The question is: Can I define my own custom operator in Ruby, except for the ones found in
"Operator Expressions"?
For example: 1 %! 2
Yes, custom operators can be created, although there are some caveats. Ruby itself doesn't directly support it, but the superators gem does a clever trick where it chains operators together. This allows you to create your own operators, with a few limitations:
$ gem install superators19
Then:
require 'superators19'
class Array
superator "%~" do |operand|
"#{self} percent-tilde #{operand}"
end
end
puts [1] %~ [2]
# Outputs: [1] percent-tilde [2]
Due to the aforementioned limitations, I couldn't do your 1 %! 2 example. The Documentation has full details, but Fixnums can't be given a superator, and ! can't be in a superator.
No. You can only define operators already specified in ruby, +,-,!,/,%, etc. (you saw the list)
You can see for yourself this won't work
def HI
def %!
puts "wow"
end
end
This is largely due to the fact that the syntax parser would have to be extended to accept any code using your new operator.
As Darshan mentions this example alone may not be enough to realize the underlying problem. Instead let us take a closer look at how the parser could possibly handle some example code using this operator.
3 %! 0
While with my spacing it may seem obvious that this should be 3.%!(0) without spacing it becomes harder to see.
3%! can also be seen as 3.%(0.!) The parser has no idea which to chose. Currently, there is no way easy way to tell it. Instead, we could possibly hope to override the meaning of 3.%(0.!) but this isn't exactly defining a new operator, as we are still only limited to ruby's parsable symbols
You probably can't do this within Ruby, but only by modifying Ruby itself. I think modifying parse.y would be your best bet. parse.y famtour
Related
Is there a clear standard or guide to use or not use parenthesis when calling a function/method?
For example, the following code:
class List < Jets::Stack
sqs_queue(:dead_letter)
end
Should I or shouldn't I use parenthesis? Other example:
class ExampleJob < ApplicationJob
def sqs_event ref(:dead_letter)
end
end
vs.
class ExampleJob < ApplicationJob
def sqs_event ref :dead_letter
end
end
Is there a official guideline I can follow?
There isn't an official standard for Ruby code best practices. However, a set of preferred styles has evolved in the Ruby community. It's a good idea to follow those preferred styles, just because it makes your code more easily readable by other Ruby programmers.
Nick Roz has given you a link to the style guide. I would also recommend that you consider installing and using rubocop. It will give you feedback on when and when not to parenthesize arguments, many other formatting matters such as proper indenting, and which of the often several different syntax options to choose in a particular situation.
To answer your specific question about whether or not to use parentheses for method arguments, the answer is yes, in general. Exceptions are, as the guide says, "methods that have 'keyword' status in Ruby." An example is puts (actually the Kernel.puts method). Most people don't use parentheses here, but the guide states that they are optional.
Another example, as Nick has said (although "methods with keyword arguments" isn't quite correct; in that case the arguments are symbols that represent methods rather than keywords), is attr_accessor, which is actually Module.attr_accessor.
So, as a general rule, if it looks like a "command" (a "keyword," if you will), but is actually a method, omit the parentheses. Otherwise, use them. And if you're not sure of the difference, get in the habit of using rubocop.
In Ruby it is usually optional.
Ruby tends towards minimalism so they are often avoided.
Sometimes they are required such as in rspec expect where
expect a.to be true
has to be
expect(a).to be true
Using no parens or empty parens when calling a method that has a parameter results in ArgumentError unless you a default for the param, i.e.
def a(x=1)
The other consideration is when you want to call a method on the result of something, when you'll need want that method to clearly be on the final result, i.e.
"br" + "own".upcase
brOWN
However
("br" + "own").upcase
BROWN
Finally, as I'm talking about clarity, sometimes it may be better to have them, even when not strictly needed. This is generally in compound expressions, rather than relying on operator precedence, etc. Or if you want an expression that specifically does not get executed by standard operator precedence and you want your own grouping and order of operations, for example:
irb(main):007:0> 5 + 6 * 2
=> 17
irb(main):008:0> (5 + 6) * 2
=> 22
As Nick indicated, the one complication is super where super or super() pass on parms but super(a,b) calls super with... a,b as params
Yes there is
I suppose you are looking for community guidelines since there is not style guides from Ruby core team.
Well, whenever you call a method you should use parenthesis, otherwise it becomes unclear
# bad
x = Math.sin y
# good
x = Math.sin(y)
# bad
array.delete e
# good
array.delete(e)
# bad
temperance = Person.new 'Temperance', 30
# good
temperance = Person.new('Temperance', 30)
However it is recommended to skip them when there is no arguments.
Be careful with super and super() they are different. super without brackets passes all the parameters implicitly. super() with empty brackets omits all the parameters
The only exception that comes to my mind is some kind of custom DSL, there must be some rules or preferences for DSL itself e.g.
validates :name, presence: true
It is also true for methods with keyword arguments:
attr_reader :name, :age
According to Matz:
If arguments are given to a method, they are generally surrounded by
parentheses,
object.method(arg1, arg2)
but they can be omitted if doing so does not cause ambiguity.
object.method arg1, arg2
I'm wondering why calls to operator methods don't require a dot? Or rather, why can't normal methods be called without a dot?
Example
class Foo
def +(object)
puts "this will work"
end
def plus(object)
puts "this won't"
end
end
f = Foo.new
f + "anything" # "this will work"
f plus "anything" # NoMethodError: undefined method `plus' for main:Object
The answer to this question, as to pretty much every language design question is: "Just because". Language design is a series of mostly subjective trade-offs. And for most of those subjective trade-offs, the only correct answer to the question why something is the way it is, is simply "because Matz said so".
There are certainly other choices:
Lisp doesn't have operators at all. +, -, ::, >, = and so on are simply normal legal function names (variable names, actually), just like foo or bar?
(plus 1 2)
(+ 1 2)
Smalltalk almost doesn't have operators. The only special casing Smalltalk has is that methods which consist only of operator characters do not have to end with a colon. In particular, since there are no operators, all method calls have the same precedence and are evaluated strictly left-to-right: 2 + 3 * 4 is 20, not 14.
1 plus: 2
1 + 2
Scala almost doesn't have operators. Just like Lisp and Smalltalk, *, -, #::: and so on are simply legal method names. (Actually, they are also legal class, trait, type and field names.) Any method can be called either with or without a dot. If you use the form without the dot and the method takes only a single argument, then you can leave off the brackets as well. Scala does have precedence, though, although it is not user-definable; it is simply determined by the first character of the name. As an added twist, operator method names that end with a colon are inverted or right-associative, i.e. a :: b is equivalent to b.::(a) and not a.::(b).
1.plus(2)
1 plus(2)
1 plus 2
1.+(2)
1 +(2)
1 + 2
In Haskell, any function whose name consists of operator symbols is considered an operator. Any function can be treated as an operator by enclosing it in backticks and any operator can be treated as a function by enclosing it in brackets. In addition, the programmer can freely define associativity, fixity and precedence for user-defined operators.
plus 1 2
1 `plus` 2
(+) 1 2
1 + 2
There is no particular reason why Ruby couldn't support user-defined operators in a style similar to Scala. There is a reason why Ruby can't support arbitrary methods in operator position, simply because
foo plus bar
is already legal, and thus this would be a backwards-incompatible change.
Another thing to consider is that Ruby wasn't actually fully designed in advance. It was designed through its implementation. Which means that in a lot of places, the implementation is leaking through. For example, there is absolutely no logical reason why
puts(!true)
is legal but
puts(not true)
isn't. The only reason why this is so, is because Matz used an LALR(1) parser to parse a non-LALR(1) language. If he had designed the language first, he would have never picked an LALR(1) parser in the first place, and the expression would be legal.
The Refinement feature currently being discussed on ruby-core is another example. The way it is currently specified, will make it impossible to optimize method calls and inline methods, even if the program in question doesn't actually use Refinements at all. With just a simple tweak, it can be just as expressive and powerful, and ensure that the pessimization cost is only incurred for scopes that actually use Refinements. Apparently, the sole reason why it was specified this way, is that a) it was easier to prototype this way, and b) YARV doesn't have an optimizer, so nobody even bothered to think about the implications (well, nobody except Charles Oliver Nutter).
So, for basically any question you have about Ruby's design, the answer will almost always be either "because Matz said so" or "because in 1993 it was easier to implement that way".
The implementation doesn't have the additional complexity that would be needed to allow generic definition of new operators.
Instead, Ruby has a Yacc parser that uses a statically defined grammar. You get the built-in operators and that's it. Symbols occur in a fixed set of sentences in the grammar. As you have noted, the operators can be overloaded, which is more than most languages offer.
Certainly it's not because Matz was lazy.
Ruby actually has a fiendishly complex grammar that is roughly at the limit of what can be accomplished in Yacc. To get more complex would require using a less portable compiler generator or it would have required writing the parser by hand in C, and doing that would have limited future implementation portability in its own way as well as not providing the world with the Yacc input. That would be a problem because Ruby's Yacc source code is the only Ruby grammar documentation and is therefore "the standard".
Because Ruby has "syntax sugar" that allows for a variety of convenient syntax for preset situations. For example:
class Foo
def bar=( o ); end
end
# This is actually calling the bar= method with a parameter, not assigning a value
Foo.new.bar = 42
Here's a list of the operator expressions that may be implemented as methods in Ruby.
Because Ruby's syntax was designed to look roughly like popular OO languages, and those use the dot operator to call methods. The language it borrowed its object model from, Smalltalk, didn't use dots for messages, and in fact had a fairly "weird" syntax that many people found off-putting. Ruby has been called "Smalltalk with an Algol syntax," where Algol is the language that gave us the conventions you're talking about here. (Of course, there are actually more differences than just the Algol syntax.)
Missing braces was some "advantage" for ruby 1.8, but with ruby 1.9 you can't even write method_0 method_1 some param it will be rejected, so the language goes rather to the strict version instead of freeforms.
For example, I want to make Object#rescue another name so I can use in my code like:
def dangerous
something_dangerous!
dont_worry # instead of rescue here
false
end
I tried
class ::Object
alias :dont_worry :rescue
end
But cannot find the rescue method on Object:
`<class:Object>': undefined method `rescue' for class `Object' (NameError)
Another example is I would like to have when in the language to replace:
if cond
# eval when cond is truthy
end
to
when cond
# eval when cond is truthy
end
Is it possible to give a Ruby keyword alias done in Ruby?
Or I need to hack on Ruby C source code?
Thanks!
This is not possible without some deep changes to the Ruby language itself. The things you describe are not methods but keywords of the language, i.e. the actual core of what is Ruby. As such, these things are not user-changeable at all.
If you still want to change the names of the keywords, you would at least have to adapt the language parser. If you don't change semantics at all, this might do it as is. But if you want to change what these keywords represent, things get messy really quick.
Also note that Ruby in itself is sometimes quite ambiguous (e.g. with regards to parenthesis, dots, spacing) and goes to great length to resolve this in a mostly consistent way. If you change keywords, you would have to ensure that things won't get any more ambiguous. This could e.g. happen with your change of if to when. when is used as a keywords is case statements already and would thus could be a source of ambiguity when used as an if.
Very much an idle day-dream this but is it possible with some neat meta-programming trick to define a new logical operator in Ruby? I'd like to define a but operator.
For example, if I want to do something if x but not y is true I have to write something like:
if x and not y
But I would like to write
if x but not y
It should work exactly the same as and but would be down to the programmer to use sensibly to increase the legibility of code.
Without editing the Ruby parser and sources and compiling a new version of Ruby, you can't. If you want, you can use this ugly syntax:
class Object
def but(other)
self and other
end
end
x.but (not y)
Note that you can't remove the parentheses or the space in this snippet. It will also shadow the functionality of the code to someone else reading your code. Don't do it.
If you really want to do this, try editing parse.y and recompiling Ruby. That's where Ruby's syntax is defined.
As others have already pointed out, you cannot define your own operators in Ruby. The set of operators is predefined and fixed. All you can do is influence the semantics of some of the existing operators (namely the ones that get translated into message sends) by responding to the appropriate messages.
But of course, you can implement a but method quite easily:
class Object
def but
self && yield
end
end
Object.new.but { not true }
array.include? 'foo' or array.include? 'bar'
is a syntax error (unexpected keyword_or). Parentheses solve the problem, but as I'm new to Ruby I've no idea which of the following is considered more idiomatic:
Option 1
array.include?('foo') or array.include?('bar')
Option 2
(array.include? 'foo') or (array.include? 'bar')
Does this come down to personal preference, or is one approach considered more "correct"?
I'd suggest you take a look at the community-driven Ruby coding style guide, here particularly the section on Syntax.
Omit parentheses around parameters for methods that are part of an internal DSL (e.g. Rake, Rails, RSpec), methods that are with "keyword" status in Ruby (e.g. attr_reader, puts) and attribute access methods. Use parentheses around the arguments of all other method invocations. - excerpt from the guide
class Person
attr_reader :name, :age
# omitted
end
temperance = Person.new('Temperance', 30)
temperance.name
puts temperance.age
x = Math.sin(y)
array.delete(e)
Are you sure that is failing? Your initial example works fine for me.
ruby-1.9.2-p290 :002 > array = ['bar']
=> ["bar"]
ruby-1.9.2-p290 :003 > array.include? 'foo' or array.include? 'bar'
=> true
As a matter of fact, if anything could be considered idiomatic it would be that one. The low precedence of or allows this to work when you leave the parens off. This characteristic is something that should make it idiomatic to Ruby (and even Perl, which or is a hold over from).
Option 1 is super clear, but considering you included the parens you really have no need to use or. It's probably better to use ||, which has a high precedence like other operators and is just more common. I think using or for the sake of it looking like english is not a great practice. It has a semantic meaning within the language and is probably best used for those qualities.
Option 2 is silly of course. If you're going to include parens, you might as well use them for the method signature.
Hope this helps.
Avdi Grimm reckons you shouldn't use and or or for boolean logic. You should only and or or for control flow (analogous to if or unless)
According to his recommendation, you should use || instead:
array.include?('foo') || array.include?('bar')
Option 1 is preferred since it's common to other languages as well. Option 2 looks like LISP, which is not popular nowadays.