I have a function similar to the following:
def check
return 2 == 2 || 3 != 2 || 4 != 5
end
My question is, will Ruby perform all the comparisons even though the first is true, and thus the function return true. My checks are much more intensive, so I'd like to know if I should break this out in a different way to avoid making all the checks every time.
irb(main):004:0> 2 == 2 || 3 != 2 || 4 != 5
=> true
Thank you.
Ruby uses short-circuit evaluation.
This applies to both || and &&.
With || the right operand is not evaluated if the left operand is truthy.
With && the right operand is not evaluated if the left operand is falsy.
|| short-circuits as soon as the first condition is true. So yes, it will help if you put the most expensive conditions at the end.
|| will by default short-circuit evaluate, meaning that once the first "true" expression is encountered it will stop evaluation (unless you explicitly state you want all expressions to evaluate with the 'or' operator).
reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short-circuit_evaluation
As soon as one of the condition is true, the function will return.
You can test it yourself in irb, like this:
irb> p('Hello') || p('World')
As we know the function p prints its parameters(in an inspect manner) then returns them, so if the || short circuits, only "Hello" is printed, otherwise both "Hello" and "World" are printed.
You can also test the logical && operator, by using puts instead of p, as puts always returns nil.
BTW, irb is a perfect place to play around ruby. You can test everything there, except a small portion of concurrency.
Related
I often face the situation when if condition A (for example !#object.nil?) is false, condition B, when checked, can raise an error (for example #object.some_method -> undefined method 'some_method' for nil:NilClass).
I tested it in console, but could't get some full data.
1) Is it safe to use and/&& when if first conditional is false, second can lead into an error?
2) What about or?
!#object.nil? && #object.some_method
#object && #object.some_method
Both of the above are valid patterns in Ruby. You will not get the "undefined method for nil" error, because the expression to the right of the && is never evaluated if the expression to the left of it evaluates to nil (or false).
You can also accomplish this check using postfix if or unless:
#object.some_method if #object
or
#object.some_method unless #object.nil?
are both valid alternatives.
Regarding or:
Using || (Rubyists generally avoid the keyword or operator) will not protect you from the error, because when the expression on the left side of the || evaluates to nil, the interpreter will actually continue on and attempt to evaluate the expression on the right side.
Second part of these lines will never be exected:
false && raise "this will never be raised"
true || raise "this will never be raised"
In your case, if you are using active support, you can do:
#object.try!(:some_method)
Following are the simple statements in the irb shell. What does nilin the output mean ? Why does it accompany the print statement in the if block ?
irb(main):062:0> if(x==20 && y==30)
irb(main):063:1> print("if statement working !")
irb(main):064:1> else
irb(main):065:1* print("else statement working !!")
irb(main):066:1> end
if statement working !=> nil # what does nil represent here ?
In Ruby, all expressions return values, even if it's nil. Blocks and methods simply return the value of the last expression evaluated. There are many ways to use this effectively. For example, this is the reason explicit returns are often not used. Also, you can do this:
print if x == 20 && y == 30
'if statement working!'
else
'else statement working!'
end
Regarding your example: in addition to printing the string as you instructed, irb will display the value it received from the if-else blocks. Since print always returns nil, both branches will return the same value.
It means that your if-block does not return a value (which it can, actually). For instance, the following is perfectly legal and viable:
foo = if bar > 10
42
else
0
end
# now, foo is either 42 or 0
I have an array, if I find a value in it, I want to execute a block of code. Also, if the array is nil, I want to execute that block. So the code I tried is:
if !array.respond_to? :index || array.index(str)
#some code
So if it's nil it's true, or if str is somewhere in the array, it's true, right? But if it finds the item at index 0, it doesn't enter the block. Also, according to irb false || 0 evalueates to 0. WTF?? I thought that everything was true except false and nil. I guess || does something odd that I'm not expecting??
My questions are: What's going on? What's a nice way to write a conditional that does what I want?
Using nil? and include? with an inline if seems most idiomatic to me.
#your code if arr.nil? || arr.include?(str)
if array.nil? || array.member?(s)
# ...
false || 0 evaluates to 0 because it's an or. False isn't truthy (obviously ;) but 0 is, so the expression is truthy.
Are you checking for a nil array or an empty one? If you've already declared the array it won't be nil even if it's empty. I'd write it like:
if array.empty? || array.include(str)
or if you really want to check for a nil array:
if array.nil? || array.include(str)
I'd use .include rather than .index to avoid getting a 0.
if array.nil? || array.member?(str)
#code block
end
The || operator almost reminds you of a coalesce.
Given a = false, b = :bacon
return a || b #returns :bacon
Is there a ruby idiom for "If do-this," and "do-this" just as a simple command?
for example, I'm currently doing
object.method ? a.action : nil
to leave the else clause empty, but I feel like there's probably a more idiomatic way of doing this that doesn't involve having to specify a nil at the end. (and alternatively, I feel like taking up multiple lines of code would be wasteful in this case.
As a general rule: you pretty much never need the ternary operator in Ruby. The reason why you need it in C, is because in C if is a statement, so if you want to return a value you have to use the ternary operator, which is an expression.
In Ruby, everything is an expression, there are no statements, which makes the ternary operator pretty much superfluous. You can always replace
cond ? then_branch : else_branch
with
if cond then then_branch else else_branch end
So, in your example:
object.method ? a.action : nil
is equivalent to
if object.method then a.action end
which as #Greg Campbell points out is in turn equivalent to the trailing if modifier form
a.action if object.method
Also, since the boolean operators in Ruby not just return true or false, but the value of the last evaluated expression, you can use them for control flow. This is an idiom imported from Perl, and would look like this:
object.method and a.action
a.action if object.method?
Greg's answer is the best, but for the record, and even more than in C, expressions and statements are equivalent in Ruby, so besides a.action if o.m? you can also do things like:
object.method? && a.action
You can write (a; b; c) if d or even
(a
b
c
) if d
or for that matter: (x; y; z) ? (a; b c) : (d; e; f)
There is no situation in Ruby where only a single statement or expression is allowed...
result = (<expression> && <true value>) || <false value>
value = 1
result = (value == 1 && 'one' ) || 'two'
result #=> 'one'
Explain: value == 1 && 'one' #=> returns last expression result, value is equals 1 so and section will be evaluated, and return 'one'.
value = 0
result = (value == 1 && 'one' ) || 'two'
result #=> 'two'
Explain: value != 1 and 'and' expression will not be evaluated, but instad will be used 'or' expression and it returns 'two'
Another way this can be done on the same line is:
if object.method; a.action end
This is considered bad style by Rubocop because it uses a semicolon to terminate the expression, but I find it more readable in some conditions than tacking on the if statement at the end. It is easier to overlook an if statement at the end and I don't always want to return something if the condition isn't true(as you are forced into with a ternary operator).
You can also be a bit more verbose and rubocop friendly:
if object.method then a.action end
This question already has answers here:
Difference between "and" and && in Ruby?
(8 answers)
Closed 3 years ago.
What's the difference between the or and || operators in Ruby? Or is it just preference?
It's a matter of operator precedence.
|| has a higher precedence than or.
So, in between the two you have other operators including ternary (? :) and assignment (=) so which one you choose can affect the outcome of statements.
Here's a ruby operator precedence table.
See this question for another example using and/&&.
Also, be aware of some nasty things that could happen:
a = false || true #=> true
a #=> true
a = false or true #=> true
a #=> false
Both of the previous two statements evaluate to true, but the second sets a to false since = precedence is lower than || but higher than or.
As the others have already explained, the only difference is the precedence. However, I would like to point out that there are actually two differences between the two:
and, or and not have much lower precedence than &&, || and !
and and or have the same precedence, while && has higher precedence than ||
In general, it is good style to avoid the use of and, or and not and use &&, || and ! instead. (The Rails core developers, for example, reject patches which use the keyword forms instead of the operator forms.)
The reason why they exist at all, is not for boolean formulae but for control flow. They made their way into Ruby via Perl's well-known do_this or do_that idiom, where do_this returns false or nil if there is an error and only then is do_that executed instead. (Analogous, there is also the do_this and then_do_that idiom.)
Examples:
download_file_via_fast_connection or download_via_slow_connection
download_latest_currency_rates and store_them_in_the_cache
Sometimes, this can make control flow a little bit more fluent than using if or unless.
It's easy to see why in this case the operators have the "wrong" (i.e. identical) precedence: they never show up together in the same expression anyway. And when they do show up together, you generally want them to be evaluated simply left-to-right.
and/or are for control flow.
Ruby will not allow this as valid syntax:
false || raise "Error"
However this is valid:
false or raise "Error"
You can make the first work, with () but using or is the correct method.
false || (raise "Error")
puts false or true --> prints: false
puts false || true --> prints: true
The way I use these operators:
||, && are for boolean logic. or, and are for control flow. E.g.
do_smth if may_be || may_be -- we evaluate the condition here
do_smth or do_smth_else -- we define the workflow, which is equivalent to
do_smth_else unless do_smth
to give a simple example:
> puts "a" && "b"
b
> puts 'a' and 'b'
a
A well-known idiom in Rails is render and return. It's a shortcut for saying return if render, while render && return won't work. See "Avoiding Double Render Errors" in the Rails documentation for more information.
or is NOT the same as ||. Use only || operator instead of the or operator.
Here are some reasons. The:
or operator has a lower precedence than ||.
or has a lower precedence than the = assignment operator.
and and or have the same precedence, while && has a higher precedence than ||.
Both or and || evaluate to true if either operand is true. They evaluate their second operand only if the first is false.
As with and, the only difference between or and || is their precedence.
Just to make life interesting, and and or have the same precedence, while && has a higher precedence than ||.
Just to add to mopoke's answer, it's also a matter of semantics. or is considered to be a good practice because it reads much better than ||.