I'm trying to create a hash which stores an auto-increment number for a non-existent key.
I'm aware there are other, less brittle, ways to do this; my question is : why does my instance variable fail so miserably?
h = Hash.new{|h,k| h[k] = (#max_value += 1)}
h.instance_variable_set(:#max_value, 0) # zero ! Not nil! Argh...
puts h[:a] # expecting 1; getting NoMethodError undefined method '+' for nil:NilClass
puts h[:b] # expecting 2
puts h[:a] # expecting 1
You're not doing what you think you're doing.
When you call Hash.new, you're referencing #max_value as it exists right now in the current scope. The current scope is the top level, it's not defined there, so you get nil.
You then set an instance variable on the instance that happens to be called #max_value as well, but it's not the same thing.
You probably want something like...well, actually, I can't imagine a situation where this mechanism is a good solution to anything, but it's what you asked for so lets run with it.
h = Hash.new{|h,k| h[k] = (h.instance_variable_set(:#max_value,
h.instance_variable_get(:#max_value) + 1))}
h.instance_variable_set :#max_value, 0
puts h[1] #=> 1
puts h[10] #=> 2
Note that I'm explicitly getting/setting the instance variable associated with `h in all cases. More verbose, but what you need.
Related
If I try to increment the value for a key that does not yet exist in a hash like so
h = Hash.new
h[:ferrets] += 1
I get the following error:
NoMethodError: undefined method `+' for nil:NilClass
This makes sense to me, and I know this must be an incredibly easy question, but I'm having trouble finding it on SO. How do I add and increment such keys if I don't even know in advance what keys I will have?
you can set default value of hash in constructor
h = Hash.new(0)
h[:ferrets] += 1
p h[:ferrets]
note that setting default value has some pitfalls, so you must use it with care.
h = Hash.new([]) # does not work as expected (after `x[:a].push(3)`, `x[:b]` would be `[3]`)
h = Hash.new{[]} # also does not work as expected (after `x[:a].push(3)` `x[:a]` would be `[]` not `[3]`)
h = Hash.new{Array.new} # use this one instead
Therefore using ||= might be simple in some situations
h = Hash.new
h[:ferrets] ||= 0
h[:ferrets] += 1
One way to fix this is to give your hash a default:
h = Hash.new
h.default = 0
h[:ferrets] += 1
puts h.inspect
#{:ferrets=>1}
The default default for a hash is nil, and nil doesn't understand how to ++ itself.
h = Hash.new{0}
h = Hash.new(0) # also works (thanks #Phrogz)
Is another way to set the default while declaring it.
I'm getting familiar with ruby send method, but for some reason, I can't do something like this
a = 4
a.send(:+=, 1)
For some reason this doesn't work. Then I tried something like
a.send(:=, a.send(:+, 1))
But this doesn't work too. What is the proper way to fire plus equals through 'send'?
I think the basic option is only:
a = a.send(:+, 1)
That is because send is for messages to objects. Assignment modifies a variable, not an object.
It is possible to assign direct to variables with some meta-programming, but the code is convoluted, so far the best I can find is:
a = 1
var_name = :a
eval "#{var_name} = #{var_name}.send(:+, 1)"
puts a # 2
Or using instance variables:
#a = 2
var_name = :#a
instance_variable_set( var_name, instance_variable_get( var_name ).send(:+, 1) )
puts #a # 3
See the below :
p 4.respond_to?(:"+=") # false
p 4.respond_to?(:"=") # false
p 4.respond_to?(:"+") # true
a+=1 is syntactic sugar of a = a+1. But there is no direct method +=. = is an assignment operator,not the method as well. On the other hand Object#send takes method name as its argument. Thus your code will not work,the way you are looking for.
It is because Ruby doesn't have = method. In Ruby = don't work like in C/C++ but it rather assign new object reference to variable, not assign new value to variable.
You can't call a method on a, because a is not an object, it's a variable, and variables aren't objects in Ruby. You are calling a method on 4, but 4 is not the thing you want to modify, a is. It's just not possible.
Note: it is certainly possible to define a method named = or += and call it, but of course those methods will only exist on objects, not variables.
class Fixnum
define_method(:'+=') do |n| self + n end
end
a = 4
a.send(:'+=', 1)
# => 5
a
# => 4
This might miss the mark a bit, but I was trying to do this where a is actually a method dynamically called on an object. For example, with attributes like added_count and updated_count for Importer I wrote the following
class Importer
attr_accessor :added_count, :updated_count
def increment(method)
send("#{method}=", (send(method) + 1))
end
end
So I could use importer.increment(:added_count) or importer.increment(:updated_count)
Now this may seem silly if you only have these 2 different counters but in some cases we have a half dozen or more counters and different conditions on which attr to increment so it can be handy.
This question already has answers here:
How to dynamically create a local variable?
(4 answers)
Closed 7 years ago.
I'm interested in dynamically setting local variables in Ruby. Not creating methods, constants, or instance variables.
So something like:
args[:a] = 1
args.each_pair do |k,v|
Object.make_instance_var k,v
end
puts a
> 1
I want locally variables specifically because the method in question lives in a model and I dont want to pollute the global or object space.
As an additional information for future readers, starting from ruby 2.1.0 you can using binding.local_variable_get and binding.local_variable_set:
def foo
a = 1
b = binding
b.local_variable_set(:a, 2) # set existing local variable `a'
b.local_variable_set(:c, 3) # create new local variable `c'
# `c' exists only in binding.
b.local_variable_get(:a) #=> 2
b.local_variable_get(:c) #=> 3
p a #=> 2
p c #=> NameError
end
As stated in the doc, it is a similar behavior to
binding.eval("#{symbol} = #{obj}")
binding.eval("#{symbol}")
The problem here is that the block inside each_pair has a different scope. Any local variables assigned therein will only be accessible therein. For instance, this:
args = {}
args[:a] = 1
args[:b] = 2
args.each_pair do |k,v|
key = k.to_s
eval('key = v')
eval('puts key')
end
puts a
Produces this:
1
2
undefined local variable or method `a' for main:Object (NameError)
In order to get around this, you could create a local hash, assign keys to this hash, and access them there, like so:
args = {}
args[:a] = 1
args[:b] = 2
localHash = {}
args.each_pair do |k,v|
key = k.to_s
localHash[key] = v
end
puts localHash['a']
puts localHash['b']
Of course, in this example, it's merely copying the original hash with strings for keys. I'm assuming that the actual use-case, though, is more complex.
interesting, you can change a local variable but you cannot set it:
def test
x=3
eval('x=7;')
puts x
end
test =>
7
def test
eval('x=7;')
puts x
end
test =>
NameError: undefined local variable or method `x' for main:Object
This is the only reason why Dorkus Prime's code works.
I suggest you use the hash (but keep reading for other alternatives).
Why?
Allowing arbitrary named arguments makes for extremely unstable code.
Let's say you have a method foo that you want to accept these theoretical named arguments.
Scenarios:
The called method (foo) needs to call a private method (let's call it bar) that takes no arguments. If you pass an argument to foo that you wanted to be stored in local variable bar, it will mask the bar method. The workaround is to have explicit parentheses when calling bar.
Let's say foo's code assigns a local variable. But then the caller decides to pass in an arg with the same name as that local variable. The assign will clobber the argument.
Basically, a method's caller must never be able to alter the logic of the method.
Alternatives
An alternate middle ground involves OpenStruct. It's less typing than using a hash.
require 'ostruct'
os = OpenStruct.new(:a => 1, :b => 2)
os.a # => 1
os.a = 2 # settable
os.foo # => nil
Note that OpenStruct allows you access non-existent members - it'll return nil. If you want a stricter version, use Struct instead.
This creates an anonymous class, then instantiates the class.
h = {:a=>1, :b=>2}
obj = Struct.new(* h.keys).new(* h.values)
obj.a # => 1
obj.a = 2 # settable
obj.foo # NoMethodError
since you don't want constants
args = {}
args[:a] = 1
args[:b] = 2
args.each_pair{|k,v|eval "##{k}=#{v};"}
puts #b
2
you might find this approach interesting ( evaluate the variables in the right context)
fn="b*b"
vars=""
args.each_pair{|k,v|vars+="#{k}=#{v};"}
eval vars + fn
4
I just had a quick question regarding loops in Ruby. Is there a difference between these two ways of iterating through a collection?
# way 1
#collection.each do |item|
# do whatever
end
# way 2
for item in #collection
# do whatever
end
Just wondering if these are exactly the same or if maybe there's a subtle difference (possibly when #collection is nil).
This is the only difference:
each:
irb> [1,2,3].each { |x| }
=> [1, 2, 3]
irb> x
NameError: undefined local variable or method `x' for main:Object
from (irb):2
from :0
for:
irb> for x in [1,2,3]; end
=> [1, 2, 3]
irb> x
=> 3
With the for loop, the iterator variable still lives after the block is done. With the each loop, it doesn't, unless it was already defined as a local variable before the loop started.
Other than that, for is just syntax sugar for the each method.
When #collection is nil both loops throw an exception:
Exception: undefined local variable or method `#collection' for main:Object
See "The Evils of the For Loop" for a good explanation (there's one small difference considering variable scoping).
Using each is considered more idiomatic use of Ruby.
Your first example,
#collection.each do |item|
# do whatever
end
is more idiomatic. While Ruby supports looping constructs like for and while, the block syntax is generally preferred.
Another subtle difference is that any variable you declare within a for loop will be available outside the loop, whereas those within an iterator block are effectively private.
One more different..
number = ["one", "two", "three"]
=> ["one", "two", "three"]
loop1 = []
loop2 = []
number.each do |c|
loop1 << Proc.new { puts c }
end
=> ["one", "two", "three"]
for c in number
loop2 << Proc.new { puts c }
end
=> ["one", "two", "three"]
loop1[1].call
two
=> nil
loop2[1].call
three
=> nil
source: http://paulphilippov.com/articles/enumerable-each-vs-for-loops-in-ruby
for more clear: http://www.ruby-forum.com/topic/179264#784884
Never ever use for it may cause almost untraceable bugs.
Don't be fooled, this is not about idiomatic code or style issues. Ruby's implementation of for has a serious flaw and should not be used.
Here is an example where for introduces a bug,
class Library
def initialize
#ary = []
end
def method_with_block(&block)
#ary << block
end
def method_that_uses_these_blocks
#ary.map(&:call)
end
end
lib = Library.new
for n in %w{foo bar quz}
lib.method_with_block { n }
end
puts lib.method_that_uses_these_blocks
Prints
quz
quz
quz
Using %w{foo bar quz}.each { |n| ... } prints
foo
bar
quz
Why?
In a for loop the variable n is defined once and only and then that one definition is use for all iterations. Hence each blocks refer to the same n which has a value of quz by the time the loop ends. Bug!
In an each loop a fresh variable n is defined for each iteration, for example above the variable n is defined three separate times. Hence each block refer to a separate n with the correct values.
It looks like there is no difference, for uses each underneath.
$ irb
>> for x in nil
>> puts x
>> end
NoMethodError: undefined method `each' for nil:NilClass
from (irb):1
>> nil.each {|x| puts x}
NoMethodError: undefined method `each' for nil:NilClass
from (irb):4
Like Bayard says, each is more idiomatic. It hides more from you and doesn't require special language features.
Per Telemachus's Comment
for .. in .. sets the iterator outside the scope of the loop, so
for a in [1,2]
puts a
end
leaves a defined after the loop is finished. Where as each doesn't. Which is another reason in favor of using each, because the temp variable lives a shorter period.
(1..4).each { |i|
a = 9 if i==3
puts a
}
#nil
#nil
#9
#nil
for i in 1..4
a = 9 if i==3
puts a
end
#nil
#nil
#9
#9
In 'for' loop, local variable is still lives after each loop. In 'each' loop, local variable refreshes after each loop.
As far as I know, using blocks instead of in-language control structures is more idiomatic.
I just want to make a specific point about the for in loop in Ruby. It might seem like a construct similar to other languages, but in fact it is an expression like every other looping construct in Ruby. In fact, the for in works with Enumerable objects just as the each iterator.
The collection passed to for in can be any object that has an each iterator method. Arrays and hashes define the each method, and many other Ruby objects do, too. The for/in loop calls the each method of the specified object. As that iterator yields values, the for loop assigns each value (or each set of values) to the specified variable (or variables) and then executes the code in body.
This is a silly example, but illustrates the point that the for in loop works with ANY object that has an each method, just like how the each iterator does:
class Apple
TYPES = %w(red green yellow)
def each
yield TYPES.pop until TYPES.empty?
end
end
a = Apple.new
for i in a do
puts i
end
yellow
green
red
=> nil
And now the each iterator:
a = Apple.new
a.each do |i|
puts i
end
yellow
green
red
=> nil
As you can see, both are responding to the each method which yields values back to the block. As everyone here stated, it is definitely preferable to use the each iterator over the for in loop. I just wanted to drive home the point that there is nothing magical about the for in loop. It is an expression that invokes the each method of a collection and then passes it to its block of code. Hence, it is a very rare case you would need to use for in. Use the each iterator almost always (with the added benefit of block scope).
In Ruby, is it possible to pass by reference a parameter with value-type semantics (e.g. a Fixnum)?
I'm looking for something similar to C#'s 'ref' keyword.
Example:
def func(x)
x += 1
end
a = 5
func(a) #this should be something like func(ref a)
puts a #should read '6'
Btw. I know I could just use:
a = func(a)
You can accomplish this by explicitly passing in the current binding:
def func(x, bdg)
eval "#{x} += 1", bdg
end
a = 5
func(:a, binding)
puts a # => 6
Ruby doesn't support "pass by reference" at all. Everything is an object and the references to those objects are always passed by value. Actually, in your example you are passing a copy of the reference to the Fixnum Object by value.
The problem with the your code is, that x += 1 doesn't modify the passed Fixnum Object but instead creates a completely new and independent object.
I think, Java programmers would call Fixnum objects immutable.
In Ruby you can't pass parameters by reference. For your example, you would have to return the new value and assign it to the variable a or create a new class that contains the value and pass an instance of this class around. Example:
class Container
attr_accessor :value
def initialize value
#value = value
end
end
def func(x)
x.value += 1
end
a = Container.new(5)
func(a)
puts a.value
You can try following trick:
def func(x)
x[0] += 1
end
a = [5]
func(a) #this should be something like func(ref a)
puts a[0] #should read '6'
http://ruby-doc.org/core-2.1.5/Fixnum.html
Fixnum objects have immediate value. This means that when they are assigned or
passed as parameters, the actual object is passed, rather than a reference to
that object.
Also Ruby is pass by value.
However, it seems that composite objects, like hashes, are passed by reference:
fp = {}
def changeit(par)
par[:abc] = 'cde'
end
changeit(fp)
p fp
gives
{:abc=>"cde"}