Related
I'm trying to increment the key in a hash. For example. I'm trying to get this
{:b => "crayons", :c => "colors", :d => "apples"}
to turn into this
{:c => "crayons", :d => "colors", :e => "apples"}
I thought this code would do the trick but it doesn't. What do I need to change?
def hash(correct)
mapping = correct.each{|key, element| key.next}
Hash[correct.map {|key, element| [mapping[key], element]}]
end
Using Enumerable#each_with_object
def hash_correct(hsh)
hsh.each_with_object({}) { |(k,v), hsh| hsh[k.succ] = v }
end
hash_correct({:b => "crayons", :c => "colors", :d => "apples"})
# => {:c=>"crayons", :d=>"colors", :e=>"apples"}
def hash(correct)
Hash[correct.map{|key, element| [key.next, element]}]
end
h = {:b => "crayons", :c => "colors", :d => "apples"}
h.keys.map(&:succ).zip(h.values).to_h
#=> {:c=>"crayons", :d=>"colors", :e=>"apples"}
If the intent were to modify (not keep) the original hash, the update could be done in place:
keys = h.keys.reverse
keys.each { |k| h[k.succ] = h[k] }
h.delete(keys.last)
which could be inscrutablized to:
h.delete(h.keys.reverse.each { |k| h[k.succ] = h[k] }.last)
def hash(correct)
exp_hash = correct.map { | k, v| {k.next => v} }
Hash[*exp_hash.collect{|h| h.to_a}.flatten]
end
correct = {:b => "crayons", :c => "colors", :d => "apples"}
I thought this code would do the trick but it doesn't.
mapping = correct.each{|key, element| key.next}
If you go to the ruby Symbol docs and click on the link for next()...surprise there is no entry for next, but the description at the top of the window says:
succ
Same as sym.to_s.succ.intern.
From that you have to deduce that next() is a synonym for succ(). So Symbol#next/succ converts the symbol to a string by calling to_s(). Well, you know that you are going to get a String returned from to_s, and no matter what you do to that String, e.g. calling String#succ on it, it isn't going to effect some Symbol, e.g. your hash key. Furthermore, if you look at the docs for String#succ, it says
succ -> new_string
...so String#succ creates another String object and calling intern() on that String object, and by the way intern() is just a synonym for to_sym(), once again won't affect some Symbol...and it won't even affect the String object returned by to_s.
Finally, intern() doesn't change the second string object but instead returns a Symbol:
a String
V
key.next => key.to_s.succ.intern => Symbol
^
another String
...and because you didn't do anything with the Symbol returned by intern(), it is discarded.
Given certain keys, I want to get an array of values from a hash (in the order I gave the keys). I had done this:
class Hash
def values_for_keys(*keys_requested)
result = []
keys_requested.each do |key|
result << self[key]
end
return result
end
end
I modified the Hash class because I do plan to use it almost everywhere in my code.
But I don't really like the idea of modifying a core class. Is there a builtin solution instead? (couldn't find any, so I had to write this).
You should be able to use values_at:
values_at(key, ...) → array
Return an array containing the values associated with the given keys. Also see Hash.select.
h = { "cat" => "feline", "dog" => "canine", "cow" => "bovine" }
h.values_at("cow", "cat") #=> ["bovine", "feline"]
The documentation doesn't specifically say anything about the order of the returned array but:
The example implies that the array will match the key order.
The standard implementation does things in the right order.
There's no other sensible way for the method to behave.
For example:
>> h = { :a => 'a', :b => 'b', :c => 'c' }
=> {:a=>"a", :b=>"b", :c=>"c"}
>> h.values_at(:c, :a)
=> ["c", "a"]
i will suggest you do this:
your_hash.select{|key,value| given_keys.include?(key)}.values
I need a bidirectional Hash table in Ruby. For example:
h = {:abc => 123, :xyz => 789, :qaz => 789, :wsx => [888, 999]}
h.fetch(:xyz) # => 789
h.rfetch(123) # => abc
h.rfetch(789) # => [:xyz, :qaz]
h.rfetch(888) # => :wsx
Method rfetch means reversed fetch and is only my proposal.
Note three things:
If multiple keys map at the same value then rfetch returns all of them, packed in array.
If value is an array then rfetch looks for its param among elements of the array.
Bidirectional Hash means that both fetch and rfetch should execute in constant time.
Does such structure exists in Ruby (including external libraries)?
I thought about implementing it using two one-directional Hashes synchronized when one of them is modified (and packing it into class to avoid synchronization problems) but maybe I could use an already existing solution?
You could build something yourself pretty easily, just use a simple object that wraps two hashes (one for the forward direction, one for the reverse). For example:
class BiHash
def initialize
#forward = Hash.new { |h, k| h[k] = [ ] }
#reverse = Hash.new { |h, k| h[k] = [ ] }
end
def insert(k, v)
#forward[k].push(v)
#reverse[v].push(k)
v
end
def fetch(k)
fetch_from(#forward, k)
end
def rfetch(v)
fetch_from(#reverse, v)
end
protected
def fetch_from(h, k)
return nil if(!h.has_key?(k))
v = h[k]
v.length == 1 ? v.first : v.dup
end
end
Look ups will behave just like normal hash lookups (because they are normal hash lookups). Add some operators and maybe decent to_s and inspect implementations and you're good.
Such a thing works like this:
b = BiHash.new
b.insert(:a, 'a')
b.insert(:a, 'b')
b.insert(:a, 'c')
b.insert(:b, 'a')
b.insert(:c, 'x')
puts b.fetch(:a).inspect # ["a", "b", "c"]
puts b.fetch(:b).inspect # "a"
puts b.rfetch('a').inspect # [:a, :b]
puts b.rfetch('x').inspect # :c
puts b.fetch(:not_there).inspect # nil
puts b.rfetch('not there').inspect # nil
There's nothing wrong with building your tools when you need them.
There is no such structure built-in in Ruby.
Note that Hash#rassoc does something similar, but it returns only the first match and is linear-time:
h = {:abc => 123, :xyz => 789, :qaz => 789, :wsx => [888, 999]}
h.rassoc(123) # => [:abc, 123]
Also, it isn't possible to fullfill your requirements in Ruby in a perfectly safe manner, as you won't be able to detect changes in values that are arrays. E.g.:
h = MyBidirectionalArray.new(:foo => 42, :bar => [:hello, :world])
h.rfetch(:world) # => :bar
h[:bar].shift
h[:bar] # => [:world]
h.rfetch(:world) # => should be nil, but how to detect this??
Computing a hash everytime to detect a change will make your lookup linear-time. You could duplicate the array-values and freeze them, though (like Ruby does for Hash keys that are strings!)
What you seem to need is a Graph class, which could have a different API than a Hash, no? You can check out rgl or similar, but I don't know how they're implemented.
Good luck.
There is a Hash#invert method (http://www.ruby-doc.org/core-2.1.0/Hash.html#method-i-invert) to achieve this. It won't map multiple values to an array though.
Try this:
class Hash
def rfetch val
select { |k,v| v.is_a?(Array) ? v.include?(val) : v == val }.map { |x| x[0] }
end
end
If you're not doing lots of updates to this hash, you might be able to use inverthash.
Say you have the following Ruby hash,
hash = {:a => [[1, 100..300],
[2, 200..300]],
:b => [[1, 100..300],
[2, 301..400]]
}
and the following functions,
def overlaps?(range, range2)
range.include?(range2.begin) || range2.include?(range.begin)
end
def any_overlaps?(ranges)
# This calls to_proc on the symbol object; it's syntactically equivalent to
# ranges.sort_by {|r| r.begin}
ranges.sort_by(&:begin).each_cons(2).any? do |r1, r2|
overlaps?(r1, r2)
end
end
and it's your desire to, for each key in hash, test whether any range overlaps with any other. In hash above, I would expect hash[:a] to make me mad and hash[:b] to not.
How is this best implemented syntactically?
hash.each{|k, v| puts "#{k} #{any_overlaps?( v.map( &:last )) ? 'overlaps' : 'is ok'}."}
output:
a overlaps.
b is ok.
Here's another way to write any_overlaps:
def any_overlaps?(ranges)
(a = ranges.map { |r| [r.first, r.last] }.sort_by(&:first).flatten) != a.sort
end
any_overlaps? [(51..60),(11..20),(18..30),(0..10),(31..40)] # => true
any_overlaps? [(51..60),(11..20),(21..30),(0..10),(31..40)] # => false
Consider a "person" stored in a hash. Two examples are:
fred = {:person => {:name => "Fred", :spouse => "Wilma", :children => {:child => {:name => "Pebbles"}}}}
slate = {:person => {:name => "Mr. Slate", :spouse => "Mrs. Slate"}}
If the "person" doesn't have any children, the "children" element is not present. So, for Mr. Slate, we can check whether he has parents:
slate_has_children = !slate[:person][:children].nil?
So, what if we don't know that "slate" is a "person" hash? Consider:
dino = {:pet => {:name => "Dino"}}
We can't easily check for children any longer:
dino_has_children = !dino[:person][:children].nil?
NoMethodError: undefined method `[]' for nil:NilClass
So, how would you check the structure of a hash, especially if it is nested deeply (even deeper than the examples provided here)? Maybe a better question is: What's the "Ruby way" to do this?
The most obvious way to do this is to simply check each step of the way:
has_children = slate[:person] && slate[:person][:children]
Use of .nil? is really only required when you use false as a placeholder value, and in practice this is rare. Generally you can simply test it exists.
Update: If you're using Ruby 2.3 or later there's a built-in dig method that does what's described in this answer.
If not, you can also define your own Hash "dig" method which can simplify this substantially:
class Hash
def dig(*path)
path.inject(self) do |location, key|
location.respond_to?(:keys) ? location[key] : nil
end
end
end
This method will check each step of the way and avoid tripping up on calls to nil. For shallow structures the utility is somewhat limited, but for deeply nested structures I find it's invaluable:
has_children = slate.dig(:person, :children)
You might also make this more robust, for example, testing if the :children entry is actually populated:
children = slate.dig(:person, :children)
has_children = children && !children.empty?
With Ruby 2.3 we'll have support for the safe navigation operator:
https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/news/2015/11/11/ruby-2-3-0-preview1-released/
has_children now could be written as:
has_children = slate[:person]&.[](:children)
dig is being added as well:
has_children = slate.dig(:person, :children)
Another alternative:
dino.fetch(:person, {})[:children]
You can use the andand gem:
require 'andand'
fred[:person].andand[:children].nil? #=> false
dino[:person].andand[:children].nil? #=> true
You can find further explanations at http://andand.rubyforge.org/.
One could use hash with default value of {} - empty hash. For example,
dino = Hash.new({})
dino[:pet] = {:name => "Dino"}
dino_has_children = !dino[:person][:children].nil? #=> false
That works with already created Hash as well:
dino = {:pet=>{:name=>"Dino"}}
dino.default = {}
dino_has_children = !dino[:person][:children].nil? #=> false
Or you can define [] method for nil class
class NilClass
def [](* args)
nil
end
end
nil[:a] #=> nil
Traditionally, you really had to do something like this:
structure[:a] && structure[:a][:b]
However, Ruby 2.3 added a feature 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.
def flatten_hash(hash)
hash.each_with_object({}) do |(k, v), h|
if v.is_a? Hash
flatten_hash(v).map do |h_k, h_v|
h["#{k}_#{h_k}"] = h_v
end
else
h[k] = v
end
end
end
irb(main):012:0> fred = {:person => {:name => "Fred", :spouse => "Wilma", :children => {:child => {:name => "Pebbles"}}}}
=> {:person=>{:name=>"Fred", :spouse=>"Wilma", :children=>{:child=>{:name=>"Pebbles"}}}}
irb(main):013:0> slate = {:person => {:name => "Mr. Slate", :spouse => "Mrs. Slate"}}
=> {:person=>{:name=>"Mr. Slate", :spouse=>"Mrs. Slate"}}
irb(main):014:0> flatten_hash(fred).keys.any? { |k| k.include?("children") }
=> true
irb(main):015:0> flatten_hash(slate).keys.any? { |k| k.include?("children") }
=> false
This will flatten all the hashes into one and then any? returns true if any key matching the substring "children" exist.
This might also help.
dino_has_children = !dino.fetch(person, {})[:children].nil?
Note that in rails you can also do:
dino_has_children = !dino[person].try(:[], :children).nil? #
Here is a way you can do a deep check for any falsy values in the hash and any nested hashes without monkey patching the Ruby Hash class (PLEASE don't monkey patch on the Ruby classes, such is something you should not do, EVER).
(Assuming Rails, although you could easily modify this to work outside of Rails)
def deep_all_present?(hash)
fail ArgumentError, 'deep_all_present? only accepts Hashes' unless hash.is_a? Hash
hash.each do |key, value|
return false if key.blank? || value.blank?
return deep_all_present?(value) if value.is_a? Hash
end
true
end
Simplifying the above answers here:
Create a Recursive Hash method whose value cannot be nil, like as follows.
def recursive_hash
Hash.new {|key, value| key[value] = recursive_hash}
end
> slate = recursive_hash
> slate[:person][:name] = "Mr. Slate"
> slate[:person][:spouse] = "Mrs. Slate"
> slate
=> {:person=>{:name=>"Mr. Slate", :spouse=>"Mrs. Slate"}}
slate[:person][:state][:city]
=> {}
If you don't mind creating empty hashes if the value does not exists for the key :)
You can try to play with
dino.default = {}
Or for example:
empty_hash = {}
empty_hash.default = empty_hash
dino.default = empty_hash
That way you can call
empty_hash[:a][:b][:c][:d][:e] # and so on...
dino[:person][:children] # at worst it returns {}
Given
x = {:a => {:b => 'c'}}
y = {}
you could check x and y like this:
(x[:a] || {})[:b] # 'c'
(y[:a] || {})[:b] # nil
Thks #tadman for the answer.
For those who want perfs (and are stuck with ruby < 2.3), this method is 2.5x faster:
unless Hash.method_defined? :dig
class Hash
def dig(*path)
val, index, len = self, 0, path.length
index += 1 while(index < len && val = val[path[index]])
val
end
end
end
and if you use RubyInline, this method is 16x faster:
unless Hash.method_defined? :dig
require 'inline'
class Hash
inline do |builder|
builder.c_raw '
VALUE dig(int argc, VALUE *argv, VALUE self) {
rb_check_arity(argc, 1, UNLIMITED_ARGUMENTS);
self = rb_hash_aref(self, *argv);
if (NIL_P(self) || !--argc) return self;
++argv;
return dig(argc, argv, self);
}'
end
end
end
You can also define a module to alias the brackets methods and use the Ruby syntax to read/write nested elements.
UPDATE: Instead of overriding the bracket accessors, request Hash instance to extend the module.
module Nesty
def []=(*keys,value)
key = keys.pop
if keys.empty?
super(key, value)
else
if self[*keys].is_a? Hash
self[*keys][key] = value
else
self[*keys] = { key => value}
end
end
end
def [](*keys)
self.dig(*keys)
end
end
class Hash
def nesty
self.extend Nesty
self
end
end
Then you can do:
irb> a = {}.nesty
=> {}
irb> a[:a, :b, :c] = "value"
=> "value"
irb> a
=> {:a=>{:b=>{:c=>"value"}}}
irb> a[:a,:b,:c]
=> "value"
irb> a[:a,:b]
=> {:c=>"value"}
irb> a[:a,:d] = "another value"
=> "another value"
irb> a
=> {:a=>{:b=>{:c=>"value"}, :d=>"another value"}}
I don't know how "Ruby" it is(!), but the KeyDial gem which I wrote lets you do this basically without changing your original syntax:
has_kids = !dino[:person][:children].nil?
becomes:
has_kids = !dino.dial[:person][:children].call.nil?
This uses some trickery to intermediate the key access calls. At call, it will try to dig the previous keys on dino, and if it hits an error (as it will), returns nil. nil? then of course returns true.
You can use a combination of & and key? it is O(1) compared to dig which is O(n) and this will make sure person is accessed without NoMethodError: undefined method `[]' for nil:NilClass
fred[:person]&.key?(:children) //=>true
slate[:person]&.key?(:children)