basically I am trying to write an if condition that looks at all the contents of an array to judge whether that condition is true.
Basically, I want to do:
SubScale.all.each do |ss|
if ss.key IN(scales)
execute this code
end
end
Where scales in an array and I want the code to be executed if ss.key is any entry in that array.
You're looking for Array#include? :
scales.include?(ss.key)
More general than Array#include?—which requires you to check by value—is Enumerable#any?:
SubScale.all.each do |ss|
# Run the code if the value is an exact match
run_code if scales.include?(ss.key)
end
SubScale.all.each do |ss|
# Run the code if the block returns a truthy value
run_code if scales.any?{ |scale| scale.downcase == ss.key.downcase }
end
Finally, if it is an exact match you want, and speed turns out to be an issue (profile first!), you can trade memory for performance by using a hash to look up your key in O(1) instead of O(n) time:
scale_lookup = Hash[ scales.map{ |s| [s,true] } ]
SubScale.all.each do |ss|
run_code if scale_lookup[ss.key]
end
scales.include?(ss.key) is what you need.
If scales has many elements and so does SubScale.all I would suggest creating temporary set (or hash):
require "set"
scales_set = Set.new(scales)
....each do |ss|
if scales_set.include?(ss.key)
...
end
end
This could be much faster.
P.S. Hash seems to be faster than set:
scales_hash = scales.inject({}) { |h, e| h[e] = true; h }
....each do |ss|
if scales_hash.has_key?(ss.key)
...
end
end
Related
In Ruby, I have an array of simple values (possible encodings):
encodings = %w[ utf-8 iso-8859-1 macroman ]
I want to keep reading a file from disk until the results are valid. I could do this:
good = encodings.find{ |enc| IO.read(file, "r:#{enc}").valid_encoding? }
contents = IO.read(file, "r:#{good}")
...but of course this is dumb, since it reads the file twice for the good encoding. I could program it in gross procedural style like so:
contents = nil
encodings.each do |enc|
if (s=IO.read(file, "r:#{enc}")).valid_encoding?
contents = s
break
end
end
But I want a functional solution. I could do it functionally like so:
contents = encodings.map{|e| IO.read(f, "r:#{e}")}.find{|s| s.valid_encoding? }
…but of course that keeps reading files for every encoding, even if the first was valid.
Is there a simple pattern that is functional, but does not keep reading the file after a the first success is found?
If you sprinkle a lazy in there, map will only consume those elements of the array that are used by find - i.e. once find stops, map stops as well. So this will do what you want:
possible_reads = encodings.lazy.map {|e| IO.read(f, "r:#{e}")}
contents = possible_reads.find {|s| s.valid_encoding? }
Hopping on sepp2k's answer: If you can't use 2.0, lazy enums can be easily implemented in 1.9:
class Enumerator
def lazy_find
self.class.new do |yielder|
self.each do |element|
if yield(element)
yielder.yield(element)
break
end
end
end
end
end
a = (1..100).to_enum
p a.lazy_find { |i| i.even? }.first
# => 2
You want to use the break statement:
contents = encodings.each do |e|
s = IO.read( f, "r:#{e}" )
s.valid_encoding? and break s
end
The best I can come up with is with our good friend inject:
contents = encodings.inject(nil) do |s,enc|
s || (c=File.open(f,"r:#{enc}").valid_encoding? && c
end
This is still sub-optimal because it continues to loop through encodings after finding a match, though it doesn't do anything with them, so it's a minor ugliness. Most of the ugliness comes from...well, the code itself. :/
Is there a keyword I can use to explicitly tell the map function what the result of that particular iteration should be?
Consider:
a = [1,2,3,4,5]
a.map do |element|
element.to_s
end
In the above example element.to_s is implicitly the result of each iteration.
There are some situations where I don't want to rely on using the last executed line as the result, I would prefer to explicitly say what the result is in code.
For example,
a = [1,2,3,4,5]
a.map do |element|
if some_condition
element.to_s
else
element.to_f
end
end
Might be easier for me to read if it was written like:
a = [1,2,3,4,5]
a.map do |element|
if some_condition
result_is element.to_s
else
result_is element.to_f
end
end
So is there a keyword I can use in place of result_is?
return will return from the calling function, and break will stop the iteration early, so neither of those is what I'm looking for.
The last thing left on the stack is automatically the result of a block being called. You're correct that return would not have the desired effect here, but overlook another possibility: Declaring a separate function to evaluate the entries.
For example, a reworking of your code:
def function(element)
if (some_condition)
return element.to_s
end
element.to_f
end
a.map do |element|
function(element)
end
There is a nominal amount of overhead on calling the function, but on small lists it should not be an issue. If this is highly performance sensitive, you will want to do it the hard way.
Yes, there is, it's called next. However, using next in this particular case will not improve readability. On the contrary, it will a) confuse the reader and b) give him the impression that the author of that code doesn't understand Ruby.
The fact that everything is an expression in Ruby (there are no statements) and that every expression evaluates to the value of the last sub-expression in that expression are fundamental Ruby knowledge.
Just like return, next should only be used when you want to "return" from the middle of a block. Usually, you only use it as a guard clause.
The nature of map is to assign the last executed line to the array. Your last example is very similar to the following, which follows the expected behavior:
a = [1,2,3,4,5]
a.map do |element|
result = if some_condition
element.to_s
else
element.to_f
end
result
end
No, there is no language keyword in ruby you can use to determine the result mapped into the resulting array before executing other code within the iteration.
You may assign a variable which you then return when some other code has been executed:
a.map do |element|
result = some_condition ? element.to_s : element.to_f
#do something else with element
result
end
Keep in mind the reason for ruby not providing a keyword for this kind of code is that these patterns tend to have a really low readability.
taglist = [{:name=>"Daniel_Xu_Forever", :tag=>["helo", "world"]},
{:name=>"kcuf", :tag=>["hhe"]},
{:name=>"fine", :tag=>[]},
{:name=>"how hare you", :tag=>[]},
{:name=>"heki", :tag=>["1", "2", "3"]},
{:name=>"railsgirls", :tag=>[]},
{:name=>"_byoy", :tag=>[]},
{:name=>"ajha", :tag=>[]},
{:name=>"nimei", :tag=>[]}]
How to get specified name's tag from taglist
For example , I want to extract user "fine"'s tag?
Could this be achieved without do iterator?
This will return the contents of the :tag key for any users name which == 'fine'
taglist.select { |x| x[:name] == 'fine' }.map { |u| u[:tag] }
First you select out only the users you are interested with .select.
And then use .map to collect an array of only what you want.
In this case the end result will be: []
Is do really an iterator?
taglist.find{|tl| tl[:name] == 'fine'}[:tag]
Just to be silly how about:
eval taglist.to_s[/:name=>"fine", :tag=>(.*?)}/, 1]
#=> []
No, it cannot be done without a loop.
And even if you find a solution where your code avoids a loop, for sure the library function that you're calling will include a loop. Finding an element in an array requires a loop. Period.
For example, take this (contrived) example
pattern = "fine"
def pattern.===(h); self == h[:name]; end
taglist.grep(pattern)
which does not seem to use a loop, but calls grep which is implemented using a loop.
Or another, equally contrived, example
class Hash; def method_missing(sym); self[sym]; end; end
taglist.group_by(&:name)["fine"]
which again does seem to call group_by without a loop, but actually it does.
So the answer is, no.
So my first answer missed the no do rule.
Here is an answer that doesn't use a do block.
i=0
begin
if taglist[i][:name] == 'fine'
tag = taglist[i][:tag]
break
end
i+=1
end while i < taglist.length - 0
Technically I think this is still using a block. But probably satisfies the restriction.
Currently I am doing the following, but I am sure there must be a better way:
def birthday_defined?(map)
map && map[:extra] && map[:extra][:raw_info] && map[:extra][:raw_info][:birthday]
end
There may be cases where only map[:extra] is defined, and then I will end up getting Nil exception errors cause map[:extra][:raw_info] doesn't exist if I dont use my checked code above.
If you're using Rails, then you can use try (and NilClass#try):
value = map.try(:[], :extra).try(:[], :raw_info).try(:[], :birthday)
That looks a bit repetitive: it is just doing the same thing over and over again while feeding the result of one step into the next step. That code pattern means that we have a hidden injection:
value = [:extra, :raw_info, :birthday].inject(map) { |h, k| h.try(:[], k) }
This approach nicely generalizes to any path into map that you have in mind:
path = [ :some, :path, :of, :keys, :we, :care, :about ]
value = path.inject(map) { |h, k| h.try(:[], k) }
Then you can look at value.nil?.
Of course, if you're not using Rails then you'll need a replacement for try but that's not difficult.
I have two ways. Both have the same code but subtly different:
# Method 1
def birthday_defined?(map)
map[:extra][:raw_info][:birthday] rescue nil # rescues current line
end
# Method 2
def birthday_defined?(map)
map[:extra][:raw_info][:birthday]
rescue # rescues whole method
nil
end
Use a begin/rescue block.
begin
map[:extra][:raw_info][:birthday]
rescue Exception => e
'No birthday! =('
end
That's idiomatic why to do it. And yes it can be a little cumbersome.
If you want to extend Hash a bit though, you can do some cool stuff with something like a key path. See Access Ruby Hash Using Dotted Path Key String
def birthday_defined?
map.dig('extra.raw_info.birthday')
end
This is a little hacky but it will work:
def birthday_defined?(map)
map.to_s[":birthday"]
end
If map contains :birthday then it will return the string which will evaluate to true in a conditional statement while if it doesn't contain :birthday, it will return nil.
Note: This assumes the key :birthday does not appear at potentially multiple locations in map.
This should work for you:
def birthday_defined?(map)
map
.tap{|x| (x[:extra] if x)
.tap{|x| (x[:raw_info] if x)
.tap{|x| (x[:birthday] if x)
.tap{|x| return x}}}}
end
I often want to perform an action on an array X times then return a result other than that number. The code I usually write is the following:
def other_participants
output =[]
NUMBER_COMPARED.times do
output << Participant.new(all_friends.shuffle.pop, self)
end
output
end
Is there a cleaner way to do this?
sounds like you could use map/collect (they are synonyms on Enumerable). it returns an array with the contents being the return of each iteration through the map/collect.
def other_participants
NUMBER_COMPARED.times.collect do
Participant.new(all_friends.shuffle.pop, self)
end
end
You don't need another variable or an explicit return statement.
http://www.ruby-doc.org/core/Enumerable.html#method-i-collect
You could use each_with_object:
def other_participants
NUMBER_COMPARED.times.each_with_object([]) do |i, output|
output << Participant.new(all_friends.shuffle.pop, self)
end
end
From the fine manual:
each_with_object(obj) {|(*args), memo_obj| ... } → obj
each_with_object(obj) → an_enumerator
Iterates the given block for each element with an arbitrary object given, and returns the initially given object.
If no block is given, returns an enumerator.
I thing something like this is best
def other_participants
shuffled_friends = all_friends.shuffle
Array.new(NUMBER_COMPARED) { Participant.new(shuffled_friends.pop, self) }
end