I play around with arrays and hashes quite a lot in ruby and end up with some code that looks like this:
sum = two_dimensional_array.select{|i|
i.collect{|j|
j.to_i
}.sum > 5
}.collect{|i|
i.collect{|j|
j ** 2
}.average
}.sum
(Let's all pretend that the above code sample makes sense now...)
The problem is that even though TextMate (my editor of choice) picks up simple {...} or do...end blocks quite easily, it can't figure out (which is understandable since even I can't find a "correct" way to fold the above) where the above blocks start and end to fold them.
How would you fold the above code sample?
PS: considering that it could have 2 levels of folding, I only care about the outer consecutive ones (the blocks with the i)
To be honest, something that convoluted is probably confusing TextMate as much as anyone else who has to maintain it, and that includes you in the future.
Whenever you see something that rolls up into a single value, it's a good case for using Enumerable#inject.
sum = two_dimensional_array.inject(0) do |sum, row|
# Convert row to Fixnum equivalent
row_i = row.collect { |i| i.to_i }
if (row_i.sum > 5)
sum += row_i.collect { |i| i ** 2 }.average
end
sum # Carry through to next inject call
end
What's odd in your example is you're using select to return the full array, allegedly converted using to_i, but in fact Enumerable#select does no such thing, and instead rejects any for which the function returns nil. I'm presuming that's none of your values.
Also depending on how your .average method is implemented, you may want to seed the inject call with 0.0 instead of 0 to use a floating-point value.
Related
Before anything, I have read all the answers of Why doesn't Ruby support i++ or i—? and understood why. Please note that this is not just another discussion topic about whether to have it or not.
What I'm really after is a more elegant solution for the situation that made me wonder and research about ++/-- in Ruby. I've looked up loops, each, each_with_index and things alike but I couldn't find a better solution for this specific situation.
Less talk, more code:
# Does the first request to Zendesk API, fetching *first page* of results
all_tickets = zd_client.tickets.incremental_export(1384974614)
# Initialises counter variable (please don't kill me for this, still learning! :D )
counter = 1
# Loops result pages
loop do
# Loops each ticket on the paged result
all_tickets.all do |ticket, page_number|
# For debug purposes only, I want to see an incremental by each ticket
p "#{counter} P#{page_number} #{ticket.id} - #{ticket.created_at} | #{ticket.subject}"
counter += 1
end
# Fetches next page, if any
all_tickets.next unless all_tickets.last_page?
# Breaks outer loop if last_page?
break if all_tickets.last_page?
end
For now, I need counter for debug purposes only - it's not a big deal at all - but my curiosity typed this question itself: is there a better (more beautiful, more elegant) solution for this? Having a whole line just for counter += 1 seems pretty dull. Just as an example, having "#{counter++}" when printing the string would be much simpler (for readability sake, at least).
I can't simply use .each's index because it's a nested loop, and it would reset at each page (outer loop).
Any thoughts?
BTW: This question has nothing to do with Zendesk API whatsoever. I've just used it to better illustrate my situation.
To me, counter += 1 is a fine way to express incrementing the counter.
You can start your counter at 0 and then get the effect you wanted by writing:
p "#{counter += 1} ..."
But I generally wouldn't recommend this because people do not expect side effects like changing a variable to happen inside string interpolation.
If you are looking for something more elegant, you should make an Enumerator that returns integers one at a time, each time you call next on the enumerator.
nums = Enumerator.new do |y|
c = 0
y << (c += 1) while true
end
nums.next # => 1
nums.next # => 2
nums.next # => 3
Instead of using Enumerator.new in the code above, you could just write:
nums = 1.upto(Float::INFINITY)
As mentioned by B Seven each_with_index will work, but you can keep the page_number, as long all_tickets is a container of tuples as it must be to be working right now.
all_tickets.each_with_index do |ticket, page_number, i|
#stuff
end
Where i is the index. If you have more than ticket and page_number inside each element of all_tickets you continue putting them, just remember that the index is the extra one and shall stay in the end.
Could be I oversimplified your example but you could calculate a counter from your inner and outer range like this.
all_tickets = *(1..10)
inner_limit = all_tickets.size
outer_limit = 5000
1.upto(outer_limit) do |outer_counter|
all_tickets.each_with_index do |ticket, inner_counter|
p [(outer_counter*inner_limit)+inner_counter, outer_counter, inner_counter, ticket]
end
# some conditional to break out, in your case the last_page? method
break if outer_counter > 3
end
all_tickets.each_with_index(1) do |ticket, i|
I'm not sure where page_number is coming from...
See Ruby Docs.
I have this program that I am working on that is supposed to find the sum of the first 1000 prime numbers. Currently all I am concerned with is making sure that the program is finding the first 1000 prime numbers, I will add the functionality for adding them later. Here is what I have:
#!/usr/bin/ruby
def prime(num)
is_prime = true
for i in 2..Math.sqrt(num)
if (num % i) == 0
is_prime = false
else
is_prime = true
end
end
return is_prime
end
i = 2
number_of_primes = 0
while number_of_primes < 1000
prime = prime(i)
if prime == true
number_of_primes++
end
i++
end
When i try to run the program I get the following feedback:
sumOfPrimes.rb:32: syntax error, unexpected keyword_end
sumOfPrimes.rb:34: syntax error, unexpected keyword_end
what gives? Any direction is appreciated.
Ruby doesn't have ++ operator, you need to do += 1
number_of_primes += 1
Unasked for, but a few pieces of advice if you're interested:
One of the cool things about Ruby is that question marks are legal in method names. As such you'll often find that 'predicate' methods (methods that test something and return true or false) end with a question mark, like this: odd?. Your prime method is a perfect candidate for this, so we can rename it prime?.
You use a local variable, is_prime, to hold whether you have found a factor of the number you're testing yet - this is the kind of thing you'd expect to do in an imperative language such as java or C - but Ruby has all sorts of cool features from functional programming that you will gain great power and expressiveness by learning. If you haven't come across them before, you may need to google what a block is and how the syntax works, but for this purpose you can just think of it as a way to get some code run on every item of a collection. It can be used with a variety of cool methods, and one of them is perfectly suited to your purpose: none?, which returns true if no items in the collection it is called on, when passed to the code block you give, return true. So your prime? method can be rewritten like this:
def prime? num
(2..Math.sqrt(num)).none? { |x| num % x == 0 }
end
Apart from being shorter, the advantage of not needing to use local variables like is_prime is that you give yourself fewer opportunities to introduce bugs - if for example you think the contents of is_prime is one thing but it's actually another. It's also, if you look carefully, a lot closer to the actual mathematical definition of a prime number. So by cutting out the unnecessary code you can get closer to exposing the 'meaning' of what you're writing.
As far as getting the first 1000 primes goes, infinite streams are a really cool way to do this but are probably a bit complex to explain here - definitely google if you're interested as they really are amazing! But just out of interest, here's a simple way you could do it using just recursion and no local variables (remember local variables are the devil!):
def first_n_primes(i = 2, primes = [], n)
if primes.count == n then primes
elsif prime? i then first_n_primes(i + 1, primes + [i], n)
else first_n_primes(i + 1, primes, n)
end
end
And as far as summing them up goes all I'll say is have a search for a ruby method called inject - also called reduce. It might be a bit brain-bending at first if you haven't come across the concept before but it's well worth learning! Very cool and very powerful.
Have fun!
I'm attempting to solve http://projecteuler.net/problem=1.
I want to create a method which takes in an integer and then creates an array of all the integers preceding it and the integer itself as values within the array.
Below is what I have so far. Code doesn't work.
def make_array(num)
numbers = Array.new num
count = 1
numbers.each do |number|
numbers << number = count
count = count + 1
end
return numbers
end
make_array(10)
(1..num).to_a is all you need to do in Ruby.
1..num will create a Range object with start at 1 and end at whatever value num is. Range objects have to_a method to blow them up into real Arrays by enumerating each element within the range.
For most purposes, you won't actually need the Array - Range will work fine. That includes iteration (which is what I assume you want, given the problem you're working on).
That said, knowing how to create such an Array "by hand" is valuable learning experience, so you might want to keep working on it a bit. Hint: you want to start with an empty array ([]) instead with Array.new num, then iterate something num.times, and add numbers into the Array. If you already start with an Array of size num, and then push num elements into it, you'll end up with twice num elements. If, as is your case, you're adding elements while you're iterating the array, the loop never exits, because for each element you process, you add another one. It's like chasing a metal ball with the repulsing side of a magnet.
To answer the Euler Question:
(1 ... 1000).to_a.select{|x| x%3==0 || x%5==0}.reduce(:+) # => 233168
Sometimes a one-liner is more readable than more detailed code i think.
Assuming you are learning Ruby by examples on ProjectEuler, i'll explain what the line does:
(1 ... 1000).to_a
will create an array with the numbers one to 999. Euler-Question wants numbers below 1000. Using three dots in a Range will create it without the boundary-value itself.
.select{|x| x%3==0 || x%5==0}
chooses only elements which are divideable by 3 or 5, and therefore multiples of 3 or 5. The other values are discarded. The result of this operation is a new Array with only multiples of 3 or 5.
.reduce(:+)
Finally this operation will sum up all the numbers in the array (or reduce it to) a single number: The sum you need for the solution.
What i want to illustrate: many methods you would write by hand everyday are already integrated in ruby, since it is a language from programmers for programmers. be pragmatic ;)
I can't seem to find a definitive answer on this and I want to make sure I understand this to the "n'th level" :-)
a = { "a" => "Hello", "b" => "World" }
a.count # 2
a.size # 2
a.length # 2
a = [ 10, 20 ]
a.count # 2
a.size # 2
a.length # 2
So which to use? If I want to know if a has more than one element then it doesn't seem to matter but I want to make sure I understand the real difference. This applies to arrays too. I get the same results.
Also, I realize that count/size/length have different meanings with ActiveRecord. I'm mostly interested in pure Ruby (1.92) right now but if anyone wants to chime in on the difference AR makes that would be appreciated as well.
Thanks!
For arrays and hashes size is an alias for length. They are synonyms and do exactly the same thing.
count is more versatile - it can take an element or predicate and count only those items that match.
> [1,2,3].count{|x| x > 2 }
=> 1
In the case where you don't provide a parameter to count it has basically the same effect as calling length. There can be a performance difference though.
We can see from the source code for Array that they do almost exactly the same thing. Here is the C code for the implementation of array.length:
static VALUE
rb_ary_length(VALUE ary)
{
long len = RARRAY_LEN(ary);
return LONG2NUM(len);
}
And here is the relevant part from the implementation of array.count:
static VALUE
rb_ary_count(int argc, VALUE *argv, VALUE ary)
{
long n = 0;
if (argc == 0) {
VALUE *p, *pend;
if (!rb_block_given_p())
return LONG2NUM(RARRAY_LEN(ary));
// etc..
}
}
The code for array.count does a few extra checks but in the end calls the exact same code: LONG2NUM(RARRAY_LEN(ary)).
Hashes (source code) on the other hand don't seem to implement their own optimized version of count so the implementation from Enumerable (source code) is used, which iterates over all the elements and counts them one-by-one.
In general I'd advise using length (or its alias size) rather than count if you want to know how many elements there are altogether.
Regarding ActiveRecord, on the other hand, there are important differences. check out this post:
Counting ActiveRecord associations: count, size or length?
There is a crucial difference for applications which make use of database connections.
When you are using many ORMs (ActiveRecord, DataMapper, etc.) the general understanding is that .size will generate a query that requests all of the items from the database ('select * from mytable') and then give you the number of items resulting, whereas .count will generate a single query ('select count(*) from mytable') which is considerably faster.
Because these ORMs are so prevalent I following the principle of least astonishment. In general if I have something in memory already, then I use .size, and if my code will generate a request to a database (or external service via an API) I use .count.
In most cases (e.g. Array or String) size is an alias for length.
count normally comes from Enumerable and can take an optional predicate block. Thus enumerable.count {cond} is [roughly] (enumerable.select {cond}).length -- it can of course bypass the intermediate structure as it just needs the count of matching predicates.
Note: I am not sure if count forces an evaluation of the enumeration if the block is not specified or if it short-circuits to the length if possible.
Edit (and thanks to Mark's answer!): count without a block (at least for Arrays) does not force an evaluation. I suppose without formal behavior it's "open" for other implementations, if forcing an evaluation without a predicate ever even really makes sense anyway.
I found a good answare at http://blog.hasmanythrough.com/2008/2/27/count-length-size
In ActiveRecord, there are several ways to find out how many records
are in an association, and there are some subtle differences in how
they work.
post.comments.count - Determine the number of elements with an SQL
COUNT query. You can also specify conditions to count only a subset of
the associated elements (e.g. :conditions => {:author_name =>
"josh"}). If you set up a counter cache on the association, #count
will return that cached value instead of executing a new query.
post.comments.length - This always loads the contents of the
association into memory, then returns the number of elements loaded.
Note that this won't force an update if the association had been
previously loaded and then new comments were created through another
way (e.g. Comment.create(...) instead of post.comments.create(...)).
post.comments.size - This works as a combination of the two previous
options. If the collection has already been loaded, it will return its
length just like calling #length. If it hasn't been loaded yet, it's
like calling #count.
Also I have a personal experience:
<%= h(params.size.to_s) %> # works_like_that !
<%= h(params.count.to_s) %> # does_not_work_like_that !
We have a several ways to find out how many elements in an array like .length, .count and .size. However, It's better to use array.size rather than array.count. Because .size is better in performance.
Adding more to Mark Byers answer. In Ruby the method array.size is an alias to Array#length method. There is no technical difference in using any of these two methods. Possibly you won't see any difference in performance as well. However, the array.count also does the same job but with some extra functionalities Array#count
It can be used to get total no of elements based on some condition. Count can be called in three ways:
Array#count # Returns number of elements in Array
Array#count n # Returns number of elements having value n in Array
Array#count{|i| i.even?} Returns count based on condition invoked on each element array
array = [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,4,3,2,4,5,6,7,1,2,4]
array.size # => 17
array.length # => 17
array.count # => 17
Here all three methods do the same job. However here is where the count gets interesting.
Let us say, I want to find how many array elements does the array contains with value 2
array.count 2 # => 3
The array has a total of three elements with value as 2.
Now, I want to find all the array elements greater than 4
array.count{|i| i > 4} # =>6
The array has total 6 elements which are > than 4.
I hope it gives some info about count method.
require 'sketchup'
entities = Sketchup.active_model.entities
summa = Hash.new
for face in entities
next unless face.kind_of? Sketchup::Face
if (face.material)
summa[face.material.display_name] += face.area
end
end
I'm trying to get the structure in the array as such:
summa { "Bricks" => 500, "Planks" => 4000 }
By the way, I'm making a ruby script for Google Sketchup
But if I run this code I only get
Error: #<NoMethodError: undefined method `+' for nil:NilClass>
C:\Program Files (x86)\Google\Google SketchUp 7\Plugins\test.rb:17
C:\Program Files (x86)\Google\Google SketchUp 7\Plugins\test.rb:14:in `each'
C:\Program Files (x86)\Google\Google SketchUp 7\Plugins\test.rb:14
C:\Program Files (x86)\Google\Google SketchUp 7\Plugins\test.rb:8:in `call'
As I'm used to using PHP and just doing $array['myownassoc'] += bignumber;
But I guess this isn't the right approach when using Ruby?
So any help in how I need to go would be nice.
The problem is this:
summa[face.material.display_name] += face.area
This is (roughly) equivalent to
summa[face.material.display_name] = summa[face.material.display_name] + face.area
However, you start out with summa as an empty hash:
summa = Hash.new
Which means that whenever you encounter a specific material for the first time (and obviously, this is going to be already the case in the very first iteration of the loop), summa[face.material.display_name] simply doesn't exist. So, you are trying to add a number to something that doesn't exist, which obviously cannot work.
The quick fix would be to just initialize the hash with a default value, so that it returns something useful instead of nil for a non-existing key:
summa = Hash.new(0)
There are, however, a lot of other improvements that could be made to the code. Here's how I would do it:
require 'sketchup'
Sketchup.active_model.entities.grep(Sketchup::Face).select(&:material).
reduce(Hash.new(0)) {|h, face|
h.tap {|h| h[face.material.display_name] += face.area }
}
I find that much easier to read, instead of "loop over this, but skip one iteration if that thing happens, and also don't do this if that happens".
This is actually a common pattern, that pretty much every Rubyist has already written a dozen times, so I actually had a code snippet lying around that I only needed to slightly adapt. However, I am going to show you how I could have refactored your original code step-by-step if I hadn't already had the solution.
First, let's start with coding style. I know it's boring, but it is important. What the actual coding style is, is not important, the important thing is that the code is consistent, which means that one piece of code should look the same as any other piece of code. In this particular instance, you are asking the Ruby community to provide you with unpaid support, so it is polite to at least format the code in a style that members of that community are used to. This means standard Ruby coding style: 2 spaces for indentation, snake_case for method and variable names, CamelCase for constants which refer to modules or classes, ALL_CAPS for constants, and so on. Don't use parentheses unless they clear up the precedence.
In your code, for example, you use sometimes 3 spaces, sometimes 4 spaces, sometimes 5 spaces and sometimes 6 spaces for indentation, and all of that in just 9 non-empty lines of code! Your coding style is not only inconsistent with the rest of the community, it isn't even consistent with its own next line!
Let's fix that first:
require 'sketchup'
entities = Sketchup.active_model.entities
summa = {}
for face in entities
next unless face.kind_of? Sketchup::Face
if face.material
summa[face.material.display_name] += face.area
end
end
Ah, much better.
As I already mentioned, the first thing we need to do, is fix the obvious problem: replace summa = {} (which BTW would be the idiomatic way to write it) with summa = Hash.new(0). Now, the code at least works.
As a next step, I would switch the assignment of the two local variables: first you assign entities, then you assign summa, then you do something with entities and you have to look three lines up to figure out what entities was. If you switch the two, the usage and the assignment of entities are right next to each other.
As a result, we see that entities is assigned, then immediately used and then never used again. I don't think this improves readability much, so we can get rid of it altogether:
for face in Sketchup.active_model.entities
Next comes the for loop. Those are highly un-idiomatic in Ruby; Rubyists strongly prefer internal iterators. So, let's switch to one:
Sketchup.active_model.entities.each {|face|
next unless face.kind_of? Sketchup::Face
if face.material
summa[face.material.display_name] += face.area
end
}
One advantage this has, is that now face is local to the body of the loop, whereas before, it was leaking out into the surrounding scope. (In Ruby, only module bodies, class bodies, method bodies, block bodies and script bodies have their own scope; for and while loop bodies as well as if/unless/case expressions don't.)
Let's get on to the body of the loop.
The first line is a guard clause. That's good, I like guard clauses :-)
The second line is, well, if face.material is true-ish, it does something otherwise it does nothing, which means the loop is over. So, it's another guard clause! However, it is written in a totally different style than the first guard clause, directly one line above it! Again, consistency is important:
Sketchup.active_model.entities.each {|face|
next unless face.kind_of? Sketchup::Face
next unless face.material
summa[face.material.display_name] += face.area
}
Now we have two guard clauses right next to each other. Let's simplify the logic:
Sketchup.active_model.entities.each {|face|
next unless face.kind_of? Sketchup::Face && face.material
summa[face.material.display_name] += face.area
}
But now there is only one single guard clause guarding only one single expression. So, we can just make the whole expression itself conditional:
Sketchup.active_model.entities.each {|face|
summa[face.material.display_name] += face.area if
face.kind_of? Sketchup::Face && face.material
}
However, that's still kind of ugly: we are looping over some collection, and then inside the loop we skip over all the items we don't want to loop over. So, if we don't want to loop over them, we do we loop over them in the first place? We don't we just select the "interesting" items first and then loop over just them?
Sketchup.active_model.entities.select {|e|
e.kind_of? Sketchup::Face && e.material
}.each {|face|
summa[face.material.display_name] += face.area
}
We can do some simplification on this. If we realize that o.kind_of? C is the same as C === o, then we can use the grep filter which uses === to pattern match, instead of select:
Sketchup.active_model.entities.grep(Sketchup::Face).select {|e| e.material
}.each { … }
Our select filter can further be simplified by using Symbol#to_proc:
Sketchup.active_model.entities.grep(Sketchup::Face).select(&:material).each { … }
Now let's get back to the loop. Anybody who has some experience in a higher-order language such as Ruby, JavaScript, Python, C++ STL, C#, Visual Basic.NET, Smalltalk, Lisp, Scheme, Clojure, Haskell, Erlang, F#, Scala, … basically any modern language at all, will immediately recognize this pattern as a catamorphism, reduce, fold, inject:into:, inject or whatever your language of choice happens to call it.
What a reduce does, is basically it "reduces" several things into just one thing. The most obvious example is the sum of a list of numbers: it reduces several numbers into just one number:
[4, 8, 15, 16, 23, 42].reduce(0) {|accumulator, number| accumulator += number }
[Note: in idiomatic Ruby, this would be written just as [4, 8, 15, 16, 23, 42].reduce(:+).]
One way to spot a reduce lurking behind a loop is to look for the following pattern:
accumulator = something # create an accumulator before the loop
collection.each {|element|
# do something with the accumulator
}
# now, accumulator contains the result of what we were looking for
In this case, the accumulator is the summa hash.
Sketchup.active_model.entities.grep(Sketchup::Face).select(&:material).
reduce(Hash.new(0)) {|h, face|
h[face.material.display_name] += face.area
h
}
Last but not least, I don't like this explicit returning of h at the end of block. We could obviously write it on the same line:
h[face.material.display_name] += face.area; h
But I prefer the use of Object#tap (aka the K-combinator) instead:
Sketchup.active_model.entities.grep(Sketchup::Face).select(&:material).
reduce(Hash.new(0)) {|h, face|
h.tap {|h| h[face.material.display_name] += face.area }
}
And, that's it!
summa[face.material.display_name] returns nil by default when face.material.display_name isn't an existing key. When creating a hash, you can specify a different default value to return. Something like:
summa = Hash.new(0)
Just a note on your summary of face areas - you must also take into account of group/components might be scaled so you need make use of the transformations of the whole hierarchy of the groups/components containing the face you inspect. Remember that groups/components can also be skewed - so that has to be taken into account as well.