I am attempting to write my own solution to a Ruby exercise from Rubymonk where the purpose is to create three methods (add, subtract, and calculate) so when 'calculate' is called you can determine whether or not numbers are added or subtracted based on what is passed in. I am receiving the following error:
main:11: syntax error, unexpected '=', expecting ')' def calculate(*numbers, options={})
Can anyone tell me what the issue is with my code? Thanks for any and all help!
def add(*numbers)
numbers.inject(0) {|sum, number| sum + number}
end
def subtract(*numbers)
numbers.inject{|diff, number| diff - number}
end
def calculate(*numbers, options={})
result = add(numbers) if options.empty?
result = add(numbers) if options[:add]
result = subtract(numbers) if options[:subtract]
result
end
def calculate(*numbers, options={})
is not a valid method definition b/c *numbers takes the place a variable number of arguments. You have two options as I see it -
def calculate(options={}, *numbers)
or
def calculate(*args)
numbers, options = args[0..-2], args[-1] || {}
if you want to keep the same argument order
The splat argument *numbers needs to be the last argument. Otherwise, how would Ruby know when to treat the last argument as options or as the last number?
You can use (*numbers, options) (without a default value), but that would require that you always pass an options hash to the method (otherwise your last number will be set as the options variable instead).
Try this way:
def calculate(options={},*numbers)
Using optional arguments after the fully optional argument ( the * notation) do not work since it creates an ambiguity.
Read more at:
http://www.skorks.com/2009/08/method-arguments-in-ruby/
You can't use both a splat and a param with a default as last argument, this is too ambiguous for the parser (how to know that the last arg passed is meant to be the options?)
you can work around this in many ways ; one idiom from rails (active support) is :
def calculate(*args)
options = args.extract_options!
# ...
end
where extract_options! is a monkey-patch to Array from ActiveSupport defined as follow :
def extract_options!
last.is_a?(::Hash) ? pop : {}
end
as a side note :
an options hash is not really usefull here. you could pass in just a symbol as first argument, maybe.
if you use a hash, logic could be simpler :
def calculate(*args)
options = args.extract_options!
method = options.fetch(:method, :add)
send method, *args
end
on add, you don't need inject(0), injectuses the first element of your array as a first "memo" value if you don't provide one
you can pass a symbol to inject, which will be the method called on your "memo" value, with "next value" as argument :
(1..10).inject(:+)
# this is the same as
(1..10).inject{ |memo, next| memo + next }
# or, more exactly
(1..10).inject{ |memo, next| memo.send :+, next }
Related
Is it possible to pass an arithmetic operator ( *, +, -, /) as a parameter to a ruby method? I have seen this performed in C++. Is rails capable of something similar?
def calculate(operator)
1254 operator 34
end
puts calculate(+)
Use Object#send:
def calculate(op)
1254.send(op, 34)
end
puts calculate(:+)
This works for any method, including the defined arithmetic operators. Note that you need to send the method name as a symbol or string.
You could use a block, and do something like
def calculate
yield 1254,34
end
calculate &:+ # => 1288
Operators desugar to messages. So you can pass a symbol that names the message you want to send.
def calculate(operator)
1254.send(operator, 34)
end
# to call:
puts calculate(:+)
Note, of course, that this will allow you to call any method, so if you're going to be accepting user input when you're doing this sort of thing, you'll usually want to whitelist.
You could achieve this with Object#send or Object#public_send methods:
def calculate(operator)
# specify accepted operators here:
raise ArgumentError unless [:*, :+, :-, :/].include? operator.to_sym
1254.public_send(op, 34)
end
How do I get a list of the arguments passed to a method, preferably one that I can iterate through?
For example something like
def foo(a,b,c)
puts args.inspect
end
foo(1,2,3)
=> [1,2,3]
?
Thanks!
You can always define a method that takes an arbitrary number of arguments:
def foo(*args)
puts args.inspect
end
This does exactly what you want, but only works on methods defined in such a manner.
The *args notation means "zero or more arguments" in this context. The opposite of this is the splat operator which expands them back into a list, useful for calling other methods.
As a note, the *-optional arguments must come last in the list of arguments.
If you define your method as you specified, you'll always have 3 args, or the method call is invalid. So "all the args" is already defined for you. So you would just change your method to:
def foo(a,b,c)
[a, b, c]
end
To define a method that can be called with any args (and to then access those args) you can do something like this:
def foo(*args)
args
end
What the * does is put all args after that point into an array.
As others pointed out you can use the splat operator (*) for achieving what you want. If you don't like that, you can use the fact that Ruby methods can take a hash as last argument with nicer syntax.
def foo(args)
raise ArgumentError if args.keys.any? { |arg| arg.nil? || !arg.kind_of?(Integer) }
end
puts foo(:a => 1, :b => 2, :c => "a") # raise an ArgumentError
To access the arguments inside the method you have to use args[:a] etc.
I am using Ruby on Rails 3 and I would like to know what means the presence of a * operator near a function argument and to understand its usages in others scenarios.
Example scenario (this method was from the Ruby on Rails 3 framework):
def find(*args)
return to_a.find { |*block_args| yield(*block_args) } if block_given?
options = args.extract_options!
if options.present?
apply_finder_options(options).find(*args)
else
case args.first
when :first, :last, :all
send(args.first)
else
find_with_ids(*args)
end
end
end
This is the splat operator, which comes from ruby (and is thus not rails specific). It can be applied in two ways depending on where it is used:
to "pack" a number of arguments into an array
to split up an array into an argument list
In your function, you see the splat operator used in the function definition. The result is that the function accepts any number of arguments. The complete argument list will be put into args as an array.
def foo(*args)
args.each_with_index{ |arg, i| puts "#{i+1}. #{arg}" }
end
foo("a", "b", "c")
# 1. a <== this is the output
# 2. b
# 3. c
The second variant would be when you consider the following method:
def bar(a, b, c)
a + b + c
end
It requires exactly three arguments. You can now call this method like follows
my_array = [1, 2, 3]
bar(*my_array)
# returns 6
The splat applied in this case to the array will split it and pass each element of the array as an individual parameter to the method. You could do the same even by calling foo:
foo(*my_array)
# 1. 1 <== this is the output
# 2. 2
# 3. 3
As you can see in your example method, these rules do apply to block parameters in the same way.
This is a splat argument, which basically means that any 'extra' arguments passed to the method will all be assigned to *args.
Given any object in Ruby (on Rails), how can I write a method so that it will display that object's instance variable names and its values, like this:
#x: 1
#y: 2
#link_to_point: #<Point:0x10031b298 #y=20, #x=38>
(Update: inspect will do except for large object it is difficult to break down the variables from the 200 lines of output, like in Rails, when you request.inspect or self.inspect in the ActionView object)
I also want to be able to print <br> to the end of each instance variable's value so as to print them out nicely on a webpage.
the difficulty now seems to be that not every instance variable has an accessor, so it can't be called with obj.send(var_name)
(the var_name has the "#" removed, so "#x" becomes "x")
Update: I suppose using recursion, it can print out a more advanced version:
#<Point:0x10031b462>
#x: 1
#y: 2
#link_to_point: #<Point:0x10031b298>
#x=38
#y=20
I would probably write it like this:
class Object
def all_variables(root=true)
vars = {}
self.instance_variables.each do |var|
ivar = self.instance_variable_get(var)
vars[var] = [ivar, ivar.all_variables(false)]
end
root ? [self, vars] : vars
end
end
def string_variables(vars, lb="\n", indent="\t", current_indent="")
out = "#{vars[0].inspect}#{lb}"
current_indent += indent
out += vars[1].map do |var, ivar|
ivstr = string_variables(ivar, lb, indent, current_indent)
"#{current_indent}#{var}: #{ivstr}"
end.join
return out
end
def inspect_variables(obj, lb="\n", indent="\t", current_indent="")
string_variables(obj.all_variables, lb, indent, current_indent)
end
The Object#all_variables method produces an array containing (0) the given object and (1) a hash mapping instance variable names to arrays containing (0) the instance variable and (1) a hash mapping…. Thus, it gives you a nice recursive structure. The string_variables function prints out that hash nicely; inspect_variables is just a convenience wrapper. Thus, print inspect_variables(foo) gives you a newline-separated option, and print inspect_variables(foo, "<br />\n") gives you the version with HTML line breaks. If you want to specify the indent, you can do that too: print inspect_variables(foo, "\n", "|---") produces a (useless) faux-tree format instead of tab-based indenting.
There ought to be a sensible way to write an each_variable function to which you provide a callback (which wouldn't have to allocate the intermediate storage); I'll edit this answer to include it if I think of something. Edit 1: I thought of something.
Here's another way to write it, which I think is slightly nicer:
class Object
def each_variable(name=nil, depth=0, parent=nil, &block)
yield name, self, depth, parent
self.instance_variables.each do |var|
self.instance_variable_get(var).each_variable(var, depth+1, self, &block)
end
end
end
def inspect_variables(obj, nl="\n", indent="\t", sep=': ')
out = ''
obj.each_variable do |name, var, depth, _parent|
out += [indent*depth, name, name ? sep : '', var.inspect, nl].join
end
return out
end
The Object#each_variable method takes a number of optional arguments, which are not designed to be specified by the user; instead, they are used by the recursion to maintain state. The given block is passed (a) the name of the instance variable, or nil if the variable is the root of the recursion; (b) the variable; (c) the depth to which the recursion has descended; and (d), the parent of the current variable, or nil if said variable is the root of the recursion. The recursion is depth-first. The inspect_variables function uses this to build up a string. The obj argument is the object to iterate through; nl is the line separator; indent is the indentation to be applied at each level; and sep separates the name and the value.
Edit 2: This doesn't really add anything to the answer to your question, but: just to prove that we haven't lost anything in the reimplementation, here's a reimplementation of all_variables in terms of each_variables.
def all_variables(obj)
cur_depth = 0
root = [obj, {}]
tree = root
parents = []
prev = root
obj.each_variable do |name, var, depth, _parent|
next unless name
case depth <=> cur_depth
when -1 # We've gone back up
tree = parents.pop(cur_depth - depth)[0]
when +1 # We've gone down
parents << tree
tree = prev
else # We're at the same level
# Do nothing
end
cur_depth = depth
prev = tree[1][name] = [var, {}]
end
return root
end
I feel like it ought to be shorter, but that may not be possible; because we don't have the recursion now, we have to maintain the stack explicitly (in parents). But it is possible, so the each_variable method works just as well (and I think it's a little nicer).
I see... Antal must be giving the advanced version here...
the short version then probably is:
def p_each(obj)
obj.instance_variables.each do |v|
puts "#{v}: #{obj.instance_variable_get(v)}\n"
end
nil
end
or to return it as a string:
def sp_each(obj)
s = ""
obj.instance_variables.each do |v|
s += "#{v}: #{obj.instance_variable_get(v)}\n"
end
s
end
or shorter:
def sp_each(obj)
obj.instance_variables.map {|v| "#{v}: #{obj.instance_variable_get(v)}\n"}.join
end
This is a quick adaptation of a simple JSON emitter I wrote for another question:
class Object
def inspect!(indent=0)
return inspect if instance_variables.empty?
"#<#{self.class}:0x#{object_id.to_s(16)}\n#{' ' * indent+=1}#{
instance_variables.map {|var|
"#{var}: #{instance_variable_get(var).inspect!(indent)}"
}.join("\n#{' ' * indent}")
}\n#{' ' * indent-=1}>"
end
end
class Array
def inspect!(indent=0)
return '[]' if empty?
"[\n#{' ' * indent+=1}#{
map {|el| el.inspect!(indent) }.join(",\n#{' ' * indent}")
}\n#{' ' * indent-=1}]"
end
end
class Hash
def inspect!(indent=0)
return '{}' if empty?
"{\n#{' ' * indent+=1}#{
map {|k, v|
"#{k.inspect!(indent)} => #{v.inspect!(indent)}"
}.join(",\n#{' ' * indent}")
}\n#{' ' * indent-=1}}"
end
end
That's all the magic, really. Now we only need some simple defaults for some types where a full-on inspect doesn't really make sense (nil, false, true, numbers, etc.):
module InspectBang
def inspect!(indent=0)
inspect
end
end
[Numeric, Symbol, NilClass, TrueClass, FalseClass, String].each do |klass|
klass.send :include, InspectBang
end
Like this?
# Get the instance variables of an object
d = Date.new
d.instance_variables.each{|i| puts i + "<br />"}
Ruby Documentation on instance_variables.
The concept is commonly called "introspection", (to look into oneself).
I want to write a function that allows users to match data based on a regexp, but I am concerned about sanitation of the user strings. I know with SQL queries you can use bind variables to avoid SQL injection attacks, but I am not sure if there's such a mechanism for regexps. I see that there's Regexp.escape, but I want to allow valid regexps.
Here is is the sample function:
def tagged?(text)
tags.each do |tag|
return true if text =~ /#{tag.name}/i
end
return false
end
Since I am just matching directly on tag.name is there a chance that someone could insert a Proc call or something to break out of the regexp and cause havoc?
Any advice on best practice would be appreciated.
Interpolated strings in a Regexp are not executed, but do generate annoying warnings:
/#{exit -3}/.match('test')
# => exits
foo = '#{exit -3}'
/#{foo}/.match('test')
# => warning: regexp has invalid interval
# => warning: regexp has `}' without escape
The two warnings seem to pertain to the opening #{ and the closing } respectively, and are independent.
As a strategy that's more efficient, you might want to sanitize the list of tags into a combined regexp you can run once. It is generally far less efficient to construct and test against N regular expressions than 1 with N parts.
Perhaps something along the lines of this:
class Taggable
def tags
#tags
end
def tags=(value)
#tags = value
#tag_regexp = Regexp.new(
[
'^(?:',
#tags.collect do |tag|
'(?:' + tag.sub(/\#\{/, '\\#\\{').sub(/([^\\])\}/, '\1\\}') + ')'
end.join('|'),
')$'
].to_s,
Regexp::IGNORECASE
)
end
def tagged?(text)
!!text.match(#tag_regexp)
end
end
This can be used like this:
e = Taggable.new
e.tags = %w[ #{exit-3} .*\.gif .*\.png .*\.jpe?g ]
puts e.tagged?('foo.gif').inspect
If the exit call was executed, the program would halt there, but it just interprets that as a literal string. To avoid warnings it is escaped with backslashes.
You should probably create an instance of the Regexp class instead.
def tagged?(text)
return tags.any? { |tag| text =~ Regexp.new(tag.name, Regexp::IGNORECASE) }
end