I want to write a simple Ruby DSL to translate some statements and expressions into another language. A basic example would be:
some_function {
t + 2
}
Here, t is not a ruby variable and thus the block can't (and must not!) be evaluated by Ruby. So my best bet would be to use the parsing output (or AST) to do the translation myself. To do so, I can use ParseTree and ruby2ruby. However, I have other constructs that I would like to use, for example:
1.upto(10) {|x|
some_function {
t + x
}
}
Here, I have a local variable and I need to get its value in order to do my translation. However, in the function that does the block evaluation, I don't have access to the local variables of the calling block. If it were a global variable ($x), I could check if its name exists in the global_variables array and in the worst case use eval, but how could I do so for a local variable, if possible at all?
Update:
Just to clear up things. Like I said originally, I'm using ruby2ruby (and hence ParseTree) to get the AST (using to_sexp) corresponding to the block. But when using a local variable inside my block, I encounter the following:
[:dvar, :x]
And thus, I would need to get the value of a variable from its name as a string/symbol. And I can't use method_missing or instance_eval, because I want to translate the whole expression to another language or syntax (like a RPN).
Another solution not based on ParseTree would be welcome nonetheless, since it apparently is not fully supported with Ruby 1.9.
To get the variable values, use the proc's binding:
def some_function(&block)
b = block.binding
p [b.eval("t"), b.eval("x")]
end
t = 1
1.upto(10) {|x|
some_function {
t + x
}
}
Here, t is not a ruby variable and
thus the block can't (and must not!)
be evaluated by Ruby.
Any reason for the "not evaluated" restriction? It seems like method_missing would elegantly handle evaluating the "missing" t variable, but Ruby would automatically dereference the x variable.
You can use instance_eval against an object with t.
class Context
attr_accessor :t
def initialize(_t)
#t = _t
end
end
def some_function(&block)
puts Context.new(1).instance_eval(&block)
end
1.upto(10) {|x|
some_function {
t + x
}
}
Related
I will try to explain the problem with a simple example:
def enclose(x)
[x]
end
In my application, enclose does something more complex, but in essence it returns an array, the content of which is solely determined by the value of the parameter x. I could it use it like this:
foo = 'abcd'
....
foo = enclose(foo)
Now to my question: Is it possible to write a method enclose!, which simply replaces the parameter by its enclosed version, so that the example could be written as
foo = 'abcd'
....
enclose!(foo)
Since Ruby passes arguments by reference, I thought hat this could maybe be possible. The naive approach,
def enclose!(x)
x = [x]
end
does not work - I think this is because the assignment creates a new object and leaves the actual parameter untouched.
Is there way, that I can achieve my goal? I think in Smallalk, there would be a method become which would change the object identity, but I didn't find something similar in Ruby.
Since Ruby passes arguments by reference, I thought hat this could maybe be possible.
Ruby is pass-by-value, not pass-by-reference, which you have proven yourself, because otherwise your code would have worked.
I think in Smallalk, there would be a method become which would change the object identity, but I didn't find something similar in Ruby.
There isn't. Ruby has neither pass-by-reference nor become:, what you want simply isn't possible.
There's some other interesting posts about how ruby is pass by value, but the values are references.
What it boils down to is, you can modify the variable an object refers to, but you cannot change it to refer to another object.
> a = [1]
=> [1]
> def add_a(array)
> array << "a"
> end
=> :add_a
> add_a a
=> [1, "a"]
> a
=> [1, "a"]
There is a way to sort of accomplish what you are asking for but it's not quite pretty. Ruby has this concept of a binding (http://ruby-doc.org/core-2.2.0/Binding.html), which is like a CallContext in .NET.
You can do something like this:
def enclose(x)
[x]
end
def enclose!(x, binding)
eval("#{x} = [#{x}]", binding)
end
foo = 'abcd'
enclose!(:foo, binding)
=> ["abcd"]
In the script above, the :foo means you are passing the name of the variable, and the binding (context) where to find its value. Then you're dynamically calling eval to evaluate the assignment operation foo = [foo].
I looked through this code and found author passes params to block using []. I tryed it myself
my_proc = proc { |x| x + 1 }
a = 0
my_proc[a] # => 1
my_proc.call(a) # => 1
What is the difference between this two calls? Is this a syntax sugar?
Both ways are exactly the same and are aliases to each other. Thus, both variants call the same method which is not determined by any special syntax. It is basically defined as:
class Proc
def call(*args)
#...
end
alias [] call
end
You might be interested to note that there is even a third way:
my_proc.(a)
This is actually syntactic sugar (i.e. is an extension of the syntax of the Ruby language language). All objects accepting #call can be "called" that way and Ruby ensures to invoke the call method.
They are functionally identical. You can use whichever style you prefer.
I wonder, is it possible to do something similar in Ruby to what I can do in Scala or other languages:
someCollection.foreach(x => println(x)) // a full version
someCollection.foreach(println) // a short version
In Ruby I can do:
some_array.each { |x| puts x }
So how can I do this?
some_array.each { puts }
UPDATE:
I'm not talking about puts in particular, it just picked it for example. There might be some_other_method which takes one parameter.
some_array.map { some_other_method }
some_array.map(some_other_method) # ???
def some_other_method a
# ... doing something with a
end
If you look up the rules for implicit η-expansion in the SLS (§6.26.5), it should be immediately obvious that it relies crucially on static type information and thus cannot possibly work in Ruby.
You can, however, explicitly obtain a Method object via reflection. Method objects respond to to_proc and like any object that responds to to_proc can thus be passed as if they were blocks using the unary prefix & operator:
some_array.each(&method(:puts))
Not quite like that, unfortunately. You can send a method name to be called on each object, e.g.:
some_array.each &:print_myself
Which is equivalent to:
some_array.each {|x| x.print_myself}
But I don't know of a clean (read: built-in) way to do what you're asking for. (Edit: #Jörg's answer does this, though it doesn't really save you any typing. There is no automatic partial function application in Ruby)
Trying to do something weird that might turn into something more useful, I tried to define my own []= operator on a custom class, which you can do, and have it return something different than the value argument, which apparently you can't do. []= operator's return value is always value; even when you override this operator, you don't get to control the return value.
class Weird
def []=(key, value)
puts "#{key}:#{value}"
return 42
end
end
x = Weird.new
x[:a] = "a"
output "a:a"
return value => "a" # why not 42?
Does anyone have an explanation for this? Any way around it?
ruby MRI 1.8.7. Is this the same in all rubys; Is it part of the language?
Note that this behavior also applies to all assignment expressions (i.e. also attribute assignment methods: def a=(value); 42; end).
My guess is that it is designed this way to make it easy to accurately understand assignment expressions used as parts of other expressions.
For example, it is reasonable to expect x = y.a = z[4] = 2 to:
call z.[]=(4,2), then
call y.a=(2), then
assign 2 to the local variable x, then finally
yield the value 2 to any “surrounding” (or lower precedence) expression.
This follows the principle of least surprise; it would be rather surprising if, instead, it ended up being equivalent to x = y.a=(z.[]=(4,2)) (with the final value being influenced by both method calls).
While not exactly authoritative, here is what Programming Ruby has to say:
Programming Ruby (1.8), in the Expressions section:
An assignment statement sets the variable or attribute on its left side (the lvalue) to refer to the value on the right (the rvalue). It then returns that value as the result of the assignment expression.
Programming Ruby 1.9 (3rd ed) in section 22.6 Expressions, Conditionals, and Loops:
(right after describing []= method calls)
The value of an assignment expression is its rvalue. This is true even if the assignment is to an attribute method that returns something different.
It’s an assignment statement, and those always evaluate to the assigned value. Making this different would be weird.
I suppose you could use x.[]= :a, "a" to capture the return value.
In my journey of a thousand lines of Ruby, I'm having a really hard time with the concept of anonymous functions. Wikipedia says something about there being some nameless soul in the code and it submitting to a higher order, but my understanding ends there.
Or in other words, how would I (when I understand it) explain anonymous functions to my mom?
An anonymous function has these characteristics:
It has no name (hence anonymous)
Is defined inline
Used when you don't want the overhead/formality of a normal function
Is not explicitly referenced more than once, unless passed as an argument to another function
Here's one example of an anonymous function in Ruby (called a block in this case):
my_array.each{ |item| puts item }
Where's the anonymous function in the above? Why, it's the one that receives a single parameter, names it 'item', and then prints it. In JavaScript, the above might be written as...
Array.prototype.each = function(anon){
for (var i=0,len=this.length;i<len;++i) anon(this[i]);
};
myArray.each(function(item){ console.log(item); });
...which both makes it a little bit more clear that a function is being passed as an argument, and also helps one appreciate Ruby's syntax. :)
Here's another anonymous function (back in Ruby):
def count_to(n)
puts "I'm going to count to #{n}"
count = lambda do |i|
if (i>0)
count[i-1]
puts i
end
end
count[n]
puts "I'm done counting!"
end
count_to(3)
#=> I'm going to count to 3
#=> 1
#=> 2
#=> 3
#=> I'm done counting!
Although the example is obviously contrived, it shows how you can create a new function (in this case named count) and assign it to a variable, and use that for recursive calls inside a master method. (Some feel that this is better than creating a second method just for the recursion, or re-using the master method for recursion with very different parameters.)
The function doesn't have a name, the variable does. You could assign it to any number of variables, all with different names.
Returning to the first example, there's even a syntax in Ruby for passing a lambda as the single, blessed block:
print_it = lambda{ |item| puts item }
%w[a b c].each(&print_it)
#=> a
#=> b
#=> c
...but you can also pass a lambda as a normal parameter and call it later, as illustrated here:
module Enumerable
def do_both_to_each( f1, f2 )
each do |item|
f1[item]
f2[item]
end
end
end
print_prefix = lambda{ |i| print "#{i}*#{i} -> " }
print_squared = lambda{ |i| puts i*i }
(1..4).do_both_to_each(print_prefix,print_squared)
#=> 1*1 -> 1
#=> 2*2 -> 4
#=> 3*3 -> 9
#=> 4*4 -> 16
In addiction to previous answers, the anonymous functions are very usefull when you working with closures:
def make_adder n
lambda { |x|
x + n
}
end
t = make_adder 100
puts t.call 1
Or (in Ruby 1.9):
def make_adder_1_9 n
->(x) {
x + n
}
end
t_1_9 = make_adder_1_9 100
puts t_1_9.call 1
Just as Wikipedia says: a function with no name.
It means that you cannot invoke the function in the typical way, by using its name and parameters. Rather the function itself is usually a parameter to another function. A function that operates on functions is called a "higher order function".
Consider this JavaScript(I know you tagged this ruby but...):
window.onload=function(){
//some code here
}
The function will execute when the page loads, but you cannot invoke it by name, because it does not have a name.
What is the point of an anonymous method?
Explanation by Analogy:
When I order my favourite burger (a greasy Big Nac), I don't want to spend 5 minutes filling out a formal order application: name, address, phone number etc. I ain't got time for that. I want to use my mouth: "give me a burger", nice and quick and easy.
Anonymous methods are kinda like the same thing, except when coding:
It's kinda like throwaway method allowing you to code faster
It's the same when coding. If you have to define a function, you have to put it somewhere (else), you have to call it something, and that's a pain, especially if you know you'll never, ever need it again. And when you read the code, you might have to use a complicated IDE to find that method again, and a reference to it. What a pain! You need a throwaway method that you can write directly in your code, where you need it, and just get it done, and move one. Anonymous methods solve this particular problem.
Anonymous functions have the following characteristics:
No name
Inline declaration
Executed directly when declared