Related
#user.update_languages(params[:language][:language1],
params[:language][:language2],
params[:language][:language3])
lang_errors = #user.errors
logger.debug "--------------------LANG_ERRORS----------101-------------"
+ lang_errors.full_messages.inspect
if params[:user]
#user.state = params[:user][:state]
success = success & #user.save
end
logger.debug "--------------------LANG_ERRORS-------------102----------"
+ lang_errors.full_messages.inspect
if lang_errors.full_messages.empty?
#user object adds errors to the lang_errors variable in the update_lanugages method.
when I perform a save on the #user object I lose the errors that were initially stored in the lang_errors variable.
Though what I am attempting to do would be more of a hack (which does not seem to be working). I would like to understand why the variable values are washed out. I understand pass by reference so I would like to know how the value can be held in that variable without being washed out.
The other answerers are all correct, but a friend asked me to explain this to him and what it really boils down to is how Ruby handles variables, so I thought I would share some simple pictures / explanations I wrote for him (apologies for the length and probably some oversimplification):
Q1: What happens when you assign a new variable str to a value of 'foo'?
str = 'foo'
str.object_id # => 2000
A: A label called str is created that points at the object 'foo', which for the state of this Ruby interpreter happens to be at memory location 2000.
Q2: What happens when you assign the existing variable str to a new object using =?
str = 'bar'.tap{|b| puts "bar: #{b.object_id}"} # bar: 2002
str.object_id # => 2002
A: The label str now points to a different object.
Q3: What happens when you assign a new variable = to str?
str2 = str
str2.object_id # => 2002
A: A new label called str2 is created that points at the same object as str.
Q4: What happens if the object referenced by str and str2 gets changed?
str2.replace 'baz'
str2 # => 'baz'
str # => 'baz'
str.object_id # => 2002
str2.object_id # => 2002
A: Both labels still point at the same object, but that object itself has mutated (its contents have changed to be something else).
How does this relate to the original question?
It's basically the same as what happens in Q3/Q4; the method gets its own private copy of the variable / label (str2) that gets passed in to it (str). It can't change which object the label str points to, but it can change the contents of the object that they both reference to contain else:
str = 'foo'
def mutate(str2)
puts "str2: #{str2.object_id}"
str2.replace 'bar'
str2 = 'baz'
puts "str2: #{str2.object_id}"
end
str.object_id # => 2004
mutate(str) # str2: 2004, str2: 2006
str # => "bar"
str.object_id # => 2004
In traditional terminology, Ruby is strictly pass-by-value. But that's not really what you're asking here.
Ruby doesn't have any concept of a pure, non-reference value, so you certainly can't pass one to a method. Variables are always references to objects. In order to get an object that won't change out from under you, you need to dup or clone the object you're passed, thus giving an object that nobody else has a reference to. (Even this isn't bulletproof, though — both of the standard cloning methods do a shallow copy, so the instance variables of the clone still point to the same objects that the originals did. If the objects referenced by the ivars mutate, that will still show up in the copy, since it's referencing the same objects.)
Ruby uses "pass by object reference"
(Using Python's terminology.)
To say Ruby uses "pass by value" or "pass by reference" isn't really descriptive enough to be helpful. I think as most people know it these days, that terminology ("value" vs "reference") comes from C++.
In C++, "pass by value" means the function gets a copy of the variable and any changes to the copy don't change the original. That's true for objects too. If you pass an object variable by value then the whole object (including all of its members) get copied and any changes to the members don't change those members on the original object. (It's different if you pass a pointer by value but Ruby doesn't have pointers anyway, AFAIK.)
class A {
public:
int x;
};
void inc(A arg) {
arg.x++;
printf("in inc: %d\n", arg.x); // => 6
}
void inc(A* arg) {
arg->x++;
printf("in inc: %d\n", arg->x); // => 1
}
int main() {
A a;
a.x = 5;
inc(a);
printf("in main: %d\n", a.x); // => 5
A* b = new A;
b->x = 0;
inc(b);
printf("in main: %d\n", b->x); // => 1
return 0;
}
Output:
in inc: 6
in main: 5
in inc: 1
in main: 1
In C++, "pass by reference" means the function gets access to the original variable. It can assign a whole new literal integer and the original variable will then have that value too.
void replace(A &arg) {
A newA;
newA.x = 10;
arg = newA;
printf("in replace: %d\n", arg.x);
}
int main() {
A a;
a.x = 5;
replace(a);
printf("in main: %d\n", a.x);
return 0;
}
Output:
in replace: 10
in main: 10
Ruby uses pass by value (in the C++ sense) if the argument is not an object. But in Ruby everything is an object, so there really is no pass by value in the C++ sense in Ruby.
In Ruby, "pass by object reference" (to use Python's terminology) is used:
Inside the function, any of the object's members can have new values assigned to them and these changes will persist after the function returns.*
Inside the function, assigning a whole new object to the variable causes the variable to stop referencing the old object. But after the function returns, the original variable will still reference the old object.
Therefore Ruby does not use "pass by reference" in the C++ sense. If it did, then assigning a new object to a variable inside a function would cause the old object to be forgotten after the function returned.
class A
attr_accessor :x
end
def inc(arg)
arg.x += 1
puts arg.x
end
def replace(arg)
arg = A.new
arg.x = 3
puts arg.x
end
a = A.new
a.x = 1
puts a.x # 1
inc a # 2
puts a.x # 2
replace a # 3
puts a.x # 2
puts ''
def inc_var(arg)
arg += 1
puts arg
end
b = 1 # Even integers are objects in Ruby
puts b # 1
inc_var b # 2
puts b # 1
Output:
1
2
2
3
2
1
2
1
* This is why, in Ruby, if you want to modify an object inside a function but forget those changes when the function returns, then you must explicitly make a copy of the object before making your temporary changes to the copy.
Is Ruby pass by reference or by value?
Ruby is pass-by-value. Always. No exceptions. No ifs. No buts.
Here is a simple program which demonstrates that fact:
def foo(bar)
bar = 'reference'
end
baz = 'value'
foo(baz)
puts "Ruby is pass-by-#{baz}"
# Ruby is pass-by-value
Ruby is pass-by-value in a strict sense, BUT the values are references.
This could be called "pass-reference-by-value". This article has the best explanation I have read: http://robertheaton.com/2014/07/22/is-ruby-pass-by-reference-or-pass-by-value/
Pass-reference-by-value could briefly be explained as follows:
A function receives a reference to (and will access) the same object in memory as used by the caller. However, it does not receive the box that the caller is storing this object in; as in pass-value-by-value, the function provides its own box and creates a new variable for itself.
The resulting behavior is actually a combination of the classical definitions of pass-by-reference and pass-by-value.
There are already some great answers, but I want to post the definition of a pair of authorities on the subject, but also hoping someone might explain what said authorities Matz (creator of Ruby) and David Flanagan meant in their excellent O'Reilly book, The Ruby Programming Language.
[from 3.8.1: Object References]
When you pass an object to a method in Ruby, it is an object reference that is passed to the method. It is not the object itself, and it is not a reference to the reference to the object. Another way to say this is that method arguments are passed by value rather than by reference, but that the values passed are object references.
Because object references are passed to methods, methods can use those references to modify the underlying object. These modifications are then visible when the method returns.
This all makes sense to me until that last paragraph, and especially that last sentence. This is at best misleading, and at worse confounding. How, in any way, could modifications to that passed-by-value reference change the underlying object?
Is Ruby pass by reference or by value?
Ruby is pass-by-reference. Always. No exceptions. No ifs. No buts.
Here is a simple program which demonstrates that fact:
def foo(bar)
bar.object_id
end
baz = 'value'
puts "#{baz.object_id} Ruby is pass-by-reference #{foo(baz)} because object_id's (memory addresses) are always the same ;)"
=> 2279146940 Ruby is pass-by-reference 2279146940 because object_id's (memory addresses) are always the same ;)
def bar(babar)
babar.replace("reference")
end
bar(baz)
puts "some people don't realize it's reference because local assignment can take precedence, but it's clearly pass-by-#{baz}"
=> some people don't realize it's reference because local assignment can take precedence, but it's clearly pass-by-reference
Parameters are a copy of the original reference. So, you can change values, but cannot change the original reference.
Try this:--
1.object_id
#=> 3
2.object_id
#=> 5
a = 1
#=> 1
a.object_id
#=> 3
b = 2
#=> 2
b.object_id
#=> 5
identifier a contains object_id 3 for value object 1 and identifier b contains object_id 5 for value object 2.
Now do this:--
a.object_id = 5
#=> error
a = b
#value(object_id) at b copies itself as value(object_id) at a. value object 2 has object_id 5
#=> 2
a.object_id
#=> 5
Now, a and b both contain same object_id 5 which refers to value object 2.
So, Ruby variable contains object_ids to refer to value objects.
Doing following also gives error:--
c
#=> error
but doing this won't give error:--
5.object_id
#=> 11
c = 5
#=> value object 5 provides return type for variable c and saves 5.object_id i.e. 11 at c
#=> 5
c.object_id
#=> 11
a = c.object_id
#=> object_id of c as a value object changes value at a
#=> 11
11.object_id
#=> 23
a.object_id == 11.object_id
#=> true
a
#=> Value at a
#=> 11
Here identifier a returns value object 11 whose object id is 23 i.e. object_id 23 is at identifier a, Now we see an example by using method.
def foo(arg)
p arg
p arg.object_id
end
#=> nil
11.object_id
#=> 23
x = 11
#=> 11
x.object_id
#=> 23
foo(x)
#=> 11
#=> 23
arg in foo is assigned with return value of x.
It clearly shows that argument is passed by value 11, and value 11 being itself an object has unique object id 23.
Now see this also:--
def foo(arg)
p arg
p arg.object_id
arg = 12
p arg
p arg.object_id
end
#=> nil
11.object_id
#=> 23
x = 11
#=> 11
x.object_id
#=> 23
foo(x)
#=> 11
#=> 23
#=> 12
#=> 25
x
#=> 11
x.object_id
#=> 23
Here, identifier arg first contains object_id 23 to refer 11 and after internal assignment with value object 12, it contains object_id 25. But it does not change value referenced by identifier x used in calling method.
Hence, Ruby is pass by value and Ruby variables do not contain values but do contain reference to value object.
It should be noted that you do not have to even use the "replace" method to change the value original value. If you assign one of the hash values for a hash, you are changing the original value.
def my_foo(a_hash)
a_hash["test"]="reference"
end;
hash = {"test"=>"value"}
my_foo(hash)
puts "Ruby is pass-by-#{hash["test"]}"
Two references refer to same object as long as there is no reassignment.
Any updates in the same object won't make the references to new memory since it still is in same memory.
Here are few examples :
a = "first string"
b = a
b.upcase!
=> FIRST STRING
a
=> FIRST STRING
b = "second string"
a
=> FIRST STRING
hash = {first_sub_hash: {first_key: "first_value"}}
first_sub_hash = hash[:first_sub_hash]
first_sub_hash[:second_key] = "second_value"
hash
=> {first_sub_hash: {first_key: "first_value", second_key: "second_value"}}
def change(first_sub_hash)
first_sub_hash[:third_key] = "third_value"
end
change(first_sub_hash)
hash
=> {first_sub_hash: {first_key: "first_value", second_key: "second_value", third_key: "third_value"}}
Ruby is interpreted. Variables are references to data, but not the data itself. This facilitates using the same variable for data of different types.
Assignment of lhs = rhs then copies the reference on the rhs, not the data. This differs in other languages, such as C, where assignment does a data copy to lhs from rhs.
So for the function call, the variable passed, say x, is indeed copied into a local variable in the function, but x is a reference. There will then be two copies of the reference, both referencing the same data. One will be in the caller, one in the function.
Assignment in the function would then copy a new reference to the function's version of x. After this the caller's version of x remains unchanged. It is still a reference to the original data.
In contrast, using the .replace method on x will cause ruby to do a data copy. If replace is used before any new assignments then indeed the caller will see the data change in its version also.
Similarly, as long as the original reference is in tact for the passed in variable, the instance variables will be the same that the caller sees. Within the framework of an object, the instance variables always have the most up to date reference values, whether those are provided by the caller or set in the function the class was passed in to.
The 'call by value' or 'call by reference' is muddled here because of confusion over '=' In compiled languages '=' is a data copy. Here in this interpreted language '=' is a reference copy. In the example you have the reference passed in followed by a reference copy though '=' that clobbers the original passed in reference, and then people talking about it as though '=' were a data copy.
To be consistent with definitions we must keep with '.replace' as it is a data copy. From the perspective of '.replace' we see that this is indeed pass by reference. Furthermore, if we walk through in the debugger, we see references being passed in, as variables are references.
However if we must keep '=' as a frame of reference, then indeed we do get to see the passed in data up until an assignment, and then we don't get to see it anymore after assignment while the caller's data remains unchanged. At a behavioral level this is pass by value as long as we don't consider the passed in value to be composite - as we won't be able to keep part of it while changing the other part in a single assignment (as that assignment changes the reference and the original goes out of scope). There will also be a wart, in that instance variables in objects will be references, as are all variables. Hence we will be forced to talk about passing 'references by value' and have to use related locutions.
Lots of great answers diving into the theory of how Ruby's "pass-reference-by-value" works. But I learn and understand everything much better by example. Hopefully, this will be helpful.
def foo(bar)
puts "bar (#{bar}) entering foo with object_id #{bar.object_id}"
bar = "reference"
puts "bar (#{bar}) leaving foo with object_id #{bar.object_id}"
end
bar = "value"
puts "bar (#{bar}) before foo with object_id #{bar.object_id}"
foo(bar)
puts "bar (#{bar}) after foo with object_id #{bar.object_id}"
# Output
bar (value) before foo with object_id 60
bar (value) entering foo with object_id 60
bar (reference) leaving foo with object_id 80 # <-----
bar (value) after foo with object_id 60 # <-----
As you can see when we entered the method, our bar was still pointing to the string "value". But then we assigned a string object "reference" to bar, which has a new object_id. In this case bar inside of foo, has a different scope, and whatever we passed inside the method, is no longer accessed by bar as we re-assigned it and point it to a new place in memory that holds String "reference".
Now consider this same method. The only difference is what with do inside the method
def foo(bar)
puts "bar (#{bar}) entering foo with object_id #{bar.object_id}"
bar.replace "reference"
puts "bar (#{bar}) leaving foo with object_id #{bar.object_id}"
end
bar = "value"
puts "bar (#{bar}) before foo with object_id #{bar.object_id}"
foo(bar)
puts "bar (#{bar}) after foo with object_id #{bar.object_id}"
# Output
bar (value) before foo with object_id 60
bar (value) entering foo with object_id 60
bar (reference) leaving foo with object_id 60 # <-----
bar (reference) after foo with object_id 60 # <-----
Notice the difference? What we did here was: we modified the contents of the String object, that variable was pointing to. The scope of bar is still different inside of the method.
So be careful how you treat the variable passed into methods. And if you modify passed-in variables-in-place (gsub!, replace, etc), then indicate so in the name of the method with a bang !, like so "def foo!"
P.S.:
It's important to keep in mind that the "bar"s inside and outside of foo, are "different" "bar". Their scope is different. Inside the method, you could rename "bar" to "club" and the result would be the same.
I often see variables re-used inside and outside of methods, and while it's fine, it takes away from the readability of the code and is a code smell IMHO. I highly recommend not to do what I did in my example above :) and rather do this
def foo(fiz)
puts "fiz (#{fiz}) entering foo with object_id #{fiz.object_id}"
fiz = "reference"
puts "fiz (#{fiz}) leaving foo with object_id #{fiz.object_id}"
end
bar = "value"
puts "bar (#{bar}) before foo with object_id #{bar.object_id}"
foo(bar)
puts "bar (#{bar}) after foo with object_id #{bar.object_id}"
# Output
bar (value) before foo with object_id 60
fiz (value) entering foo with object_id 60
fiz (reference) leaving foo with object_id 80
bar (value) after foo with object_id 60
Yes but ....
Ruby passes a reference to an object and since everything in ruby is an object, then you could say it's pass by reference.
I don't agree with the postings here claiming it's pass by value, that seems like pedantic, symantic games to me.
However, in effect it "hides" the behaviour because most of the operations ruby provides "out of the box" - for example string operations, produce a copy of the object:
> astringobject = "lowercase"
> bstringobject = astringobject.upcase
> # bstringobject is a new object created by String.upcase
> puts astringobject
lowercase
> puts bstringobject
LOWERCASE
This means that much of the time, the original object is left unchanged giving the appearance that ruby is "pass by value".
Of course when designing your own classes, an understanding of the details of this behaviour is important for both functional behaviour, memory efficiency and performance.
I understand that "constants" in Ruby are by convention called constants but are in fact mutable. However I was under the impression that when they were "mutated" that there was a warning:
class Z2
M = [0,1]
end
Z2::M # => [0, 1]
Z2::M = [0,3]
(irb):warning: already initialized constant Z2::M
(irb):warning: previous definition of M was here
However I found this is not the case all the time:
a = Z2::M
a[1] = 2
Z2::M # => [0,2] and no warning
Is this a gap in the "warning" system? I am inferring that assignment of a constant would duplicate it, but I guess that is not true either as it appears that constants and variables point to the same object? Does this mean that all so-called "constants" need to be frozen in order to prevent them from being changed without warning?
TL;DR
Short of monkey-patching Kernel#warn (see https://stackoverflow.com/a/662436/1301972) to raise an exception, you won't be able to prevent reassignment to the constant itself. This is generally not a pragmatic concern in idiomatic Ruby code where one expects to be able to do things like reopen classes, even though class names are also constants.
A Ruby constant isn't actually immutable, and you can't freeze a variable. However, you can get an exception to be raised when something attempts to modify the contents of a frozen object referenced by the constant.
Freezing Objects Deeply with Plain Ruby
Freezing an Array is easy:
CONSTANT_ONE = %w[one two three].freeze
but the strings stored in this Array are really references to String objects. So, while you can't modify this Array, you can still (for example) modify the String object referenced by index 0. To solve this problem, you need to freeze not just the Array, but the objects it holds, too. For example:
CONSTANT = %w[one two three].map(&:freeze).freeze
CONSTANT[2] << 'four'
# RuntimeError: can't modify frozen String
CONSTANT << 'five'
# RuntimeError: can't modify frozen Array
Freezing Objects Recursively with a Gem
Since freezing recursive references can be a bit unwieldy, it's good to know there's a gem for that. You can use ice_nine to deep-freeze most objects:
require 'ice_nine'
require 'ice_nine/core_ext/object'
OTHER_CONST = %w[a b c]
OTHER_CONST.deep_freeze
OTHER_CONST << 'd'
# RuntimeError: can't modify frozen Array
OTHER_CONST[2] = 'z'
# RuntimeError: can't modify frozen Array
A Better Way to Use Ruby Constants
Another option to consider is calling Object#dup when assigning the value of a constant to another variable, such as instance variables in your class initializers, in order to ensure you don't mutate your constant's references by accident. For example:
class Foo
CONSTANT = 'foo'
attr_accessor :variable
def initialize
#variable = CONSTANT.dup
end
end
foo = Foo.new
foo.variable << 'bar'
#=> "foobar"
Foo::CONSTANT
#=> "foo"
There is no gap, as you are not altering a constant. And the fact is that Ruby constants are just variables with extra warnings.
Constant, just as every variable, is merely a pointer to the object in memory. When you doM = [0,3] you are creating a new array and re-pointing constant to this new object, which triggers a warning.
However, when you run M[0] = 1 you are just modifying referenced object, but you do not change the constant, as it still points to the same object.
Important thing to realize here is that all classes in Ruby are just objects in memory, referenced with constants, so when you do:
class Z2
end
it is equivalent to (if Z2 is not defined or is not pointing onto a class object already):
Z2 = Class.new
Naturally class is a very dynamic object, as we keep adding methods to it and so on - we definitively don't want this to trigger any warnings.
If you do Z2::M[1] = 2 you won´t get the message either. I believe the lack of warning occours because you are changing the Array itself and not the reference Z2::M.
If M was an integer, for exemple:
class Z2
M = 1
end
a = Z2::M
a = 2
a # => 2
Z2::M # => 1
To modify an Array from a constant without modify the original you can do:
class Z2
M = [0,1]
end
a = Z2::M.dup
a[0] = 1
a # => [1,1]
Z2::M # => [0,1]
It's possible to write this way
class Foo
MY_CONST = 100
end
and it's also possible to change it Foo::MY_CONST = 123
There will be a warning from a Ruby compiler, but anyway a constant will be changed.
So Ruby has no constant values?
it depends what kind of action you want to do with your constants.
If you have an
ARRAY = [1,2,3]
#and then
ARRAY << 4
Ruby won't complain.
However, if you
ARRAY = [1,2,3].freeze
#and
ARRAY << 4
#RuntimeError: can't modify frozen Array
You can still
ARRAY = [1,2,3,4]
#warning: already initialized constant ARRAY
If you freeze FOO, then trying to reassign FOO::MY_CONST will create a RuntimeError.
class FOO
MY_CONST = 100
end
FOO.freeze
FOO::MY_CONST = 123
gives
RuntimeError: can't modify frozen Class
They are semantically constants, so you can expect people not to change them. I'd call them liberal constants, see http://pastie.org/4608297
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.
Locked. This question and its answers are locked because the question is off-topic but has historical significance. It is not currently accepting new answers or interactions.
Continuing the "Hidden features of ..." meme, let's share the lesser-known but useful features of Ruby programming language.
Try to limit this discussion with core Ruby, without any Ruby on Rails stuff.
See also:
Hidden features of C#
Hidden features of Java
Hidden features of JavaScript
Hidden features of Ruby on Rails
Hidden features of Python
(Please, just one hidden feature per answer.)
Thank you
From Ruby 1.9 Proc#=== is an alias to Proc#call, which means Proc objects can be used in case statements like so:
def multiple_of(factor)
Proc.new{|product| product.modulo(factor).zero?}
end
case number
when multiple_of(3)
puts "Multiple of 3"
when multiple_of(7)
puts "Multiple of 7"
end
Peter Cooper has a good list of Ruby tricks. Perhaps my favorite of his is allowing both single items and collections to be enumerated. (That is, treat a non-collection object as a collection containing just that object.) It looks like this:
[*items].each do |item|
# ...
end
Don't know how hidden this is, but I've found it useful when needing to make a Hash out of a one-dimensional array:
fruit = ["apple","red","banana","yellow"]
=> ["apple", "red", "banana", "yellow"]
Hash[*fruit]
=> {"apple"=>"red", "banana"=>"yellow"}
One trick I like is to use the splat (*) expander on objects other than Arrays. Here's an example on a regular expression match:
match, text, number = *"Something 981".match(/([A-z]*) ([0-9]*)/)
Other examples include:
a, b, c = *('A'..'Z')
Job = Struct.new(:name, :occupation)
tom = Job.new("Tom", "Developer")
name, occupation = *tom
Wow, no one mentioned the flip flop operator:
1.upto(100) do |i|
puts i if (i == 3)..(i == 15)
end
One of the cool things about ruby is that you can call methods and run code in places other languages would frown upon, such as in method or class definitions.
For instance, to create a class that has an unknown superclass until run time, i.e. is random, you could do the following:
class RandomSubclass < [Array, Hash, String, Fixnum, Float, TrueClass].sample
end
RandomSubclass.superclass # could output one of 6 different classes.
This uses the 1.9 Array#sample method (in 1.8.7-only, see Array#choice), and the example is pretty contrived but you can see the power here.
Another cool example is the ability to put default parameter values that are non fixed (like other languages often demand):
def do_something_at(something, at = Time.now)
# ...
end
Of course the problem with the first example is that it is evaluated at definition time, not call time. So, once a superclass has been chosen, it stays that superclass for the remainder of the program.
However, in the second example, each time you call do_something_at, the at variable will be the time that the method was called (well, very very close to it)
Another tiny feature - convert a Fixnum into any base up to 36:
>> 1234567890.to_s(2)
=> "1001001100101100000001011010010"
>> 1234567890.to_s(8)
=> "11145401322"
>> 1234567890.to_s(16)
=> "499602d2"
>> 1234567890.to_s(24)
=> "6b1230i"
>> 1234567890.to_s(36)
=> "kf12oi"
And as Huw Walters has commented, converting the other way is just as simple:
>> "kf12oi".to_i(36)
=> 1234567890
Hashes with default values! An array in this case.
parties = Hash.new {|hash, key| hash[key] = [] }
parties["Summer party"]
# => []
parties["Summer party"] << "Joe"
parties["Other party"] << "Jane"
Very useful in metaprogramming.
Another fun addition in 1.9 Proc functionality is Proc#curry which allows you to turn a Proc accepting n arguments into one accepting n-1. Here it is combined with the Proc#=== tip I mentioned above:
it_is_day_of_week = lambda{ |day_of_week, date| date.wday == day_of_week }
it_is_saturday = it_is_day_of_week.curry[6]
it_is_sunday = it_is_day_of_week.curry[0]
case Time.now
when it_is_saturday
puts "Saturday!"
when it_is_sunday
puts "Sunday!"
else
puts "Not the weekend"
end
Download Ruby 1.9 source, and issue make golf, then you can do things like this:
make golf
./goruby -e 'h'
# => Hello, world!
./goruby -e 'p St'
# => StandardError
./goruby -e 'p 1.tf'
# => 1.0
./goruby19 -e 'p Fil.exp(".")'
"/home/manveru/pkgbuilds/ruby-svn/src/trunk"
Read the golf_prelude.c for more neat things hiding away.
Boolean operators on non boolean values.
&& and ||
Both return the value of the last expression evaluated.
Which is why the ||= will update the variable with the value returned expression on the right side if the variable is undefined. This is not explicitly documented, but common knowledge.
However the &&= isn't quite so widely known about.
string &&= string + "suffix"
is equivalent to
if string
string = string + "suffix"
end
It's very handy for destructive operations that should not proceed if the variable is undefined.
The Symbol#to_proc function that Rails provides is really cool.
Instead of
Employee.collect { |emp| emp.name }
You can write:
Employee.collect(&:name)
One final one - in ruby you can use any character you want to delimit strings. Take the following code:
message = "My message"
contrived_example = "<div id=\"contrived\">#{message}</div>"
If you don't want to escape the double-quotes within the string, you can simply use a different delimiter:
contrived_example = %{<div id="contrived-example">#{message}</div>}
contrived_example = %[<div id="contrived-example">#{message}</div>]
As well as avoiding having to escape delimiters, you can use these delimiters for nicer multiline strings:
sql = %{
SELECT strings
FROM complicated_table
WHERE complicated_condition = '1'
}
Use a Range object as an infinite lazy list:
Inf = 1.0 / 0
(1..Inf).take(5) #=> [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
More info here: http://banisterfiend.wordpress.com/2009/10/02/wtf-infinite-ranges-in-ruby/
I find using the define_method command to dynamically generate methods to be quite interesting and not as well known. For example:
((0..9).each do |n|
define_method "press_#{n}" do
#number = #number.to_i * 10 + n
end
end
The above code uses the 'define_method' command to dynamically create the methods "press1" through "press9." Rather then typing all 10 methods which essentailly contain the same code, the define method command is used to generate these methods on the fly as needed.
module_function
Module methods that are declared as module_function will create copies of themselves as private instance methods in the class that includes the Module:
module M
def not!
'not!'
end
module_function :not!
end
class C
include M
def fun
not!
end
end
M.not! # => 'not!
C.new.fun # => 'not!'
C.new.not! # => NoMethodError: private method `not!' called for #<C:0x1261a00>
If you use module_function without any arguments, then any module methods that comes after the module_function statement will automatically become module_functions themselves.
module M
module_function
def not!
'not!'
end
def yea!
'yea!'
end
end
class C
include M
def fun
not! + ' ' + yea!
end
end
M.not! # => 'not!'
M.yea! # => 'yea!'
C.new.fun # => 'not! yea!'
Short inject, like such:
Sum of range:
(1..10).inject(:+)
=> 55
Warning: this item was voted #1 Most Horrendous Hack of 2008, so use with care. Actually, avoid it like the plague, but it is most certainly Hidden Ruby.
Superators Add New Operators to Ruby
Ever want a super-secret handshake operator for some unique operation in your code? Like playing code golf? Try operators like
-~+~-
or
<---
That last one is used in the examples for reversing the order of an item.
I have nothing to do with the Superators Project beyond admiring it.
I'm late to the party, but:
You can easily take two equal-length arrays and turn them into a hash with one array supplying the keys and the other the values:
a = [:x, :y, :z]
b = [123, 456, 789]
Hash[a.zip(b)]
# => { :x => 123, :y => 456, :z => 789 }
(This works because Array#zip "zips" up the values from the two arrays:
a.zip(b) # => [[:x, 123], [:y, 456], [:z, 789]]
And Hash[] can take just such an array. I've seen people do this as well:
Hash[*a.zip(b).flatten] # unnecessary!
Which yields the same result, but the splat and flatten are wholly unnecessary--perhaps they weren't in the past?)
Auto-vivifying hashes in Ruby
def cnh # silly name "create nested hash"
Hash.new {|h,k| h[k] = Hash.new(&h.default_proc)}
end
my_hash = cnh
my_hash[1][2][3] = 4
my_hash # => { 1 => { 2 => { 3 =>4 } } }
This can just be damn handy.
Destructuring an Array
(a, b), c, d = [ [:a, :b ], :c, [:d1, :d2] ]
Where:
a #=> :a
b #=> :b
c #=> :c
d #=> [:d1, :d2]
Using this technique we can use simple assignment to get the exact values we want out of nested array of any depth.
Class.new()
Create a new class at run time. The argument can be a class to derive from, and the block is the class body. You might also want to look at const_set/const_get/const_defined? to get your new class properly registered, so that inspect prints out a name instead of a number.
Not something you need every day, but quite handy when you do.
create an array of consecutive numbers:
x = [*0..5]
sets x to [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
A lot of the magic you see in Rubyland has to do with metaprogramming, which is simply writing code that writes code for you. Ruby's attr_accessor, attr_reader, and attr_writer are all simple metaprogramming, in that they create two methods in one line, following a standard pattern. Rails does a whole lot of metaprogramming with their relationship-management methods like has_one and belongs_to.
But it's pretty simple to create your own metaprogramming tricks using class_eval to execute dynamically-written code.
The following example allows a wrapper object to forwards certain methods along to an internal object:
class Wrapper
attr_accessor :internal
def self.forwards(*methods)
methods.each do |method|
define_method method do |*arguments, &block|
internal.send method, *arguments, &block
end
end
end
forwards :to_i, :length, :split
end
w = Wrapper.new
w.internal = "12 13 14"
w.to_i # => 12
w.length # => 8
w.split('1') # => ["", "2 ", "3 ", "4"]
The method Wrapper.forwards takes symbols for the names of methods and stores them in the methods array. Then, for each of those given, we use define_method to create a new method whose job it is to send the message along, including all arguments and blocks.
A great resource for metaprogramming issues is Why the Lucky Stiff's "Seeing Metaprogramming Clearly".
use anything that responds to ===(obj) for case comparisons:
case foo
when /baz/
do_something_with_the_string_matching_baz
when 12..15
do_something_with_the_integer_between_12_and_15
when lambda { |x| x % 5 == 0 }
# only works in Ruby 1.9 or if you alias Proc#call as Proc#===
do_something_with_the_integer_that_is_a_multiple_of_5
when Bar
do_something_with_the_instance_of_Bar
when some_object
do_something_with_the_thing_that_matches_some_object
end
Module (and thus Class), Regexp, Date, and many other classes define an instance method :===(other), and can all be used.
Thanks to Farrel for the reminder of Proc#call being aliased as Proc#=== in Ruby 1.9.
The "ruby" binary (at least MRI's) supports a lot of the switches that made perl one-liners quite popular.
Significant ones:
-n Sets up an outer loop with just "gets" - which magically works with given filename or STDIN, setting each read line in $_
-p Similar to -n but with an automatic puts at the end of each loop iteration
-a Automatic call to .split on each input line, stored in $F
-i In-place edit input files
-l Automatic call to .chomp on input
-e Execute a piece of code
-c Check source code
-w With warnings
Some examples:
# Print each line with its number:
ruby -ne 'print($., ": ", $_)' < /etc/irbrc
# Print each line reversed:
ruby -lne 'puts $_.reverse' < /etc/irbrc
# Print the second column from an input CSV (dumb - no balanced quote support etc):
ruby -F, -ane 'puts $F[1]' < /etc/irbrc
# Print lines that contain "eat"
ruby -ne 'puts $_ if /eat/i' < /etc/irbrc
# Same as above:
ruby -pe 'next unless /eat/i' < /etc/irbrc
# Pass-through (like cat, but with possible line-end munging):
ruby -p -e '' < /etc/irbrc
# Uppercase all input:
ruby -p -e '$_.upcase!' < /etc/irbrc
# Same as above, but actually write to the input file, and make a backup first with extension .bak - Notice that inplace edit REQUIRES input files, not an input STDIN:
ruby -i.bak -p -e '$_.upcase!' /etc/irbrc
Feel free to google "ruby one-liners" and "perl one-liners" for tons more usable and practical examples. It essentially allows you to use ruby as a fairly powerful replacement to awk and sed.
The send() method is a general-purpose method that can be used on any Class or Object in Ruby. If not overridden, send() accepts a string and calls the name of the method whose string it is passed. For example, if the user clicks the “Clr” button, the ‘press_clear’ string will be sent to the send() method and the ‘press_clear’ method will be called. The send() method allows for a fun and dynamic way to call functions in Ruby.
%w(7 8 9 / 4 5 6 * 1 2 3 - 0 Clr = +).each do |btn|
button btn, :width => 46, :height => 46 do
method = case btn
when /[0-9]/: 'press_'+btn
when 'Clr': 'press_clear'
when '=': 'press_equals'
when '+': 'press_add'
when '-': 'press_sub'
when '*': 'press_times'
when '/': 'press_div'
end
number.send(method)
number_field.replace strong(number)
end
end
I talk more about this feature in Blogging Shoes: The Simple-Calc Application
Fool some class or module telling it has required something that it really hasn't required:
$" << "something"
This is useful for example when requiring A that in turns requires B but we don't need B in our code (and A won't use it either through our code):
For example, Backgroundrb's bdrb_test_helper requires 'test/spec', but you don't use it at all, so in your code:
$" << "test/spec"
require File.join(File.dirname(__FILE__) + "/../bdrb_test_helper")
Defining a method that accepts any number of parameters and just discards them all
def hello(*)
super
puts "hello!"
end
The above hello method only needs to puts "hello" on the screen and call super - but since the superclass hello defines parameters it has to as well - however since it doesn't actually need to use the parameters itself - it doesn't have to give them a name.
private unless Rails.env == 'test'
# e.g. a bundle of methods you want to test directly
Looks like a cool and (in some cases) nice/useful hack/feature of Ruby.