A string is a primitive type; whenever you call the string, it has a new object id. A symbol is a referenced type; whenever you create a symbol, you create a pointer, which points to the value.
I stored symbols in variables:
var1 = :foo
var1.object_id # => 2598748
:foo.object_id # => 2598748
var2 = :foo
var2.object_id # => 2598748
var2 = "hello"
var2.object_id # => 70131755422100
How is it possible that I create a second variable var2, and it has the same object id as var1? I create a second element. Does it mean that variables are also pointers?
Both variables point to the symbol :foo. The symbol :foo is stored just once, right?
Two variables are created, so they should be in the memory, and they cannot be in the same place because they have different names. var1 and var2 need to be stored, so that I can call them later. I don't get how I can call them if they have the same object id. If someone can help me to understand this, I'd be thankful.
Ruby variables are references to objects, so when you send a method to a variable, the object it references is the context in which it is evaluated. It's probably more clear to look at the first image in the top rated answer (below the accepted answer) here.
So, to figure out what's going on, let's dig into the documentation a bit and see what happens with your code snippet.
Ruby's Symbol class documentation:
https://ruby-doc.org/core-2.5.0/Symbol.html
Symbol objects represent names and some strings inside the Ruby interpreter. They are generated using the :name and :"string" literals syntax, and by the various to_sym methods. The same Symbol object will be created for a given name or string for the duration of a program's execution, regardless of the context or meaning of that name. Thus if Fred is a constant in one context, a method in another, and a class in a third, the Symbol :Fred will be the same object in all three contexts.
Ruby's Object#object_id documentation:
https://ruby-doc.org/core-2.5.1/Object.html#method-i-object_id
Returns an integer identifier for obj.
The same number will be returned on all calls to object_id for a given object, and no two active objects will share an id.
So here's what's happening step-by-step:
# We create two variables that refer to the same object, :foo
var1 = :foo
var2 = :foo
var1.object_id = 2598748
var2.object_id = 2598748
# Evaluated as:
# var1.object_id => :foo.object_id => 2598748
# var2.object_id => :foo.object_id => 2598748
As discussed in the first link above, Ruby is pass-by-value, but every value is an Object, so your variables both evaluate to the same value. Since every symbol made of the same string ("foo" in this case) refers to the same object, and Object#object_id always returns the same id for the same object, you get the same id back.
I just solved some tasks about linked lists using Ruby. It was very interesting, but it requires a couple of new lines. Because if I pass head in some function, and change the head of the list, I have to return new head from method and reassign it to the variable.
Because if I have a variable and I pass it to method, reassign a inside, outside a dose not changes:
it "dose not changes if reassign variable in method" do
a = [1,2]
def reasign array
array = [1]
array
end
assert_equal [1], reasign(a)
assert_equal [1,2], a
end
Of course I able to warp head of list in Hash or Array and save this Hash thus when I change something in object. The variable outside still pointing on object. And this works. But again requires couple of lines.
it "method changes the data into a object" do
a = [1,2]
def change_object object
object.push 3
object
end
assert_equal [1,2,3], change_object(a)
assert_equal [1,2,3], a
end
Is there way in Ruby to use C-like pointers or PHP-like references?
All ruby variable references are essentially pointers (but not pointers-to-pointers), in C parlance.
You can mutate an object (assuming it's not immutable), and all variables that reference it will thus be pointing at the same (now mutated) object. But the only way to change which object a variable is referring to is with direct assignment to that variable -- and each variable is a separate reference; you can't alias a single reference with two names.
So, I'm doing a Ruby course on CodeAcademy and I'm stuck in differentiating the difference between a variable and a class. Can someone please explain the difference to me? I'll give you cookies! ^^. No matter where I look online I can't find any information on this.
The idea of constants in Ruby is that they can get a value assigned only once while you can assign a new value to a variable as many times as you want. Now technically, you can assign a new value even to a constant. Ruby will however issue a warning in this case and you should try to avoid this case.
I guess the main point leading to confusion of people new to Ruby is that even values assigned to constants can be modified without a warning (e.g. by adding new elements to an array). References by a constant are no different to variables here in that the reference does not restrict what can be done with the value. The object referenced by either a variable or constant is always independent from that.
In this example, I assign a new array to the ARRAY constant. Later, I can happily change the array by adding a new member to it. The constant is not concerned by this.
ARRAY = []
# => []
ARRAY << :foo
ARRAY
# => [:foo]
The only thing forbidden (or, well, allowed with a warning) is if you try to assign a completely new value to a constant:
ARRAY2 = []
# => []
ARRAY2 = [:bar]
# warning: already initialized constant ARRAY2
ARRAY2
=> [:bar]
As such, it is common practice to immediately freeze values assigned to constants to fully deny any further changes and ensure that the original value is preserved (unless someone assigns a new value):
ARRAY3 = [:foo, :bar].freeze
ARRAY3 << :baz
# RuntimeError: can't modify frozen Array
A variable can change its value, it can vary.
A constant cannot change its value, it is constant.
In Ruby things are a bit more complex though. You can reassign the value of constants, but it will print a warning. This is meant to be used for debugging only and the general principle still applies that constants are meant to be used for values that never change.
In Ruby, a constant is an identifier that starts with a capital letter; it is intended to be assigned only once. You can reassign a constant, but you should not. Doing so will generate a warning:
NAME = "Fred"
NAME = "Barney" # => Warning: Already initialized constant NAME
A variable is an identifier that does not start with a capital letter; it may be assigned to more than once:
name = "Fred"
name = "Barney" # => No warning
When you create a class, a constant is created with the same name as the class; that constant is bound to the class:
class Foo
end
This is equivalent to this code which creates a new anonymous class and assigns it to the constant Foo:
Foo = Class.new do
end
You can reassign the constant identifier Foo, as you can with any other constant, but of course you shouldn't, and you will still get the warning:
Foo = 123 # => Already initialized constant Foo
For some context, a lot of my code has the same lines of text throughout it (we are using Calabash to do iOS automation, if that gives you an idea).
For example: "all label marked:'#{name}'" is used 8 times in a particular class.
I would prefer to be able to have a constant that uses that text, but if I throw it at the top of the class, of course the variable "name" has not been set yet. Without defining a method that takes a parameter and returns a string, is there a way to do something essentially like this that can exist at the top of the class, but not be evaluated until it's used?:
class ClassName
extend Calabash::Cucumber::Operations
#NAME_CONSTANT = "all label marked:'#{name}'"
def self.method_name(name)
query("#{#NAME_CONSTANT} sibling label marked:'anotherLabel' isHidden:0")
end
end
If you use the syntax I mentioned, you get this error: undefined local variable or method `name' for ClassName
You could use String#% to insert the string later.
class ClassName
#NAME_CONSTANT = "all label marked:'%{name}'"
def self.method_name(insert_name)
query("#{#NAME_CONSTANT} sibling label marked:'anotherLabel' isHidden:0" % {name: insert_name})
end
def self.query(string)
puts string
end
end
ClassName.method_name('test')
#=> "all label marked:'test' sibling label marked:'anotherLabel' isHidden:0"
I agree with #Sergio. Don't define a constant string that includes a variable. Just use a method. Including a variable in a constant seems like a bad idea. Constants shouldn't be dynamic, by definition.
If you really want to include a variable in a constant string, you can assign a lambda to a contstant, like so:
class ClassName
extend Calabash::Cucumber::Operations
NAME_CONSTANT = ->(name) { "all label marked:'#{name}'" }
def self.method_name(name)
query("#{NAME_CONSTANT.call(name)} sibling label marked:'anotherLabel' isHidden:0")
end
end
I removed the # before the constant, since including it creates a class-level instance variable, not a constant.
I really wouldn't use the code sample I posted, though. Just use a method. Avdi Grimm has a good post called "Do we need constants?" where he describes some of the benefits of using methods instead of constants.
The fundamental issue you're facing is that string interpolation occurs at the time the literal is interpreted and the scope of any referenced variables is determined by the location of the string in the code.
If you put the interpolated string in a method, then it won't have access to the local definition of any variables used in the string. You'd have to pass in the value of any variables used, as in:
def name_constant(name)
"all label marked:'#{name}'"
end
Alternatively, you'd need to declare the "constant" as an uninterpreted string as follows:
#name_constant = '"all label marked:''#{name}''"'
and then interpret it when you reference it, as follows:
eval(#name_constant)
BTW, I've ignored the issue of this not really being a "constant" and using instance variables vs. class variables.
I'm not entirely sure if this is possible in Ruby, but hopefully there's an easy way to do this. I want to declare a variable and later find out the name of the variable. That is, for this simple snippet:
foo = ["goo", "baz"]
How can I get the name of the array (here, "foo") back? If it is indeed possible, does this work on any variable (e.g., scalars, hashes, etc.)?
Edit: Here's what I'm basically trying to do. I'm writing a SOAP server that wraps around a class with three important variables, and the validation code is essentially this:
[foo, goo, bar].each { |param|
if param.class != Array
puts "param_name wasn't an Array. It was a/an #{param.class}"
return "Error: param_name wasn't an Array"
end
}
My question is then: Can I replace the instances of 'param_name' with foo, goo, or bar? These objects are all Arrays, so the answers I've received so far don't seem to work (with the exception of re-engineering the whole thing ala dbr's answer)
What if you turn your problem around? Instead of trying to get names from variables, get the variables from the names:
["foo", "goo", "bar"].each { |param_name|
param = eval(param_name)
if param.class != Array
puts "#{param_name} wasn't an Array. It was a/an #{param.class}"
return "Error: #{param_name} wasn't an Array"
end
}
If there were a chance of one the variables not being defined at all (as opposed to not being an array), you would want to add "rescue nil" to the end of the "param = ..." line to keep the eval from throwing an exception...
You need to re-architect your solution. Even if you could do it (you can't), the question simply doesn't have a reasonable answer.
Imagine a get_name method.
a = 1
get_name(a)
Everyone could probably agree this should return 'a'
b = a
get_name(b)
Should it return 'b', or 'a', or an array containing both?
[b,a].each do |arg|
get_name(arg)
end
Should it return 'arg', 'b', or 'a' ?
def do_stuff( arg )
get_name(arg)
do
do_stuff(b)
Should it return 'arg', 'b', or 'a', or maybe the array of all of them? Even if it did return an array, what would the order be and how would I know how to interpret the results?
The answer to all of the questions above is "It depends on the particular thing I want at the time." I'm not sure how you could solve that problem for Ruby.
It seems you are trying to solve a problem that has a far easier solution..
Why not just store the data in a hash? If you do..
data_container = {'foo' => ['goo', 'baz']}
..it is then utterly trivial to get the 'foo' name.
That said, you've not given any context to the problem, so there may be a reason you can't do this..
[edit] After clarification, I see the issue, but I don't think this is the problem.. With [foo, bar, bla], it's equivalent like saying ['content 1', 'content 2', 'etc']. The actual variables name is (or rather, should be) utterly irrelevant. If the name of the variable is important, that is exactly why hashes exist.
The problem isn't with iterating over [foo, bar] etc, it's the fundamental problem with how the SOAP server is returing the data, and/or how you're trying to use it.
The solution, I would say, is to either make the SOAP server return hashes, or, since you know there is always going to be three elements, can you not do something like..
{"foo" => foo, "goo" => goo, "bar"=>bar}.each do |param_name, param|
if param.class != Array
puts "#{param_name} wasn't an Array. It was a/an #{param.class}"
puts "Error: #{param_name} wasn't an Array"
end
end
OK, it DOES work in instance methods, too, and, based on your specific requirement (the one you put in the comment), you could do this:
local_variables.each do |var|
puts var if (eval(var).class != Fixnum)
end
Just replace Fixnum with your specific type checking.
I do not know of any way to get a local variable name. But, you can use the instance_variables method, this will return an array of all the instance variable names in the object.
Simple call:
object.instance_variables
or
self.instance_variables
to get an array of all instance variable names.
Building on joshmsmoore, something like this would probably do it:
# Returns the first instance variable whose value == x
# Returns nil if no name maps to the given value
def instance_variable_name_for(x)
self.instance_variables.find do |var|
x == self.instance_variable_get(var)
end
end
There's Kernel::local_variables, but I'm not sure that this will work for a method's local vars, and I don't know that you can manipulate it in such a way as to do what you wish to acheive.
Great question. I fully understand your motivation. Let me start by noting, that there are certain kinds of special objects, that, under certain circumstances, have knowledge of the variable, to which they have been assigned. These special objects are eg. Module instances, Class instances and Struct instances:
Dog = Class.new
Dog.name # Dog
The catch is, that this works only when the variable, to which the assignment is performed, is a constant. (We all know that Ruby constants are nothing more than emotionally sensitive variables.) Thus:
x = Module.new # creating an anonymous module
x.name #=> nil # the module does not know that it has been assigned to x
Animal = x # but will notice once we assign it to a constant
x.name #=> "Animal"
This behavior of objects being aware to which variables they have been assigned, is commonly called constant magic (because it is limited to constants). But this highly desirable constant magic only works for certain objects:
Rover = Dog.new
Rover.name #=> raises NoMethodError
Fortunately, I have written a gem y_support/name_magic, that takes care of this for you:
# first, gem install y_support
require 'y_support/name_magic'
class Cat
include NameMagic
end
The fact, that this only works with constants (ie. variables starting with a capital letter) is not such a big limitation. In fact, it gives you freedom to name or not to name your objects at will:
tmp = Cat.new # nameless kitty
tmp.name #=> nil
Josie = tmp # by assigning to a constant, we name the kitty Josie
tmp.name #=> :Josie
Unfortunately, this will not work with array literals, because they are internally constructed without using #new method, on which NameMagic relies. Therefore, to achieve what you want to, you will have to subclass Array:
require 'y_support/name_magic'
class MyArr < Array
include NameMagic
end
foo = MyArr.new ["goo", "baz"] # not named yet
foo.name #=> nil
Foo = foo # but assignment to a constant is noticed
foo.name #=> :Foo
# You can even list the instances
MyArr.instances #=> [["goo", "baz"]]
MyArr.instance_names #=> [:Foo]
# Get an instance by name:
MyArr.instance "Foo" #=> ["goo", "baz"]
MyArr.instance :Foo #=> ["goo", "baz"]
# Rename it:
Foo.name = "Quux"
Foo.name #=> :Quux
# Or forget the name again:
MyArr.forget :Quux
Foo.name #=> nil
# In addition, you can name the object upon creation even without assignment
u = MyArr.new [1, 2], name: :Pair
u.name #=> :Pair
v = MyArr.new [1, 2, 3], ɴ: :Trinity
v.name #=> :Trinity
I achieved the constant magic-imitating behavior by searching all the constants in all the namespaces of the current Ruby object space. This wastes a fraction of second, but since the search is performed only once, there is no performance penalty once the object figures out its name. In the future, Ruby core team has promised const_assigned hook.
You can't, you need to go back to the drawing board and re-engineer your solution.
Foo is only a location to hold a pointer to the data. The data has no knowledge of what points at it. In Smalltalk systems you could ask the VM for all pointers to an object, but that would only get you the object that contained the foo variable, not foo itself. There is no real way to reference a vaiable in Ruby. As mentioned by one answer you can stil place a tag in the data that references where it came from or such, but generally that is not a good apporach to most problems. You can use a hash to receive the values in the first place, or use a hash to pass to your loop so you know the argument name for validation purposes as in DBR's answer.
The closest thing to a real answer to you question is to use the Enumerable method each_with_index instead of each, thusly:
my_array = [foo, baz, bar]
my_array.each_with_index do |item, index|
if item.class != Array
puts "#{my_array[index]} wasn't an Array. It was a/an #{item.class}"
end
end
I removed the return statement from the block you were passing to each/each_with_index because it didn't do/mean anything. Each and each_with_index both return the array on which they were operating.
There's also something about scope in blocks worth noting here: if you've defined a variable outside of the block, it will be available within it. In other words, you could refer to foo, bar, and baz directly inside the block. The converse is not true: variables that you create for the first time inside the block will not be available outside of it.
Finally, the do/end syntax is preferred for multi-line blocks, but that's simply a matter of style, though it is universal in ruby code of any recent vintage.