For Fibers we have got classic example: generating of Fibonacci numbers
fib = Fiber.new do
x, y = 0, 1
loop do
Fiber.yield y
x,y = y,x+y
end
end
Why do we need Fibers here? I can rewrite this with just the same Proc (closure, actually)
def clsr
x, y = 0, 1
Proc.new do
x, y = y, x + y
x
end
end
So
10.times { puts fib.resume }
and
prc = clsr
10.times { puts prc.call }
will return just the same result.
So what are the advantages of fibers. What kind of stuff I can write with Fibers I can't do with lambdas and other cool Ruby features?
Fibers are something you will probably never use directly in application-level code. They are a flow-control primitive which you can use to build other abstractions, which you then use in higher-level code.
Probably the #1 use of fibers in Ruby is to implement Enumerators, which are a core Ruby class in Ruby 1.9. These are incredibly useful.
In Ruby 1.9, if you call almost any iterator method on the core classes, without passing a block, it will return an Enumerator.
irb(main):001:0> [1,2,3].reverse_each
=> #<Enumerator: [1, 2, 3]:reverse_each>
irb(main):002:0> "abc".chars
=> #<Enumerator: "abc":chars>
irb(main):003:0> 1.upto(10)
=> #<Enumerator: 1:upto(10)>
These Enumerators are Enumerable objects, and their each methods yield the elements which would have been yielded by the original iterator method, had it been called with a block. In the example I just gave, the Enumerator returned by reverse_each has a each method which yields 3,2,1. The Enumerator returned by chars yields "c","b","a" (and so on). BUT, unlike the original iterator method, the Enumerator can also return the elements one by one if you call next on it repeatedly:
irb(main):001:0> e = "abc".chars
=> #<Enumerator: "abc":chars>
irb(main):002:0> e.next
=> "a"
irb(main):003:0> e.next
=> "b"
irb(main):004:0> e.next
=> "c"
You may have heard of "internal iterators" and "external iterators" (a good description of both is given in the "Gang of Four" Design Patterns book). The above example shows that Enumerators can be used to turn an internal iterator into an external one.
This is one way to make your own enumerators:
class SomeClass
def an_iterator
# note the 'return enum_for...' pattern; it's very useful
# enum_for is an Object method
# so even for iterators which don't return an Enumerator when called
# with no block, you can easily get one by calling 'enum_for'
return enum_for(:an_iterator) if not block_given?
yield 1
yield 2
yield 3
end
end
Let's try it:
e = SomeClass.new.an_iterator
e.next # => 1
e.next # => 2
e.next # => 3
Wait a minute... does anything seem strange there? You wrote the yield statements in an_iterator as straight-line code, but the Enumerator can run them one at a time. In between calls to next, the execution of an_iterator is "frozen". Each time you call next, it continues running down to the following yield statement, and then "freezes" again.
Can you guess how this is implemented? The Enumerator wraps the call to an_iterator in a fiber, and passes a block which suspends the fiber. So every time an_iterator yields to the block, the fiber which it is running on is suspended, and execution continues on the main thread. Next time you call next, it passes control to the fiber, the block returns, and an_iterator continues where it left off.
It would be instructive to think of what would be required to do this without fibers. EVERY class which wanted to provide both internal and external iterators would have to contain explicit code to keep track of state between calls to next. Each call to next would have to check that state, and update it before returning a value. With fibers, we can automatically convert any internal iterator to an external one.
This doesn't have to do with fibers persay, but let me mention one more thing you can do with Enumerators: they allow you to apply higher-order Enumerable methods to other iterators other than each. Think about it: normally all the Enumerable methods, including map, select, include?, inject, and so on, all work on the elements yielded by each. But what if an object has other iterators other than each?
irb(main):001:0> "Hello".chars.select { |c| c =~ /[A-Z]/ }
=> ["H"]
irb(main):002:0> "Hello".bytes.sort
=> [72, 101, 108, 108, 111]
Calling the iterator with no block returns an Enumerator, and then you can call other Enumerable methods on that.
Getting back to fibers, have you used the take method from Enumerable?
class InfiniteSeries
include Enumerable
def each
i = 0
loop { yield(i += 1) }
end
end
If anything calls that each method, it looks like it should never return, right? Check this out:
InfiniteSeries.new.take(10) # => [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10]
I don't know if this uses fibers under the hood, but it could. Fibers can be used to implement infinite lists and lazy evaluation of a series. For an example of some lazy methods defined with Enumerators, I have defined some here: https://github.com/alexdowad/showcase/blob/master/ruby-core/collections.rb
You can also build a general-purpose coroutine facility using fibers. I've never used coroutines in any of my programs yet, but it's a good concept to know.
I hope this gives you some idea of the possibilities. As I said at the beginning, fibers are a low-level flow-control primitive. They make it possible to maintain multiple control-flow "positions" within your program (like different "bookmarks" in the pages of a book) and switch between them as desired. Since arbitrary code can run in a fiber, you can call into 3rd-party code on a fiber, and then "freeze" it and continue doing something else when it calls back into code you control.
Imagine something like this: you are writing a server program which will service many clients. A complete interaction with a client involves going through a series of steps, but each connection is transient, and you have to remember state for each client between connections. (Sound like web programming?)
Rather than explicitly storing that state, and checking it each time a client connects (to see what the next "step" they have to do is), you could maintain a fiber for each client. After identifying the client, you would retrieve their fiber and re-start it. Then at the end of each connection, you would suspend the fiber and store it again. This way, you could write straight-line code to implement all the logic for a complete interaction, including all the steps (just as you naturally would if your program was made to run locally).
I'm sure there's many reasons why such a thing may not be practical (at least for now), but again I'm just trying to show you some of the possibilities. Who knows; once you get the concept, you may come up with some totally new application which no-one else has thought of yet!
Unlike closures, which have a defined entry and exit point, fibers can preserve their state and return (yield) many times:
f = Fiber.new do
puts 'some code'
param = Fiber.yield 'return' # sent parameter, received parameter
puts "received param: #{param}"
Fiber.yield #nothing sent, nothing received
puts 'etc'
end
puts f.resume
f.resume 'param'
f.resume
prints this:
some code
return
received param: param
etc
Implementation of this logic with other ruby features will be less readable.
With this feature, good fibers usage is to do manual cooperative scheduling (as Threads replacement). Ilya Grigorik has a good example on how to turn an asynchronous library (eventmachine in this case) into what looks like a synchronous API without losing the advantages of IO-scheduling of the asynchronous execution. Here is the link.
Related
Let's suppose I have this class:
class Example
attr_accessor :numbers
def initialize(numbers = [])
#numbers = numbers
end
private
def validate!(number)
number >= 0 || raise(ArgumentError)
end
end
I would like to run the #validate! on any new number before pushing it into the numbers:
example = Example.new([1, 2, 3])
example.numbers # [1, 2, 3]
example.numbers << 4
example.numbers # [1, 2, 3, 4]
example.numbers << -1 # raise ArgumentError
Below is the best I can do but I'm really not sure about it.
Plus it works only on <<, not on push. I could add it but there is risk of infinite loop...).
Is there a more "regular" way to do it? I couldn't find any official process for that.
class Example
attr_accessor :numbers
def initialize(numbers = [])
#numbers = numbers
bind = self # so the instance is usable inside the singleton block
#numbers.singleton_class.send(:define_method, :<<) do |value|
# here, self refers to the #numbers array, so use bind to refer to the instance
bind.send(:validate!, value)
push(value)
end
end
private
def validate!(number)
number >= 0 || raise(ArgumentError)
end
end
Programming is a lot like real life: it is not a good idea to just run around and let strangers touch your private parts.
You are solving the wrong problem. You are trying to regulate what strangers can do when they play with your private parts, but instead you simply shouldn't let them touch your privates in the first place.
class Example
def initialize(numbers = [])
#numbers = numbers.clone
end
def numbers
#numbers.clone.freeze
end
def <<(number)
validate(number)
#numbers << number
self
end
private
def validate(number)
raise ArgumentError, "number must be non-negative, but is #{number}" unless number >= 0
end
end
example = Example.new([1, 2, 3])
example.numbers # [1, 2, 3]
example << 4
example.numbers # [1, 2, 3, 4]
example << -1 # raise ArgumentError
Let's look at all the changes I made one-by-one.
cloneing the initializer argument
You are taking a mutable object (an array) from an untrusted source (the caller). You should make sure that the caller cannot do anything "sneaky". In your first code, I can do this:
ary = [1, 2, 3]
example = Example.new(ary)
ary << -1
Since you simply took my array I handed you, I can still do to the array anything I want!
And even in the hardened version, I can do this:
ary = [1, 2, 3]
example = Example.new(ary)
class << ary
remove_method :<<
end
ary << -1
Or, I can freeze the array before I hand it to you, which makes it impossible to add a singleton method to it.
Even without the safety aspects, you should still do this, because you violate another real-life rule: Don't play with other people's toys! I am handing you my array, and then you mutate it. In the real world, that would be considered rude. In programming, it is surprising, and surprises breed bugs.
cloneing in the getter
This goes to the heart of the matter: the #numbers array is my private internal state. I should never hand that to strangers. If you don't hand the #numbers array out, then none of the problems you are protecting against can even occur.
You are trying to protect against strangers mutating your internal state, and the solution to that is simple: don't give strangers your internal state!
The freeze is technically not necessary, but I like it to make clear to the caller that this is just a view into the state of the example object, and they are only allowed to view what I want them to.
And again, even without the safety aspects, this would still be a bad idea: by exposing your internal implementation to clients, you can no longer change the internal implementation without breaking clients. If you change the array to a linked list, your clients are going to break, because they are used to getting an array that you can randomly index, but you can't randomly index a linked list, you always have to traverse it from the front.
The example is unfortunately too small and simple to judge that, but I would even question why you are handing out arrays in the first place. What do the clients want to do with those numbers? Maybe it is enough for them to just iterate over them, in which case you don't need to give them a whole array, just an iterator:
class Example
def each(...)
return enum_for(__callee__) unless block_given?
#numbers.each(...)
self
end
end
If the caller wants an array, they can still easily get one by calling to_a on the Enumerator.
Note that I return self. This has two reasons:
It is simply the contract of each. Every other object in Ruby that implements each returns self. If this were Java, this would be part of the Iterable interface.
I would actually accidentally leak the internal state that I work so hard to protect! As I just wrote: every implementation of each returns self, so what does #numbers.each return? It returns #numbers, which means my whole Example#each method returns #numbers which is exactly the thing I am trying to hide!
Implement << myself
Instead of handing out my internal state and have the caller append to it, I control what happens with my internal state. I implement my own version of << in which I can check for whatever I want and make sure no invariants of my object are violated.
Note that I return self. This has two reasons:
It is simply the contract of <<. Every other object in Ruby that implements << returns self. If this were Java, this would be part of the Appendable interface.
I would actually accidentally leak the internal state that I work so hard to protect! As I just wrote: every implementation of << returns self, so what does #numbers << number return? It returns #numbers, which means my whole Example#<< method returns #numbers which is exactly the thing I am trying to hide!
Drop the bang
In Ruby, method names that end with a bang mean "This method is more surprising than its non-bang counterpart". In your case, there is no non-bang counterpart, so the method shouldn't have a bang.
Don't abuse boolean operators for control flow
… or at least if you do, use the keyword versions (and / or) instead of the symbolic ones (&& / ||).
But really, you should void it altogether. do or die is idiomatic in Perl, but not in Ruby.
Technically, I have changed the return value of your method: it used to return true for a valid value, now it returns nil. But you ignore its return value anyway, so it doesn't matter.
validate is probably not a good name for the method, though. I would expect a method named validate to return a boolean result, not raise an exception.
An exceptional message
You should add messages to your exceptions that tell the programmer what went wrong. Another possibility is to create more specific exceptions, e.g.
class NegativeNumberError < ArgumentError; end
But that would be overkill in this case. In general, if you expect code to "read" your exception, create a new class, if you expect humans to read your exception, then a message is enough.
Encapsulation, Data Abstraction, Information Hiding
Those are three subtly different but related concepts, and they are among the most important concepts in programming. We always want hide our internal state and encapsulate it behind methods that we control.
Encapsulation to the max
Some people (including myself) don't particularly like even the object itself playing with its internal state. Personally, I even encapsulate private instance variables that are never exposed behind getters and setters. The reason is that this makes the class easier to subclass: you can override and specialize methods, but not instance variables. So, if I use the instance variable directly, a subclass cannot "hook" into those accesses.
Whereas if I use getter and setter methods, the subclass can override those (or only one of those).
Note: the example is too small and simple, so I had some real trouble coming up with a good name (there is not enough in the example to understand how the variable is used and what it means), so eventually, I just gave up, but you will see what I mean about using getters and setters:
class Example
class NegativeNumberError < ArgumentError; end
def initialize(numbers = [])
self.numbers_backing = numbers.clone
end
def each(...)
return enum_for(__callee__) unless block_given?
numbers_backing.each(...)
self
end
def <<(number)
validate(number)
numbers_backing << number
self
end
private
attr_accessor :numbers_backing
def validate(number)
raise NegativeNumberError unless number >= 0
end
end
example = Example.new([1, 2, 3])
example.each.to_a # [1, 2, 3]
example << 4
example.each.to_a # [1, 2, 3, 4]
example << -1 # raise NegativeNumberError
I have looked for resources which explain its purpose. I couldn't find any real world implementations either.
Below is the extract from Ruby's documentation:
load( source [, proc] ) → obj Returns the result of converting the
serialized data in source into a Ruby object (possibly with associated
subordinate objects). source may be either an instance of IO or an
object that responds to to_str. If proc is specified, each object will
be passed to the proc, as the object is being deserialized.
I would appreciate an example of its usage, or at least direct me to some resources.
You can see how the proc is invoked by doing something like:
irb(main):030:0> Marshal.load(Marshal.dump(a:1), lambda { |x| p [self,x]; x })
[main, :a]
[main, 1]
[main, {:a=>1}]
=> {:a=>1}
When used with a marshalled string, the proc is for some reason invoked twice.
irb(main):031:0> Marshal.load(Marshal.dump('a'), lambda { |x| p [self,x]; x })
[main, "a"]
[main, true]
=> "a"
Transformation of Deserialized Objects
A general use case is that you want to perform some action or transformation on the object you're deserializing. For example, using some Ruby 2.7.1 shortcuts:
Marshal.load Marshal.dump("abc"), ->{ _1.to_s.upcase }
#=> "ABC"
This doesn't add much value when deserializing a single object, but could be very useful if you're handling dumped objects in bulk. I can't think of a pragmatic use case where you couldn't transform after deserializing, but Ruby is full of useful tools for handling things without intermediate steps. This seems to be one of them.
Possible Bug: Procs Appear to Run Twice but Return Once
In the example above, I coerce the first positional argument to a string because otherwise I get a NoMethodError on one of the two passes this is making through the lambda. You can sort of unpack what's going on (but perhaps not why) as follows:
prc = proc { |obj| pp obj }
Marshal.load Marshal.dump("abc"), prc
"abc"
true
#=> "abc"
For whatever reason, the body of a Proc or lambda is called twice, but only returns the first pass. The problem occurs when the second invocation raises a NoMethodError exception when called on TrueClass, so the call never returns a value.
Another way to handle this is to explicitly handle the exception, e.g.:
prc = proc { |obj| obj.upcase rescue NoMethodError }
or to avoid invoking methods on true:
prc = proc { |obj| obj.upcase unless obj == true }
While I can explain what is going on, and how to work around it, I can't tell you why invoking with a proc-like object behaves this way. That's a question for the Ruby Core Team, or fodder for the Ruby bug tracker.
Why does: respond_to? in:
class Wolf
def howl; end
end
Wolf.new.respond_to?(:howl) # => true
not require & while map in:
["1", "2", "3"].map(&:to_i) # => [1, 2, 3]
does? Also, are there any technical names for this?
When you say :method, you're using some nice syntactical sugar in ruby that creates a new Symbol object. When you throw an ampersand before it (&:method), you're using another piece of sugar. This invokes the to_proc method on the symbol.
So, these two things are identical:
method_proc = &:method
sym = :method
method_proc = method.to_proc
What's the difference between that and the other usage? Well, respond_to? has a single argument -- a symbol. So we can pass :method and be all fine and dandy. (Interestingly, objects do respond to the method named method, but that's a far more confusing question).
By comparison, Enumerable's iterators (like map, select, etc) accept a block. When we pass a Proc, it is interpreted properly as that block. So, these two pieces of code are equivalent:
[1,2,3].map { |i| i.even? }
[1,2,3].map(&:even?)
This equivalence is a little confusing, because of course Symbol has no idea that there's an even? method somewhere. To play around with it, I used evenproc = :even?.to_proc to inspect the resulting proc. It's implemented in C (at least in MRI ruby), and isn't willing to give up its source. However, its arity is -1, which means that it accepts one optional arg. My best guess is that it does something like this:
def to_proc
method_name = self.to_s
->(a) { a.send(method_name) }
end
I could dig further, but I think we've already gone way past the question. ;) Good luck!
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.
I am trying to understand why do we really need lambda or proc in ruby (or any other language for that matter)?
#method
def add a,b
c = a+b
end
#using proc
def add_proc a,b
f = Proc.new {|x,y| x + y }
f.call a,b
end
#using lambda function
def add_lambda a,b
f = lambda {|x,y| x + y}
f.call a,b
end
puts add 1,1
puts add_proc 1,2
puts add_lambda 1,3
I can do a simple addition using: 1. normal function def, 2. using proc and 3. using lambda.
But why and where use lambda in the real world? Any examples where functions cannot be used and lambda should be used.
It's true, you don't need anonymous functions (or lambdas, or whatever you want to call them). But there are a lot of things you don't need. You don't need classes—just pass all the instance variables around to ordinary functions. Then
class Foo
attr_accessor :bar, :baz
def frob(x)
bar = baz*x
end
end
would become
def new_Foo(bar,baz)
[bar,baz]
end
def bar(foo)
foo[0]
end
# Other attribute accessors stripped for brevity's sake
def frob(foo,x)
foo[0] = foo[1]*x
end
Similarly, you don't need any loops except for loop...end with if and break. I could go on and on.1 But you want to program with classes in Ruby. You want to be able to use while loops, or maybe even array.each { |x| ... }, and you want to be able to use unless instead of if not.
Just like these features, anonymous functions are there to help you express things elegantly, concisely, and sensibly. Being able to write some_function(lambda { |x,y| x + f(y) }) is much nicer than having to write
def temp(x,y)
x + f(y)
end
some_function temp
It's much bulkier to have to break off the flow of code to write out a deffed function, which then has to be given a useless name, when it's just as clear to write the operation in-line. It's true that there's nowhere you must use a lambda, but there are lots of places I'd much rather use a lambda.
Ruby solves a lot of the lambda-using cases with blocks: all the functions like each, map, and open which can take a block as an argument are basically taking a special-cased anonymous function. array.map { |x| f(x) + g(x) } is the same as array.map(&lambda { |x| f(x) + g(x) }) (where the & just makes the lambda "special" in the same way that the bare block is). Again, you could write out a separate deffed function every time—but why would you want to?
Languages other than Ruby which support that style of programming don't have blocks, but often support a lighter-weight lambda syntax, such as Haskell's \x -> f x + g x, or C#'s x => f(x) + g(x);2. Any time I have a function which needs to take some abstract behavior, such as map, or each, or on_clicked, I'm going to be thankful for the ability to pass in a lambda instead of a named function, because it's just that much easier. Eventually, you stop thinking of them as somehow special—they're about as exciting as literal syntax for arrays instead of empty().append(1).append(2).append(3). Just another useful part of the language.
1: In the degenerate case, you really only need eight instructions: +-<>[].,. <> move an imaginary "pointer" along an array; +- increment and decrement the integer in the current cell; [] perform a loop-while-non-zero; and ., do input and output. In fact, you really only need just one instruction, such as subleq a b c (subtract a from b and jump to c if the result is less than or equal to zero).
2: I've never actually used C#, so if that syntax is wrong, feel free to correct it.
Blocks are more-or-less the same thing
Well, in Ruby, one doesn't usually use lambda or proc, because blocks are about the same thing and much more convenient.
The uses are infinite, but we can list some typical cases. One normally thinks of functions as lower-level blocks performing a piece of the processing, perhaps written generally and made into a library.
But quite often one wants to automate the wrapper and provide a custom library. Imagine a function that makes an HTTP or HTTPS connection, or a straight TCP one, feeds the I/O to its client, and then closes the connection. Or perhaps just does the same thing with a plain old file.
So in Ruby we would put the function in a library and have it take a block for the user .. the client .. the "caller" to write his application logic.
In another language this would have to be done with a class that implements an interface, or a function pointer. Ruby has blocks, but they are all examples of a lambda-style design pattern.
1) It is just a convenience. You don't need to name certain blocks
special_sort(array, :compare_proc => lambda { |left, right| left.special_param <=> right.special_param }
(imagine if you had to name all these blocks)
2) #lambda is usually used to create clojures:
def generate_multiple_proc(cofactor)
lambda { |element| element * cofactor }
end
[1, 2, 3, 4].map(&generate_multiple_proc(2)) # => [2, 3, 5, 8]
[1, 2, 3, 4].map(&generate_multiple_proc(3)) # => [3, 6, 9, 12]
It comes down to style. Lambdas are a a declarative style, methods are an imperative style. Consider this:
Lambda, blocks, procs, are all different types of closure. Now the question is, when and why to use an anonymous closure. I can answer that - at least in ruby!
Closures contain the lexical context of where they were called from. If you call a method from within a method, you do not get the context of where the method was called. This is due to the way the object chain is stored in the AST.
A Closure (lambda) on the other hand, can be passed WITH lexical context through a method, allowing for lazy evaluation.
Also lambdas naturally lend themselves to recursion and enumeration.
In case of OOP, you should create a function in a class only if there should be such an operation on the class according to your domain modeling.
If you need a quick function which can be written inline such as for comparison etc, use a lambda
Also check these SO posts -
When to use lambda, when to use Proc.new?
C# Lambda expressions: Why should I use them?
When to use a lambda in Ruby on Rails?
They're used as "higher-order" functions. Basically, for cases where you pass one function to another, so that the receiving function can call the passed-in one according to its own logic.
This is common in Ruby for iteration, e.g. some_list.each { |item| ... } to do something to each item of some_list. Although notice here that we don't use the keyword lambda; as noted, a block is basically the same thing.
In Python (since we have a language-agnostic tag on this question) you can't write anything quite like a Ruby block, so the lambda keyword comes up more often. However, you can get a similar "shortcut" effect from list comprehensions and generator expressions.
I found this helpful in understanding the differences:
http://www.robertsosinski.com/2008/12/21/understanding-ruby-blocks-procs-and-lambdas/
But in general the point is sometimes your writing a method but you don't know what you're going to want to do at a certain point in that method, so you let the caller decide.
E.g.:
def iterate_over_two_arrays(arr1, arr2, the_proc)
arr1.each do |x|
arr2.each do |y|
# ok I'm iterating over two arrays, but I could do lots of useful things now
# so I'll leave it up to the caller to decide by passing in a proc
the_proc.call(x,y)
end
end
end
Then instead of writing a iterate_over_two_arrays_and_print_sum method and a iterate_over_two_arrays_and_print_product method you just call:
iterate_over_two_arrays([1,2,3], [4,5,6], Proc.new {|x,y| puts x + y }
or
iterate_over_two_arrays([1,2,3], [4,5,6], Proc.new {|x,y| puts x * y }
so it's more flexible.