I was trying to see if I could reconstruct the Array class' delete_if iterator as my own method in order to see if I understood methods and blocks correctly. Here is what I coded:
def delete_if(arr)
for x in 0...arr.length
if (yield arr[x])
arr[x]=arr[x+1,arr.length]
redo
end
end
end
arr = [0,1,2,3,4,5]
delete_if(arr) {|value| value % 2 == 0}
This resulted in an error saying that the % method could not be identified in the last line. I know that value is going to be an integer so I am not sure why it would say this error. Can someone please explain? Also, in Ruby in general, how can you be sure that someone passes the correct type into a method? What if the method is supposed to take a string but they pass in an integer -- how do you prevent that??
Thanks!
def delete_if arr
for x in 0...arr.length
return if x >= arr.length
if yield arr[x]
arr[x..-1] = arr[(x + 1)..-1]
redo
end
end
end
Things I fixed:
it's necessary to mutate the array, if all you do is assign to the parameter, your changes will be local to the method. And for that matter, you were assigning your calculated array object to an element of the original array, which was the immediate cause of the error message.
since the array may become shorter, we need to bail out at the (new) end
of course you could just use arr.delete_at x but I couldn't correct the slice assignment without keeping the code pattern
Related
One challenge in a Ruby course I'm doing is to print the :data values of the following linked list, in reverse:
{:data=>3, :next=>{:data=>2, :next=>{:data=>1, :next=>nil}}}
So when my method is passed the above code, it should return
1
2
3
Here's my attempt, which doesn't work for the above code. I can't figure out why, and I'd appreciate it if someone could explain what I'm doing wrong:
def print_list_in_reverse(hash)
if hash[:next].nil? #i.e. is this the final list element?
print "#{hash[:data]}\n"
return true
else
#as I understand it, the next line should run the method on `hash[:next]` as well as checking if it returns true.
print "#{hash[:data]}\n" if print_list_in_reverse(hash[:next])
end
end
Here's a solution, in case it helps you spot my mistake.
def print_list_in_reverse(list)
return unless list
print_list_in_reverse list[:next]
puts list[:data]
end
Thank you.
Your solution relies on return values, and you don't explicitly provide one in your else clause. In fact, you implicitly do because Ruby returns the result of the last statement evaluated, which for a print statement is nil. In Ruby false and nil are both logically false, causing the print to get bypassed for all but the last two calls. Your choices are to add a true at the end of the else, or make a solution that doesn't rely on return values.
To negate the need for return values, just check what logic is kosher based on info in the current invocation. You can simplify your life by leveraging the "truthiness" non-nil objects. Your basic recursive logic to get things in reverse is "print the stuff from the rest of my list, then print my stuff." A straightforward implementation based on truthiness would be:
def print_list_in_reverse(hash)
print_list_in_reverse(hash[:next]) if hash[:next]
print "#{hash[:data]}\n"
end
The problem with that is that you might have been handed an empty list, in which case you don't want to print anything. That's easy to check:
def print_list_in_reverse(hash)
print_list_in_reverse(hash[:next]) if hash[:next]
print "#{hash[:data]}\n" if hash
end
That will work as long as you get handed a hash, even if it's empty. If you're paranoid about being handed a nil:
def print_list_in_reverse(hash)
print_list_in_reverse(hash[:next]) if hash && hash[:next]
print "#{hash[:data]}\n" if hash
end
The other alternative is to start by checking if the current list element is nil and returning immediately in that case. Otherwise, follow the basic recursive logic outlined above. That results in the solution you provided.
Better to iterate over every value in your hash, and push the values until there's no any other hash as value inside the main hash.
def print_list_in_reverse(hash, results = [])
hash.each_value do |value|
if value.is_a? Hash
print_list_in_reverse(value, results)
else
results << value unless value.nil?
end
end
results.reverse
end
p print_list_in_reverse(data)
=> [1, 2, 3]
The problem in your code is in the else-case. You need to return true to print the hash[:data].
Your method always print the last 2 elements.
My code is supposed to print integers in an array.
odds_n_ends = [:weezard, 42, "Trady Blix", 3, true, 19, 12.345]
ints = odds_n_ends.select { |x| if x.is_a?(Integer) then return x end }
puts ints
It gives me an error in the 2nd line - in 'block in <main>': unexpected return (LocalJumpError)
When I remove the return, the code works exactly as desired.
To find the mistake in my understanding of blocks, I read related posts post1 and post2. But, I am not able to figure out how exactly are methods and blocks being called and why my approach is incorrect.
Is there some call stack diagram explanation for this ? Any simple explanation ?
I am confused because I have only programmed in Java before.
You generally don't need to worry exactly what blocks are to use them.
In this situation, return will return from the outside scope, e.g. if these lines were in a method, then from that method. It's the same as if you put a return statement inside a loop in Java.
Additional tips:
select is used to create a copied array where only the elements satisfying the condition inside the block are selected:
only_ints = odds_n_ends.select { |x| x.is_a?(Integer) }
You're using it as a loop to "pass back" variables that are integers, in which case you'd do:
only_ints = []
odds_n_ends.each { |x| if x.is_a?(Integer) then only_ints << x end }
If you try to wrap your code in a method then it won't give you an error:
def some_method
odds_n_ends = [:weezard, 42, "Trady Blix", 3, true, 19, 12.345]
ints = odds_n_ends.select { |x| if x.is_a?(Integer) then return true end }
puts ints
end
puts some_method
This code output is true. But wait, where's puts ints??? Ruby didn't reach that. When you put return inside a Proc, then you're returning in the scope of the entire method. In your example, you didn't have any method in which you put your code, so after it encountered 'return', it didn't know where to 'jump to', where to continue to.
Array#select basically works this way: For each element of the array (represented with |x| in your code), it evaluates the block you've just put in and if the block evaluates to true, then that element will be included in the new array. Try removing 'return' from the second line and your code will work:
ints = odds_n_ends.select { |x| if x.is_a?(Integer) then true end }
However, this isn't the most Ruby-ish way, you don't have to tell Ruby to explicitly return true. Blocks (the code between the {} ) are just like methods, with the last expression being the return value of the method. So this will work just as well:
ints = odds_n_ends.select { |x| if x.is_a?(Integer) } # imagine the code between {} is
#a method, just without name like 'def is_a_integer?' with the value of the last expression
#being returned.
Btw, there's a more elegant way to solve your problem:
odds_n_ends = [:weezard, 42, "Trady Blix", 3, true, 19, 12.345]
ints = odds_n_ends.grep(Integer)
puts ints
See this link. It basically states:
Returns an array of every element in enum for which Pattern ===
element.
To understand Pattern === element, simply imagine that Pattern is a set (let's say a set of Integers). Element might or might not be an element of that set (an integer). How to find out? Use ===. If you type in Ruby:
puts Integer === 34
it will evalute to true. If you put:
puts Integer === 'hey'
it will evalute to false.
Hope this helped!
In ruby a method always returns it's last statement, so in generall you do not need to return unless you want to return prematurely.
In your case you do not need to return anything, as select will create a new array with just the elements that return true for the given block. As ruby automatically returns it's last statement using
{ |x| x.is_a?(Integer) }
would be sufficient. (Additionally you would want to return true and not x if you think about "return what select expects", but as ruby treats not nil as true it also works...)
Another thing that is important is to understand a key difference of procs (& blocks) and lambdas which is causing your problem:
Using return in a Proc will return the method the proc is used in.
Using return in a Lambdas will return it's value like a method.
Think of procs as code pieces you inject in a method and of lambdas as anonymous methods.
Good and easy to comprehend read: Understanding Ruby Blocks, Procs and Lambdas
When passing blocks to methods you should simply put the value you want to be returned as the last statement, which can also be in an if-else clause and ruby will use the last actually reached statement.
Okay, so im reading a guide for ruby and I can't make sense of this code. Where did i come from. I see that n is passed to iterate through the block but I have no idea where I comes from. If I could get a full explanation and breakdown of how this code works that would be great!
class Array
def iterate!
self.each_with_index do |n, i|
self[i] = yield(n)
end
end
end
array = [1, 2, 3, 4]
array.iterate! do |n|
n ** 2
end
i is the index of the element (hence the name, each_with_index).
Some methods that are called with code blocks will pass more than one value to the block, so you end up with multiple block arguments (in your case the block arguments are n and i, which will hold the current item in the array (n) and the index of it (i)).
You can find out how many arguments a block will be passed by looking at the documentation for a method (here's the docs for each_with_index). It does look like the extra values come from nowhere at first, and it takes a little while to memorize what a block will be passed when different methods are called.
i is commonly used as what's known as an "iterative variable". Basically, the loop block that you've copied here goes through each "iteration" of the loop and uses a new value of i and assigns it to the variable n, which is then passed on to the operation at the second to last line. In this case, the new value is simply the next number in array, and so there are four iterations of the loop.
I'm doing a SaaS course with Ruby. On an exercise, I'm asked to calculate the cartesian product of two sequences by using iterators, blocks and yield.
I ended up with this, by pure guess-and-error, and it seems to work. But I'm not sure about how. I seem to understand the basic blocks and yield usage, but this? Not at all.
class CartProd
include Enumerable
def initialize(a,b)
#a = a
#b = b
end
def each
#a.each{|ae|
#b.each{|be|
yield [ae,be]
}
}
end
end
Some explanation for a noob like me, please?
(PS: I changed the required class name to CartProd so people doing the course can't find the response by googling it so easily)
Let's build this up step-by-step. We will simplify things a bit by taking it out of the class context.
For this example it is intuitive to think of an iterator as being a more-powerful replacement for a traditional for-loop.
So first here's a for-loop version:
seq1 = (0..2)
seq2 = (0..2)
for x in seq1
for y in seq2
p [x,y] # shorthand for puts [x, y].inspect
end
end
Now let's replace that with more Ruby-idiomatic iterator style, explicitly supplying blocks to be executed (i.e., the do...end blocks):
seq1.each do |x|
seq2.each do |y|
p [x,y]
end
end
So far, so good, you've printed out your cartesian product. Now your assignment asks you to use yield as well. The point of yield is to "yield execution", i.e., pass control to another block of code temporarily (optionally passing one or more arguments).
So, although it's not really necessary for this toy example, instead of directly printing the value like above, you can yield the value, and let the caller supply a block that accepts that value and prints it instead.
That could look like this:
def prod(seq1, seq2)
seq1.each do |x|
seq2.each do |y|
yield [x,y]
end
end
end
Callable like this:
prod (1..2), (1..2) do |prod| p prod end
The yield supplies the product for each run of the inner loop, and the yielded value is printed by the block supplied by the caller.
What exactly do you not understand here? You've made an iterator that yields all possible pairs of elements. If you pass CartProd#each a block, it will be executed a.length*b.length times. It's like having two different for cycles folded one into another in any other programming language.
yield simply passes (yields) control to a block of code that has been passed in as part of the method call. The values after the yield keyword are passed into the block as arguments. Once the block has finished execution it passes back control.
So, in your example you could call #each like this:
CartProd.new([1, 2], [3, 4]).each do |pair|
# control is yielded to this block
p pair
# control is returned at end of block
end
This would output each pair of values.
I know a bit about ruby way to handle objects and references. The replace stuff, ect ...
I know it d'ont work on fixnum, cause the var is the fixnum. But i wish to change the value of a fixnum inside a function, and that the value changed in the ouside var.
How can i do this ?
I guess i can use a string like this "1" but that's quite dirty.
Ruby will always pass-by-reference (because everything is an object) but Fixnum lacks any methods that allow you to mutate the value. See "void foo(int &x) -> Ruby? Passing integers by reference?" for more details.
You can either return a value that you then assign to your variable, like so:
a = 5
def do_something(value)
return 1 #this could be more complicated and depend on the value passed in
end
a = do_something(a)
or you could wrap your value in an object such as a Hash and have it updated that way.
a = {:value => 5}
def do_something(dict)
dict[:value] = 1
end
do_something(a) #now a[:value] is 1 outside the function
Hope this helps.
You could pass an array with a single number, like [1], or a hash like {value: 1}. Less ugly than a string, as your number itself remains a number, but less overhead than a new class...
When I was building a game I had the same problem you have. There was a numeric score that represented how many zombies you've killed and I needed to manually keep it in sync between Player (that incremented the score), ScoreBar and ScoreScreen (that displayed the score). The solution I've found was creating a separate class for the score that will wrap the value and mutate it:
class Score
def initialize(value = 0)
#value = value
end
def increment
#value += 1
end
def to_i
#value
end
def to_s
#value.to_s
end
end