|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
Ruby Programming Language
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
Globals not incrementing inside block
I have the following snippet:
at_exit do
$total_count, $daily_count = 0, 0
IO.foreach(my_logfile) do |line|
$total_count.next
$daily_count.next if line =~ /^#{Time.now.strftime('%Y%m%d')}/
end
printf("\ns Total: %d\ns Today:%d\n", $total_count,
$daily_count)
end
I assumed I had to use globals, since otherwise the block would treat
the counters as local variables, but I have the same problem either way:
the counters never increase. They still both read zero at the end of the
script, even though some strategic puts statements show that the file is
successfully being read.
What newbie mistake am I making now?
--
"Oh, look: rocks!"
-- Doctor Who, "Destiny of the Daleks"
On Jun 6, 2007, at 6:34 PM, Todd A. Jacobs wrote:
> I have the following snippet: > at_exit do
> $total_count, $daily_count = 0, 0
> IO.foreach(my_logfile) do |line|
> $total_count.next
> $daily_count.next if line =~ /^#{Time.now.strftime('%Y%m%d')}/
> end
> printf("\ns Total: %d\ns Today:%d\n", $total_count,
> $daily_count)
> end
> I assumed I had to use globals, since otherwise the block would treat
> the counters as local variables, but I have the same problem either
> way:
> the counters never increase. They still both read zero at the end
> of the
> script, even though some strategic puts statements show that the
> file is
> successfully being read.
> What newbie mistake am I making now?
> --
> "Oh, look: rocks!"
> -- Doctor Who, "Destiny of the Daleks"
$total_count += 1
Cheers-
-- Ezra Zygmuntowicz
-- Lead Rails Evangelist
-- e@engineyard.com
-- Engine Yard, Serious Rails Hosting
-- (866) 518-YARD (9273)
Hi,
On Jun 6, 2007, at 6:34 PM, Todd A. Jacobs wrote:
> I have the following snippet: > at_exit do
> $total_count, $daily_count = 0, 0
> IO.foreach(my_logfile) do |line|
> $total_count.next
$total_count = $total_count.next
or
$total_count += 1
Also, you don't need globals to do what you're trying to do.
On 6/7/07, Todd A. Jacobs <tjacobs-sndr-019@codegnome.org> wrote:
> I assumed I had to use globals, since otherwise the block would treat
> the counters as local variables, but I have the same problem either way:
> the counters never increase. They still both read zero at the end of the
> script, even though some strategic puts statements show that the file is
> successfully being read.
> What newbie mistake am I making now?
> --
> "Oh, look: rocks!"
> -- Doctor Who, "Destiny of the Daleks"
total = 0
5.times do
total += 1
end
p total # 5
Harry
--
A Look into Japanese Ruby List in English
http://www.kakueki.com/
> You don't need global variables. > total = 0
> 5.times do
> total += 1
> end
since the method is called at_exit. Anyway, you are assigning the
variables new values, so you can use local ones instead.
__________________________________________
Dictionary is the only place that success comes before work. - Vince
Lombardi
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 01:55:23PM +0900, Ivan Salazar wrote:
> This one is a very common mistake when someone is new to functional
> languages specially when having some procedural language experience...
> Many methods in functional languages don't have side effects (don't
Thanks. In retrospect, this is somewhat obvious. But you're right: it
was my expectation that foo.succ was equivalent to foo+=1, rather than
simply being an expression that returned a value without modifying the
variable itself.
I appreciate all of the informative responses.
--
"Oh, look: rocks!"
-- Doctor Who, "Destiny of the Daleks"
I guess this means that you will be going out with a bang! :)
(sorry. I could not resist!)
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
On 6/7/07, Todd A. Jacobs <tjacobs-sndr-019@codegnome.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 01:55:23PM +0900, Ivan Salazar wrote: > > This one is a very common mistake when someone is new to functional
> > languages specially when having some procedural language experience...
> > Many methods in functional languages don't have side effects (don't
> Thanks. In retrospect, this is somewhat obvious. But you're right: it
> was my expectation that foo.succ was equivalent to foo+=1, rather than
> simply being an expression that returned a value without modifying the
> variable itself.
misconception in this statement which I see a lot of Ruby nubies trip
up on, and that's thinking that variables are objects.
An object holds state and behavior, a variable references an object.
More than one variable can reference the same object.
Modifying an object means modifying the objects state.
Modifying a variable means changing WHICH object it is referencing.
Which is done by assignment or assignment-like things such as
providing a value to the parameter of a method or block.
I would argue that: a = a.chop! doesn't change the variable a since
it's still referring to the same object. Consider:
a = "abc"
# changes (sets) VARIABLE a
b = a
# changes (sets) VARIABLE b
p a.object_id => -606250168
p b.object_id => -606250168
# note that its one OBJECT referenced by two VARIABLES
c = a.delete('a') => "bc"
# creates a new OBJECT leaving both VARIABLEs
# and the OBJECT they reference unchanged.
p a => "abc"
p b => "abc"
p a.object_id => -606250168
p b.object_id => -606250168
b.delete!('b')
# changes the state of the OBJECT referenced by VARIABLE b
p b => "ac"
p b.object_id => -606250168
# but leaves the VARIABLE b unchanged, it's still referencing the same
# object albeit that object's state has changed.
p a => "ac"
p a.object_id => -606250168
# and VARIABLE a still refers to the same (changed) OBJECT
b = c
# changes the VARIABLE b
p b.object_id => -606269188
p c.object_id => -606269188
And variable is a general term covering (local|global|instance|class)
variables as well as things like the slots in Arrays which refer to
the elements of the array.
--
Rick DeNatale
My blog on Ruby
http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Add to del.icio.us |
Digg this |
Stumble it |
Powered by Megasolutions Inc