts t_1_9.call 1
Just as Wikipedia says: a function with no name.
It means that you cannot invoke the function in the typical way, by using its name and parameters. Rather the function itself is usually a parameter to another function. A function that operates on functions is called a "higher order function".
Consider this JavaScript(I know you tagged this ruby but...):
window.onload=function(){
//some code here
}
The function will execute when the page loads, but you cannot invoke it by name, because it does not have a name.
What is the point of an anonymous method?
Explanation by Analogy:
When I order my favourite burger (a greasy Big Nac), I don't want to spend 5 minutes filling out a formal order application: name, address, phone number etc. I ain't got time for that. I want to use my mouth: "give me a burger", nice and quick and easy.
Anonymous methods are kinda like the same thing, except when coding:
It's kinda like throwaway method allowing you to code faster
It's the same when coding. If you have to define a function, you have to put it somewhere (else), you have to call it something, and that's a pain, especially if you know you'll never, ever need it again. And when you read the code, you might have to use a complicated IDE to find that method again, and a reference to it. What a pain! You need a throwaway method that you can write directly in your code, where you need it, and just get it done, and move one. Anonymous methods solve this particular problem.
Anonymous functions have the following characteristics:
No name
Inline declaration
Executed directly when declared