Related
I have a nested hash, to which I need to add more deeply nested property/value pairs.
Sample A:
a = {}
a['x']['y']['z'] << 8
Normally I'd have to do this:
Sample B:
a = {}
a['x'] ||= a['x'] = {}
a['x']['y'] ||= a['x']['y'] = {}
a['x']['y']['z'] ||= a['x']['y']['z'] = []
Otherwise, I will get undefined method '<<' for nil:NillClass.
Is there some type of shorthand or function along the lines of code A instead of code B?
The most elegant solution for the deep-nested hash of any depth would be:
hash = Hash.new { |h, k| h[k] = h.dup.clear }
or, even better (credits to #Stefan)
hash = Hash.new { |h, k| h[k] = Hash.new(&h.default_proc) }
That way one might access any level:
hash[:a1][:a2][:a3][:a4] = :foo
#⇒ {:a1=>{:a2=>{:a3=>{:a4=>:foo}}}}
The idea is to clone the default_proc within the hash itself.
To give a little backgroud, there's a method Hash#dig which is present since ruby 2.3. With this you can safely attempt to read any number of keys:
{a: {b: {c: 1}}}.dig :a, :b, :c # => 1
{}.dig :a, :b, :c # => nil
of course, this doesn't solve your problem. You're looking for a write version. This has been proposed but rejected in Ruby core in the form of Hash#bury.
This method does almost exactly what you are looking for, however it can only set nested hash values and not append to nested arrays:
# start with empty hash
hash = {}
# define the inner array
hash.bury :x, :y, :z, []
# add to the inner array
hash[:x][:y][:z] << :some_val
You can get this method through the ruby-bury gem, or alternatively you can take their implementation from their source code
Here are a couple of ways that could be done.
arr = [:a1, :a2, :a3, :a4, :foo]
Use Enumerable#reduce (aka inject)
def hashify(arr)
arr[0..-3].reverse_each.reduce(arr[-2]=>arr[-1]) { |h,x| { x=>h } }
end
hashify(arr)
#=> {:a1=>{:a2=>{:a3=>{:a4=>:foo}}}}
Use recursion
def hashify(arr)
first, *rest = arr
rest.size == 1 ? { first=>rest.first } : { first=>hashify(rest) }
end
hashify(arr)
#=> {:a1=>{:a2=>{:a3=>{:a4=>:foo}}}}
You can consider using the get and set methods from the rodash gem in order to set a deeply nested value into a hash with a default value.
require 'rodash'
a = {}
key = ['x', 'y', 'z']
default_value = []
value = 8
current_value = Rodash.get(a, key, default_value)
Rodash.set(a, key, current_value << value)
a
# => {"x"=>{"y"=>{"z"=>[8]}}}
I use the following to deeply set/initialize arrays/hashes using a list of keys. If they keys are ints, it assumes indexing into an array, otherwise it assumes a hash:
def deep_set(target, path, value)
key = path.shift
return target[key] = value if path.empty?
child = target[key]
return deep_set(child, path, value) if child
deep_set(
target[key] = path[0].is_a?(Integer) ? [] : {},
path,
value,
)
end
Here is an example of using it:
target = {first: [:old_data]}
deep_set(target, [:first, 1, 1, :lol], 'foo')
puts target # {:first=>[:old_data, [nil, {:lol=>"foo"}]]}
It uses the fact that ruby allows you to set-and-expand arrays on the fly, which is a bit wonky, but works nicely here.
I am currently working on a basic Ruby programming project, that focuses on creating classes, and operations on those classes. I have very little experience, but understand the general idea of Ruby.
My task is making an Array2 class. Creating arrays from the class, perform operations on the arrays. The methods I attempted are a to-string method, and a is-reverse method that has two array parameters, and tests if the first array is the reverse of the second array.
Here is my attempt, I tried but I am having trouble passing the arrays properly into the class. Also I believe that I am having some calling complications.
class Array2
def initialize (a)
#array = Array.new(a)
end
def to_s
return #array
end
def isreverse (array1,array2)
reverasea = Array.new
reverasea = array1.reverse
if (reversea = array2) then
return "The First Array Is The Reverse Of The Second Array"
else
return "The First Array Is Not The Reverse Of The Second Array"
end
end
end
array1 = ["4","5","6","7"]
array2 = ["7","6","5","3"]
a1 = Array2.new(array1)
a2 = Array2.new(array2)
puts a1.to_s
puts a2.to_s
puts a1.isreverse(array1, array2)
You have an assignment where you probably meant equality test:
if (reversea = array2) then
you could dispense with reversea entirely and just test (this requires a reverse method in Array2)
if (array1.reverse == #array) then
I would personally make isreverse a boolean, and eliminate the need to pass in the same array again:
def isreverse? (array1)
return (#array.reverse == array1)
end
then use it like
puts "The First Array Is#{a1.isreverse?(a2)?"":" Not"} The Reverse Of The Second Array"
put it all together and it looks like:
class Array2
def initialize (a)
#array = Array.new(a)
end
def to_s
return #array
end
def reverse
#array.reverse
end
def isreverse? (array1)
return (array1.reverse == #array)
end
end
array1 = ["4","5","6","7"]
array2 = ["7","6","5","3"]
a1 = Array2.new(array1)
a2 = Array2.new(array2)
puts a1.to_s
puts a2.to_s
puts "The First Array Is#{a1.isreverse?(a2)?"":" Not"} The Reverse Of The Second Array"
fiddle
Here are some adjustments to your existing approach. I put in comments where I changed the original::
class Array2
def initialize (a)
#array = Array.new(a)
end
def to_array # to_s is a misnomer: it doesn't return a string
return #array
end
def isreverse (a)
#reverasea = Array.new NOTE this is not needed; the following .reverse creates a new array for you
reversea = a.to_array.reverse # get the reverse of the array represented
# NOTE = is assign, == is compare in this case
# The following compares the reversed of the array `a` with the array value of this class, #array
if (reversea == #array) then
return "The First Array Is The Reverse Of The Second Array"
else
return "The First Array Is Not The Reverse Of The Second Array"
end
end
end
array1 = ["4","5","6","7"]
array2 = ["7","6","5","3"]
a1 = Array2.new(array1)
a2 = Array2.new(array2)
puts a1.to_array # (renamed)
puts a2.to_array # (renamed)
#puts a1.isreverse(array1, array2) NOTE you don't need to pass array1 into class a1 since it is already made from array1
puts a1.isreverse(a2)
I would go for something simpler such as:
Filename: reverser.rb
class Reverser
def self.is_reverse_of(array1,array2)
array1_reversed=array1.reverse
is_or_isnt= (array1_reversed==array2)? 'Not ' : ''
return "The First Array Is #{is_or_isnt}The Reverse Of The Second Array"
end
end
puts Reverser.is_reverse_of(["4","5","6","7"], ["7","6","5","4"])
puts Reverser.is_reverse_of(["4","5","6","7"], ["7","6","5","3"])
ruby reverser.rb
The First Array Is Not The Reverse Of The Second Array
The First Array Is The Reverse Of The Second Array
The idea being to use a class level method and not instantiate as much and have less code.
There's a nice idiom for adding to lists stored in a hash table:
(hash[key] ||= []) << new_value
Now, suppose I write a derivative hash class, like the ones found in Hashie, which does a deep-convert of any hash I store in it. Then what I store will not be the same object I passed to the = operator; Hash may be converted to Mash or Clash, and arrays may be copied.
Here's the problem. Ruby apparently returns, from the var= method, the value passed in, not the value that's stored. It doesn't matter what the var= method returns. The code below demonstrates this:
class C
attr_reader :foo
def foo=(value)
#foo = (value.is_a? Array) ? (value.clone) : value
end
end
c=C.new
puts "assignment: #{(c.foo ||= []) << 5}"
puts "c.foo is #{c.foo}"
puts "assignment: #{(c.foo ||= []) << 6}"
puts "c.foo is #{c.foo}"
output is
assignment: [5]
c.foo is []
assignment: [6]
c.foo is [6]
When I posted this as a bug to Hashie, Danielle Sucher explained what was happening and pointed out that "foo.send :bar=, 1" returns the value returned by the bar= method. (Hat tip for the research!) So I guess I could do:
c=C.new
puts "clunky assignment: #{(c.foo || c.send(:foo=, [])) << 5}"
puts "c.foo is #{c.foo}"
puts "assignment: #{(c.foo || c.send(:foo=, [])) << 6}"
puts "c.foo is #{c.foo}"
which prints
clunky assignment: [5]
c.foo is [5]
assignment: [5, 6]
c.foo is [5, 6]
Is there any more elegant way to do this?
Assignments evaluate to the value that is being assigned. Period.
In some other languages, assignments are statements, so they don't evaluate to anything. Those are really the only two sensible choices. Either don't evaluate to anything, or evaluate to the value being assigned. Everything else would be too surprising.
Since Ruby doesn't have statements, there is really only one choice.
The only "workaround" for this is: don't use assignment.
c.foo ||= []
c.foo << 5
Using two lines of code isn't the end of the world, and it's easier on the eyes.
The prettiest way to do this is to use default value for hash:
# h = Hash.new { [] }
h = Hash.new { |h,k| h[k] = [] }
But be ware that you cant use Hash.new([]) and then << because of way how Ruby store variables:
h = Hash.new([])
h[:a] # => []
h[:b] # => []
h[:a] << 10
h[:b] # => [10] O.o
it's caused by that Ruby store variables by reference, so as we created only one array instance, ad set it as default value then it will be shared between all hash cells (unless it will be overwrite, i.e. by h[:a] += [10]).
It is solved by using constructor with block (doc) Hash.new { [] }. With this each time when new key is created block is called and each value is different array.
EDIT: Fixed error that #Uri Agassi is writing about.
I am attempting to convert an XML document to a Ruby hash using Nori. But instead of receiving a collection of the root element, a new node containing the collection is returned. This is what I am doing:
#xml = content_for(:layout)
#hash = Nori.new(:parser => :nokogiri, :advanced_typecasting => false).parse(#xml)
or
#hash = Hash.from_xml(#xml)
Where the content of #xml is:
<bundles>
<bundle>
<id>6073</id>
<name>Bundle-1</name>
<status>1</status>
<bundle_type>
<id>6713</id>
<name>BundleType-1</name>
</bundle_type>
<begin_at nil=\"true\"></begin_at>
<end_at nil=\"true\"></end_at>
<updated_at>2013-03-21T23:02:32Z</updated_at>
<created_at>2013-03-21T23:02:32Z</created_at>
</bundle>
<bundle>
<id>6074</id>
<name>Bundle-2</name>
<status>1</status>
<bundle_type>
<id>6714</id>
<name>BundleType-2</name>
</bundle_type>
<begin_at nil=\"true\"></begin_at>
<end_at nil=\"true\"></end_at>
<updated_at>2013-03-21T23:02:32Z</updated_at>
<created_at>2013-03-21T23:02:32Z</created_at>
</bundle>
</bundles>
The parser returns #hash of format:
{"bundles"=>{"bundle"=>[{"id"=>"6073", "name"=>"Bundle-1", "status"=>"1", "bundle_type"=>{"id"=>"6713", "name"=>"BundleType-1"}, "begin_at"=>nil, "end_at"=>nil, "updated_at"=>"2013-03-21T23:02:32Z", "created_at"=>"2013-03-21T23:02:32Z"}, {"id"=>"6074", "name"=>"Bundle-2", "status"=>"1", "bundle_type"=>{"id"=>"6714", "name"=>"BundleType-2"}, "begin_at"=>nil, "end_at"=>nil, "updated_at"=>"2013-03-21T23:02:32Z", "created_at"=>"2013-03-21T23:02:32Z"}]}}
Instead I would like to get:
{"bundles"=>[{"id"=>"6073", "name"=>"Bundle-1", "status"=>"1", "bundle_type"=>{"id"=>"6713", "name"=>"BundleType-1"}, "begin_at"=>nil, "end_at"=>nil, "updated_at"=>"2013-03-21T23:02:32Z", "created_at"=>"2013-03-21T23:02:32Z"}, {"id"=>"6074", "name"=>"Bundle-2", "status"=>"1", "bundle_type"=>{"id"=>"6714", "name"=>"BundleType-2"}, "begin_at"=>nil, "end_at"=>nil, "updated_at"=>"2013-03-21T23:02:32Z", "created_at"=>"2013-03-21T23:02:32Z"}]}
The point is that I control the XML, where it if formed similar to the way described above.
My question is also related to Does RABL's JSON output not conform to standard? Can it?
Imagine an XML that consists only of a list of the same tags, e.g.
<shoppinglist>
<item>apple</item>
<item>banana</item>
<item>cherry</item>
<item>pear</item>
<shoppinglist>
When you convert this into a hash, it is quite straightforward to access the items with e.g. hash['shoppinglist']['item'][0]. But what would you expect in this case? just an array? According to your logic, the items should now be accessible with hash['shoppinglist'][0] but what if you have different elements inside the container e.g.
<shoppinglist>
<date>2013-01-01</date>
<item>apple</item>
<item>banana</item>
<item>cherry</item>
<item>pear</item>
<shoppinglist>
How would you now access the items? And how the date? The problem is that the conversion to a hash has to work in the general case.
Although i do not know Nori, i am pretty sure what you ask from it is not baked in, just because it makes no sense when you consider the general case. As an alternative, you can still get the bundle array up one level by yourself:
#hash['bundles'] = #hash['bundles']['bundle']
The general solution to to your problem is not very pretty.
I created a special Object that I named an ArrayHash. It has the special property that if in has only one key and that value of the data pointed to by that key is an array it adds integer keys to those array elements.
So if normal ruby Hash dictionary would look like
{bundle"=>["0", "1", "A", "B"]}
then in an ArrayHash dictionaary would look like this
{"bundle"=>["0", "1", "A", "B"], 0=>"0", 1=>"1", 2=>"A", 3=>"B"}
Since the extra keys are of type Fixnum this Hash looks just like the Array
[ "0", "1", "A", "B" ]
except that it also has a "bundle" entry so its size is 5
Below is the code to force Nori to use this special Dictionary.
require 'nori'
class Nori
class ArrayHash < Hash
def [](a)
if a.is_a? Fixnum and self.size == 1
key = self.keys[0]
self[key][a]
else
super
end
end
def inspect
if self.size == 1 and self.to_a[0][1].class == Array
p = Hash[self.to_a]
self.values[0].each.with_index do |v, i|
p[i] = v
end
p.inspect
else
super
end
end
end
end
class Nori
class XMLUtilityNode
alias :old_to_hash :to_hash
def to_hash
ret = old_to_hash
raise if ret.size != 1
raise unless ret.class == Hash
a = ret.to_a[0]
k, v = a.first, a.last
if v.class == Hash
v = ArrayHash[ v.to_a ]
end
ret = ArrayHash[ k, v ]
ret
end
end
end
h = Nori.new(:parser => :nokogiri, :advanced_typecasting => false).parse(<<EOF)
<top>
<aundles>
<bundle>0</bundle>
<bundle>1</bundle>
<bundle>A</bundle>
<bundle>B</bundle>
</aundles>
<bundles>
<nundle>A</nundle>
<bundle>A</bundle>
<bundle>B</bundle>
</bundles>
</top>
EOF
puts "#{h['top']['aundles'][0]} == #{ h['top']['aundles']['bundle'][0]}"
puts "#{h['top']['aundles'][1]} == #{ h['top']['aundles']['bundle'][1]}"
puts "#{h['top']['aundles'][2]} == #{ h['top']['aundles']['bundle'][2]}"
puts "#{h['top']['aundles'][3]} == #{ h['top']['aundles']['bundle'][3]}"
puts h.inspect
The output is then
0 == 0
1 == 1
A == A
B == B
{"top"=>{"aundles"=>{"bundle"=>["0", "1", "A", "B"], 0=>"0", 1=>"1", 2=>"A", 3=>"B"}, "bundles"=>{"nundle"=>"A", "bundle"=>["A", "B"]}}}
This question already has answers here:
Ruby Style: How to check whether a nested hash element exists
(16 answers)
How to avoid NoMethodError for nil elements when accessing nested hashes? [duplicate]
(4 answers)
Closed 7 years ago.
I'm working a little utility written in ruby that makes extensive use of nested hashes. Currently, I'm checking access to nested hash elements as follows:
structure = { :a => { :b => 'foo' }}
# I want structure[:a][:b]
value = nil
if structure.has_key?(:a) && structure[:a].has_key?(:b) then
value = structure[:a][:b]
end
Is there a better way to do this? I'd like to be able to say:
value = structure[:a][:b]
And get nil if :a is not a key in structure, etc.
Traditionally, you really had to do something like this:
structure[:a] && structure[:a][:b]
However, Ruby 2.3 added a method Hash#dig that makes this way more graceful:
structure.dig :a, :b # nil if it misses anywhere along the way
There is a gem called ruby_dig that will back-patch this for you.
Hash and Array have a method called dig.
value = structure.dig(:a, :b)
It returns nil if the key is missing at any level.
If you are using a version of Ruby older than 2.3, you can install a gem such as ruby_dig or hash_dig_and_collect, or implement this functionality yourself:
module RubyDig
def dig(key, *rest)
if value = (self[key] rescue nil)
if rest.empty?
value
elsif value.respond_to?(:dig)
value.dig(*rest)
end
end
end
end
if RUBY_VERSION < '2.3'
Array.send(:include, RubyDig)
Hash.send(:include, RubyDig)
end
The way I usually do this these days is:
h = Hash.new { |h,k| h[k] = {} }
This will give you a hash that creates a new hash as the entry for a missing key, but returns nil for the second level of key:
h['foo'] -> {}
h['foo']['bar'] -> nil
You can nest this to add multiple layers that can be addressed this way:
h = Hash.new { |h, k| h[k] = Hash.new { |hh, kk| hh[kk] = {} } }
h['bar'] -> {}
h['tar']['zar'] -> {}
h['scar']['far']['mar'] -> nil
You can also chain indefinitely by using the default_proc method:
h = Hash.new { |h, k| h[k] = Hash.new(&h.default_proc) }
h['bar'] -> {}
h['tar']['star']['par'] -> {}
The above code creates a hash whose default proc creates a new Hash with the same default proc. So, a hash created as a default value when a lookup for an unseen key occurs will have the same default behavior.
EDIT: More details
Ruby hashes allow you to control how default values are created when a lookup occurs for a new key. When specified, this behavior is encapsulated as a Proc object and is reachable via the default_proc and default_proc= methods. The default proc can also be specified by passing a block to Hash.new.
Let's break this code down a little. This is not idiomatic ruby, but it's easier to break it out into multiple lines:
1. recursive_hash = Hash.new do |h, k|
2. h[k] = Hash.new(&h.default_proc)
3. end
Line 1 declares a variable recursive_hash to be a new Hash and begins a block to be recursive_hash's default_proc. The block is passed two objects: h, which is the Hash instance the key lookup is being performed on, and k, the key being looked up.
Line 2 sets the default value in the hash to a new Hash instance. The default behavior for this hash is supplied by passing a Proc created from the default_proc of the hash the lookup is occurring in; ie, the default proc the block itself is defining.
Here's an example from an IRB session:
irb(main):011:0> recursive_hash = Hash.new do |h,k|
irb(main):012:1* h[k] = Hash.new(&h.default_proc)
irb(main):013:1> end
=> {}
irb(main):014:0> recursive_hash[:foo]
=> {}
irb(main):015:0> recursive_hash
=> {:foo=>{}}
When the hash at recursive_hash[:foo] was created, its default_proc was supplied by recursive_hash's default_proc. This has two effects:
The default behavior for recursive_hash[:foo] is the same as recursive_hash.
The default behavior for hashes created by recursive_hash[:foo]'s default_proc will be the same as recursive_hash.
So, continuing in IRB, we get the following:
irb(main):016:0> recursive_hash[:foo][:bar]
=> {}
irb(main):017:0> recursive_hash
=> {:foo=>{:bar=>{}}}
irb(main):018:0> recursive_hash[:foo][:bar][:zap]
=> {}
irb(main):019:0> recursive_hash
=> {:foo=>{:bar=>{:zap=>{}}}}
I made rubygem for this. Try vine.
Install:
gem install vine
Usage:
hash.access("a.b.c")
I think one of the most readable solutions is using Hashie:
require 'hashie'
myhash = Hashie::Mash.new({foo: {bar: "blah" }})
myhash.foo.bar
=> "blah"
myhash.foo?
=> true
# use "underscore dot" for multi-level testing
myhash.foo_.bar?
=> true
myhash.foo_.huh_.what?
=> false
value = structure[:a][:b] rescue nil
Solution 1
I suggested this in my question before:
class NilClass; def to_hash; {} end end
Hash#to_hash is already defined, and returns self. Then you can do:
value = structure[:a].to_hash[:b]
The to_hash ensures that you get an empty hash when the previous key search fails.
Solution2
This solution is similar in spirit to mu is too short's answer in that it uses a subclass, but still somewhat different. In case there is no value for a certain key, it does not use a default value, but rather creates a value of empty hash, so that it does not have the problem of confusion in assigment that DigitalRoss's answer has, as was pointed out by mu is too short.
class NilFreeHash < Hash
def [] key; key?(key) ? super(key) : self[key] = NilFreeHash.new end
end
structure = NilFreeHash.new
structure[:a][:b] = 3
p strucrture[:a][:b] # => 3
It departs from the specification given in the question, though. When an undefined key is given, it will return an empty hash instread of nil.
p structure[:c] # => {}
If you build an instance of this NilFreeHash from the beginning and assign the key-values, it will work, but if you want to convert a hash into an instance of this class, that may be a problem.
You could just build a Hash subclass with an extra variadic method for digging all the way down with appropriate checks along the way. Something like this (with a better name of course):
class Thing < Hash
def find(*path)
path.inject(self) { |h, x| return nil if(!h.is_a?(Thing) || h[x].nil?); h[x] }
end
end
Then just use Things instead of hashes:
>> x = Thing.new
=> {}
>> x[:a] = Thing.new
=> {}
>> x[:a][:b] = 'k'
=> "k"
>> x.find(:a)
=> {:b=>"k"}
>> x.find(:a, :b)
=> "k"
>> x.find(:a, :b, :c)
=> nil
>> x.find(:a, :c, :d)
=> nil
This monkey patch function for Hash should be easiest (at least for me). It also doesn't alter structure i.e. changing nil's to {}. It would still also apply even if you're reading a tree from a raw source e.g. JSON. It also doesn't need to produce empty hash objects as it goes or parse a string. rescue nil was actually a good easy solution for me as I'm brave enough for such a low risk but I find it to essentially have a drawback with performance.
class ::Hash
def recurse(*keys)
v = self[keys.shift]
while keys.length > 0
return nil if not v.is_a? Hash
v = v[keys.shift]
end
v
end
end
Example:
> structure = { :a => { :b => 'foo' }}
=> {:a=>{:b=>"foo"}}
> structure.recurse(:a, :b)
=> "foo"
> structure.recurse(:a, :x)
=> nil
What's also good is that you can play around saved arrays with it:
> keys = [:a, :b]
=> [:a, :b]
> structure.recurse(*keys)
=> "foo"
> structure.recurse(*keys, :x1, :x2)
=> nil
The XKeys gem will read and auto-vivify-on-write nested hashes (::Hash) or hashes and arrays (::Auto, based on the key/index type) with a simple, clear, readable, and compact syntax by enhancing #[] and #[]=. The sentinel symbol :[] will push onto the end of an array.
require 'xkeys'
structure = {}.extend XKeys::Hash
structure[:a, :b] # nil
structure[:a, :b, :else => 0] # 0 (contextual default)
structure[:a] # nil, even after above
structure[:a, :b] = 'foo'
structure[:a, :b] # foo
You can use the andand gem, but I'm becoming more and more wary of it:
>> structure = { :a => { :b => 'foo' }} #=> {:a=>{:b=>"foo"}}
>> require 'andand' #=> true
>> structure[:a].andand[:b] #=> "foo"
>> structure[:c].andand[:b] #=> nil
There is the cute but wrong way to do this. Which is to monkey-patch NilClass to add a [] method that returns nil. I say it is the wrong approach because you have no idea what other software may have made a different version, or what behavior change in a future version of Ruby can be broken by this.
A better approach is to create a new object that works a lot like nil but supports this behavior. Make this new object the default return of your hashes. And then it will just work.
Alternately you can create a simple "nested lookup" function that you pass the hash and the keys to, which traverses the hashes in order, breaking out when it can.
I would personally prefer one of the latter two approaches. Though I think it would be cute if the first was integrated into the Ruby language. (But monkey-patching is a bad idea. Don't do that. Particularly not to demonstrate what a cool hacker you are.)
Not that I would do it, but you can Monkeypatch in NilClass#[]:
> structure = { :a => { :b => 'foo' }}
#=> {:a=>{:b=>"foo"}}
> structure[:x][:y]
NoMethodError: undefined method `[]' for nil:NilClass
from (irb):2
from C:/Ruby/bin/irb:12:in `<main>'
> class NilClass; def [](*a); end; end
#=> nil
> structure[:x][:y]
#=> nil
> structure[:a][:y]
#=> nil
> structure[:a][:b]
#=> "foo"
Go with #DigitalRoss's answer. Yes, it's more typing, but that's because it's safer.
In my case, I needed a two-dimensional matrix where each cell is a list of items.
I found this technique which seems to work. It might work for the OP:
$all = Hash.new()
def $all.[](k)
v = fetch(k, nil)
return v if v
h = Hash.new()
def h.[](k2)
v = fetch(k2, nil)
return v if v
list = Array.new()
store(k2, list)
return list
end
store(k, h)
return h
end
$all['g1-a']['g2-a'] << '1'
$all['g1-a']['g2-a'] << '2'
$all['g1-a']['g2-a'] << '3'
$all['g1-a']['g2-b'] << '4'
$all['g1-b']['g2-a'] << '5'
$all['g1-b']['g2-c'] << '6'
$all.keys.each do |group1|
$all[group1].keys.each do |group2|
$all[group1][group2].each do |item|
puts "#{group1} #{group2} #{item}"
end
end
end
The output is:
$ ruby -v && ruby t.rb
ruby 1.9.2p0 (2010-08-18 revision 29036) [x86_64-linux]
g1-a g2-a 1
g1-a g2-a 2
g1-a g2-a 3
g1-a g2-b 4
g1-b g2-a 5
g1-b g2-c 6
I am currently trying out this:
# --------------------------------------------------------------------
# System so that we chain methods together without worrying about nil
# values (a la Objective-c).
# Example:
# params[:foo].try?[:bar]
#
class Object
# Returns self, unless NilClass (see below)
def try?
self
end
end
class NilClass
class MethodMissingSink
include Singleton
def method_missing(meth, *args, &block)
end
end
def try?
MethodMissingSink.instance
end
end
I know the arguments against try, but it is useful when looking into things, like say, params.