Consider the following Ruby code:
a = ["x"] * 3 # or a = Array.new(3, "x")
a[0].insert(0, "a")
a.each {|i| puts i}
I would expect the output to be ax, x, x (on new lines of course). However, with Ruby 1.9.1 the output is ax, ax, ax. What's going on? I've narrowed the problem down to the way the array a is defined. If I explicitly write out
a = ["x", "x", "x"]
then the code works as expected, but either version in the original code gives me this unexpected behaviour. It appears that the */initializer means the copies are actually references to the same copy of the string "x". However, if instead of the insert command I write
a[0] = "a" + a[0]
Then I get the desired output. Is this a bug, or is there some feature at work which I'm not understanding?
The documentation to Array.new(size=0, obj=nil):
... it is created with size copies of obj (that is, size references to the same obj).
and Array * int:
... returns a new array built by concatenating the int copies of self
So in both of the forms you're surprised by, you end up with three references to the same "x" object, just as you figured out. I'd say you might argue about the design decision, but it's a documented intentional behavior, not a bug.
The best way I know to get the behavior you want without manually writing the array literal (["x", "x", "x"]) is
a = Array.new(3) {"x"}
Or course, with just three elements, it doesn't much matter, but with anything much bigger, this form comes in handy.
In short, although "x" is just a literal, it is an object. You use ["x'] * 3 so a is containing 3 same object. You insert 'a' to one of them, they will be all changed.
Related
I was playing around in irb, and noticed one cannot do
5 * "Hello".
Error
String can't be coerced into Fixnum
However "Hello"*5 provided "HelloHelloHelloHelloHello" as expected.
What is the exact reason for this? I've been looking around in the doc's and could not find the exact reason for this behavior. Is this something the designers of ruby decided?
Basically, you are asking "why is multiplication not commutative"? There are two possible answers for this. Or rather one answer with two layers.
The basic principle of OO is that everything happens as the result of one object sending a message to another object and that object responding to that message. This "messaging" metaphor is very important, because it explains a lot of things in OO. For example, if you send someone a message, all you can observe is what their response is. You don't know, and have no idea of finding out, what they did to come up with that response. They could have just handed out a pre-recorded response (reference an instance variable). They could have worked hard to construct a response (execute a method). They could have handed the message off to someone else (delegation). Or, they just don't understand the message you are sending them (NoMethodError).
Note that this means that the receiver of the message is in total control. The receiver can respond in any way it wishes. This makes message sending inherently non-commutative. Sending message foo to a passing b as an argument is fundamentally different from sending message foo to b passing a as an argument. In one case, it is a and only a that decides how to respond to the message, in the other case it is b and only b.
Making this commutative requires explicit cooperation between a and b. They must agree on a common protocol and adhere to that protocol.
In Ruby, binary operators are simply message sends to the left operand. So, it is solely the left operand that decides what to do.
So, in
'Hello' * 5
the message * is sent to the receiver 'Hello' with the argument 5. In fact, you can alternately write it like this if you want, which makes this fact more obvious:
'Hello'.*(5)
'Hello' gets to decide how it responds to that message.
Whereas in
5 * 'Hello'
it is 5 which gets to decide.
So, the first layer of the answer is: Message sending in OO is inherently non-commutative, there is no expectation of commutativity anyway.
But, now the question becomes, why don't we design in some commutativity? For example, one possible way would be to interpret binary operators not as message sends to one of the operands but instead message sends to some third object. E.g., we could interpret
5 * 'Hello'
as
*(5, 'Hello')
and
'Hello' * 5
as
*('Hello', 5)
i.e. as message sends to self. Now, the receiver is the same in both cases and the receiver can arrange for itself to treat the two cases identically and thus make * commutative.
Another, similar possibility would be to use some sort of shared context object, e.g. make
5 * 'Hello'
equivalent to
Operators.*(5, 'Hello')
In fact, in mathematics, the meaning of a symbol is often dependent on context, e.g. in ℤ, 2 / 3 is undefined, in ℚ, it is 2/3, and in IEEE754, it is something close to, but not exactly identical to 0.333…. Or, in ℤ, 2 * 3 is 6, but in ℤ|5, 2 * 3 is 1.
So, it would certainly make sense to do this. Alas, it isn't done.
Another possibility would be to have the two operands cooperate using a standard protocol. In fact, for arithmetic operations on Numerics, there actually is such a protocol! If a receiver doesn't know what to do with an operand, it can ask that operand to coerce itself, the receiver, or both to something the receiver does know how to handle.
Basically, the protocol goes like this:
you call 5 * 'Hello'
5 doesn't know how to handle 'Hello', so it asks 'Hello' for a coercion. …
… 5 calls 'Hello'.coerce(5)
'Hello' responds with a pair of objects [a, b] (as an Array) such that a * b has the desired result
5 calls a * b
One common trick is to simply implement coerce to flip the operands, so that when 5 retries the operation, 'Hello' will be the receiver:
class String
def coerce(other)
[self, other]
end
end
5 * 'Hello'
#=> 'HelloHelloHelloHelloHello'
Okay, OO is inherently non-commutative, but we can make it commutative using cooperation, so why isn't it done? I must admit, I don't have a clear-cut answer to this question, but I can offer two educated guesses:
coerce is specifically intended for numeric coercion in arithmetic operations. (Note the protocol is defined in Numeric.) A string is not a number, nor is string concatenation an arithmetic operation.
We just don't expect * to be commutative with wildly different types such as Integer and String.
Of course, just for fun, we can actually observe that there is a certain symmetry between Integers and Strings. In fact, you can implement a common version of Integer#* for both String and Integer arguments, and you will see that the only difference is in what we choose as the "zero" element:
class Integer
def *(other)
zero = case other
when Integer then 0
when String then ''
when Array then []
end
times.inject(zero) {|acc, _| acc + other }
end
end
5 * 6
#=> 30
5 * 'six'
#=> 'sixsixsixsixsix'
5 * [:six]
#=> [:six, :six, :six, :six, :six, :six]
The reason for this is, of course, that the set of strings with the concatenation operation and the empty string as the identity element form a monoid, just like arrays with concatenation and the empty array and just like integers with addition and zero. Since all three are monoids, and our "multiplication as repeated addition" only requires monoid operations and laws, it will work for all monoids.
Note: Python has an interesting twist on this double-dispatch idea. Just like in Ruby, if you write
a * b
Python will re-write that into a message send:
a.__mul__(b)
However, if a can't handle the operation, instead of cooperating with b, it cooperates with Python by returning NotImplemented. Now, Python will try with b, but with a slight twist: it will call
b.__rmul__(a)
This allows b to know that it was on the right side of the operator. It doesn't matter much for multiplication (because multiplication is (usually but not always, see e.g. matrix multiplication) commutative), but remember that operator symbols are distinct from their operations. So, the same operator symbol can be used for operations that are commutative and ones that are non-commutative. Example: + is used in Ruby for addition (2 + 3 == 3 + 2) and also for concatenation ('Hello' + 'World' != 'World' + 'Hello'). So, it is actually advantageous for an object to know whether it was the right or left operand.
This is because that operators are also methods(Well there are exceptions as Cary has listed in the comments which I wasn't aware of).
For example
array << 4 == array.<<4
array[2] == array.[](2)
array[2] ='x' == array.[] =(2,'x')
In your example:
5 * "Hello" => 5.*("Hello")
Meanwhile
"hello" *5 => 5.*("hello")
An integer cannot take that method with a string param
If you ever dabble around in python try 5*hello and hello*5, both work. Pretty interesting that ruby has this feature to be honest.
Well, as Muntasir Alam has already told that Fixnum does not has a method named * which takes a string as argument. So, 5*"Hello" produces that error.But, to have fun we can actually achieve 5*"Hello" this by adding that missing method to the Fixnum class.
class Fixnum # open the class
def * str # Override the *() method
if str.is_a? String # If argument is String
temp = ""
self.times do
temp << str
end
temp
else # If the argument is not String
mul = 0
self.times do
mul += str
end
mul
end
end
end
now
puts 5*"Hello" #=> HelloHelloHelloHelloHello
puts 4*5 #=> 20
puts 5*10.4 #=> 52.0
Well, that was just to show that the opposite is also possible. But that will bring a lot of overhead. I think we should avoid that at all cost.
In Ruby, there is Object#freeze, which prevents further modifications to the object:
class Kingdom
attr_accessor :weather_conditions
end
arendelle = Kingdom.new
arendelle.frozen? # => false
arendelle.weather_conditions = 'in deep, deep, deep, deep snow'
arendelle.freeze
arendelle.frozen? # => true
arendelle.weather_conditions = 'sun is shining'
# !> RuntimeError: can't modify frozen Kingdom
script = 'Do you want to build a snowman?'.freeze
script[/snowman/] = 'castle of ice'
# !> RuntimeError: can't modify frozen String
However, there is no Object#unfreeze. Is there a way to unfreeze a frozen kingdom?
Update: As of Ruby 2.7 this no longer works!
Yes and no. There isn't any direct way using the standard API. However, with some understanding of what #freeze? does, you can work around it. Note: everything here is implementation details of MRI's current version and might be subject to change.
Objects in CRuby are stored in a struct RVALUE.
Conveniently, the very first thing in the struct is VALUE flags;.
All Object#freeze does is set a flag, called FL_FREEZE, which is actually equal to RUBY_FL_FREEZE. RUBY_FL_FREEZE will basically be the 11th bit in the flags.
All you have to do to unfreeze the object is unset the 11th bit.
To do that, you could use Fiddle, which is part of the standard library and lets you tinker with the language on C level:
require 'fiddle'
class Object
def unfreeze
Fiddle::Pointer.new(object_id * 2)[1] &= ~(1 << 3)
end
end
Non-immediate value objects in Ruby are stored on address = their object_id * 2. Note that it's important to make the distinction so you would be aware that this wont let you unfreeze Fixnums for example.
Since we want to change the 11th bit, we have to work with the 3th bit of the second byte. Hence we access the second byte with [1].
~(1 << 3) shifts 1 three positions and then inverts the result. This way the only bit which is zero in the mask will be the third one and all other will be ones.
Finally, we just apply the mask with bitwise and (&=).
foo = 'A frozen string'.freeze
foo.frozen? # => true
foo.unfreeze
foo.frozen? # => false
foo[/ (?=frozen)/] = 'n un'
foo # => 'An unfrozen string'
No, according to the documentation for Object#freeze:
There is no way to unfreeze a frozen object.
The frozen state is stored within the object. Calling freeze sets the frozen state and thereby prevents further modification. This includes modifications to the object's frozen state.
Regarding your example, you could assign a new string instead:
script = 'Do you want to build a snowman?'
script.freeze
script = script.dup if script.frozen?
script[/snowman/] = 'castle of ice'
script #=> "Do you want to build a castle of ice?"
Ruby 2.3 introduced String#+#, so you can write +str instead of str.dup if str.frozen?
frozen_object = %w[hello world].freeze
frozen_object.concat(['and universe']) # FrozenError (can't modify frozen Array)
frozen_object.dup.concat(['and universe']) # ['hello', 'world', 'and universe']
As noted above copying the variable back into itself also effectively unfreezes the variable.
As noted this can be done using the .dup method:
var1 = var1.dup
This can also be achieved using:
var1 = Marshal.load(Marshal.dump(var1))
I have been using Marshal.load(Marshal.dump( ... )
I have not used .dup and only learned about it through this post.
I do not know what if any differences there are between Marshal.load(Marshal.dump( ... )
If they do the same thing or .dup is more powerful, then stylistically I like .dup better. .dup states what to do -- copy this thing, but it does not say how to do it, whereas Marshal.load(Marshal.dump( ... ) is not only excessively verbose, but states how to do the duplication -- I am not a fan of specifying the HOW part if the HOW part is irrelevant to me. I want to duplicate the value of the variable, I do not care how.
require 'sketchup'
entities = Sketchup.active_model.entities
summa = Hash.new
for face in entities
next unless face.kind_of? Sketchup::Face
if (face.material)
summa[face.material.display_name] += face.area
end
end
I'm trying to get the structure in the array as such:
summa { "Bricks" => 500, "Planks" => 4000 }
By the way, I'm making a ruby script for Google Sketchup
But if I run this code I only get
Error: #<NoMethodError: undefined method `+' for nil:NilClass>
C:\Program Files (x86)\Google\Google SketchUp 7\Plugins\test.rb:17
C:\Program Files (x86)\Google\Google SketchUp 7\Plugins\test.rb:14:in `each'
C:\Program Files (x86)\Google\Google SketchUp 7\Plugins\test.rb:14
C:\Program Files (x86)\Google\Google SketchUp 7\Plugins\test.rb:8:in `call'
As I'm used to using PHP and just doing $array['myownassoc'] += bignumber;
But I guess this isn't the right approach when using Ruby?
So any help in how I need to go would be nice.
The problem is this:
summa[face.material.display_name] += face.area
This is (roughly) equivalent to
summa[face.material.display_name] = summa[face.material.display_name] + face.area
However, you start out with summa as an empty hash:
summa = Hash.new
Which means that whenever you encounter a specific material for the first time (and obviously, this is going to be already the case in the very first iteration of the loop), summa[face.material.display_name] simply doesn't exist. So, you are trying to add a number to something that doesn't exist, which obviously cannot work.
The quick fix would be to just initialize the hash with a default value, so that it returns something useful instead of nil for a non-existing key:
summa = Hash.new(0)
There are, however, a lot of other improvements that could be made to the code. Here's how I would do it:
require 'sketchup'
Sketchup.active_model.entities.grep(Sketchup::Face).select(&:material).
reduce(Hash.new(0)) {|h, face|
h.tap {|h| h[face.material.display_name] += face.area }
}
I find that much easier to read, instead of "loop over this, but skip one iteration if that thing happens, and also don't do this if that happens".
This is actually a common pattern, that pretty much every Rubyist has already written a dozen times, so I actually had a code snippet lying around that I only needed to slightly adapt. However, I am going to show you how I could have refactored your original code step-by-step if I hadn't already had the solution.
First, let's start with coding style. I know it's boring, but it is important. What the actual coding style is, is not important, the important thing is that the code is consistent, which means that one piece of code should look the same as any other piece of code. In this particular instance, you are asking the Ruby community to provide you with unpaid support, so it is polite to at least format the code in a style that members of that community are used to. This means standard Ruby coding style: 2 spaces for indentation, snake_case for method and variable names, CamelCase for constants which refer to modules or classes, ALL_CAPS for constants, and so on. Don't use parentheses unless they clear up the precedence.
In your code, for example, you use sometimes 3 spaces, sometimes 4 spaces, sometimes 5 spaces and sometimes 6 spaces for indentation, and all of that in just 9 non-empty lines of code! Your coding style is not only inconsistent with the rest of the community, it isn't even consistent with its own next line!
Let's fix that first:
require 'sketchup'
entities = Sketchup.active_model.entities
summa = {}
for face in entities
next unless face.kind_of? Sketchup::Face
if face.material
summa[face.material.display_name] += face.area
end
end
Ah, much better.
As I already mentioned, the first thing we need to do, is fix the obvious problem: replace summa = {} (which BTW would be the idiomatic way to write it) with summa = Hash.new(0). Now, the code at least works.
As a next step, I would switch the assignment of the two local variables: first you assign entities, then you assign summa, then you do something with entities and you have to look three lines up to figure out what entities was. If you switch the two, the usage and the assignment of entities are right next to each other.
As a result, we see that entities is assigned, then immediately used and then never used again. I don't think this improves readability much, so we can get rid of it altogether:
for face in Sketchup.active_model.entities
Next comes the for loop. Those are highly un-idiomatic in Ruby; Rubyists strongly prefer internal iterators. So, let's switch to one:
Sketchup.active_model.entities.each {|face|
next unless face.kind_of? Sketchup::Face
if face.material
summa[face.material.display_name] += face.area
end
}
One advantage this has, is that now face is local to the body of the loop, whereas before, it was leaking out into the surrounding scope. (In Ruby, only module bodies, class bodies, method bodies, block bodies and script bodies have their own scope; for and while loop bodies as well as if/unless/case expressions don't.)
Let's get on to the body of the loop.
The first line is a guard clause. That's good, I like guard clauses :-)
The second line is, well, if face.material is true-ish, it does something otherwise it does nothing, which means the loop is over. So, it's another guard clause! However, it is written in a totally different style than the first guard clause, directly one line above it! Again, consistency is important:
Sketchup.active_model.entities.each {|face|
next unless face.kind_of? Sketchup::Face
next unless face.material
summa[face.material.display_name] += face.area
}
Now we have two guard clauses right next to each other. Let's simplify the logic:
Sketchup.active_model.entities.each {|face|
next unless face.kind_of? Sketchup::Face && face.material
summa[face.material.display_name] += face.area
}
But now there is only one single guard clause guarding only one single expression. So, we can just make the whole expression itself conditional:
Sketchup.active_model.entities.each {|face|
summa[face.material.display_name] += face.area if
face.kind_of? Sketchup::Face && face.material
}
However, that's still kind of ugly: we are looping over some collection, and then inside the loop we skip over all the items we don't want to loop over. So, if we don't want to loop over them, we do we loop over them in the first place? We don't we just select the "interesting" items first and then loop over just them?
Sketchup.active_model.entities.select {|e|
e.kind_of? Sketchup::Face && e.material
}.each {|face|
summa[face.material.display_name] += face.area
}
We can do some simplification on this. If we realize that o.kind_of? C is the same as C === o, then we can use the grep filter which uses === to pattern match, instead of select:
Sketchup.active_model.entities.grep(Sketchup::Face).select {|e| e.material
}.each { … }
Our select filter can further be simplified by using Symbol#to_proc:
Sketchup.active_model.entities.grep(Sketchup::Face).select(&:material).each { … }
Now let's get back to the loop. Anybody who has some experience in a higher-order language such as Ruby, JavaScript, Python, C++ STL, C#, Visual Basic.NET, Smalltalk, Lisp, Scheme, Clojure, Haskell, Erlang, F#, Scala, … basically any modern language at all, will immediately recognize this pattern as a catamorphism, reduce, fold, inject:into:, inject or whatever your language of choice happens to call it.
What a reduce does, is basically it "reduces" several things into just one thing. The most obvious example is the sum of a list of numbers: it reduces several numbers into just one number:
[4, 8, 15, 16, 23, 42].reduce(0) {|accumulator, number| accumulator += number }
[Note: in idiomatic Ruby, this would be written just as [4, 8, 15, 16, 23, 42].reduce(:+).]
One way to spot a reduce lurking behind a loop is to look for the following pattern:
accumulator = something # create an accumulator before the loop
collection.each {|element|
# do something with the accumulator
}
# now, accumulator contains the result of what we were looking for
In this case, the accumulator is the summa hash.
Sketchup.active_model.entities.grep(Sketchup::Face).select(&:material).
reduce(Hash.new(0)) {|h, face|
h[face.material.display_name] += face.area
h
}
Last but not least, I don't like this explicit returning of h at the end of block. We could obviously write it on the same line:
h[face.material.display_name] += face.area; h
But I prefer the use of Object#tap (aka the K-combinator) instead:
Sketchup.active_model.entities.grep(Sketchup::Face).select(&:material).
reduce(Hash.new(0)) {|h, face|
h.tap {|h| h[face.material.display_name] += face.area }
}
And, that's it!
summa[face.material.display_name] returns nil by default when face.material.display_name isn't an existing key. When creating a hash, you can specify a different default value to return. Something like:
summa = Hash.new(0)
Just a note on your summary of face areas - you must also take into account of group/components might be scaled so you need make use of the transformations of the whole hierarchy of the groups/components containing the face you inspect. Remember that groups/components can also be skewed - so that has to be taken into account as well.
I play around with arrays and hashes quite a lot in ruby and end up with some code that looks like this:
sum = two_dimensional_array.select{|i|
i.collect{|j|
j.to_i
}.sum > 5
}.collect{|i|
i.collect{|j|
j ** 2
}.average
}.sum
(Let's all pretend that the above code sample makes sense now...)
The problem is that even though TextMate (my editor of choice) picks up simple {...} or do...end blocks quite easily, it can't figure out (which is understandable since even I can't find a "correct" way to fold the above) where the above blocks start and end to fold them.
How would you fold the above code sample?
PS: considering that it could have 2 levels of folding, I only care about the outer consecutive ones (the blocks with the i)
To be honest, something that convoluted is probably confusing TextMate as much as anyone else who has to maintain it, and that includes you in the future.
Whenever you see something that rolls up into a single value, it's a good case for using Enumerable#inject.
sum = two_dimensional_array.inject(0) do |sum, row|
# Convert row to Fixnum equivalent
row_i = row.collect { |i| i.to_i }
if (row_i.sum > 5)
sum += row_i.collect { |i| i ** 2 }.average
end
sum # Carry through to next inject call
end
What's odd in your example is you're using select to return the full array, allegedly converted using to_i, but in fact Enumerable#select does no such thing, and instead rejects any for which the function returns nil. I'm presuming that's none of your values.
Also depending on how your .average method is implemented, you may want to seed the inject call with 0.0 instead of 0 to use a floating-point value.
As far as I understood, matrices are very inflexible to work with. Therefor, I'm trying to get an array of vectors do deal with. My needs are: to be able to add vectors and make arithmetical operations on their components. Writing the code below,
require 'matrix'
x = Matrix.rows( IO.readlines("input.txt").each {|line| line.split} )
puts x.row_vectors
ruby falls into an exception. Why?
matrix.rb:1265:in `to_s': undefined method `join' for "1.2357 2.1742 -5.4834 -2.0735":String (NoMethodError)
OK then, I've calmed down and tried another approach. I wrote:
a = Array.[]( IO.readlines("input.txt").each {|line| Vector.[](line.split) } )
But the only way I can access my vectors inside an array is adressing the second index:
puts a[0][0]
This means, that when I would like to access desired scalar inside a vector, I'll will be forced to use the third index, like:
puts a[0][0][1]
So, the second question is - where the hell that second index comes from? How to get rid of it? Am I missing something when reading data into array?
I can't reproduce your first problem. Extracting what looks like input.txt, I can execute that first expression without an exception.
As to the second question, your expression seems kind of complex. How about:
b = IO.readlines("input.txt").map { |x| x.split(' ') }
This will get you a "2D" array of arrays, and you will need only two subscripts. (As to your question about where did the extra array come from, you got one from the Array constructor, one from IO.readlines, and one from the Vector constructor . . . I think.)
Or maybe:
result = []
IO.foreach('input.txt') { |ln| result << ln.split(' ') }