|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
Ruby Programming Language
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Reverse-range alternatives?
Since a reverse range (eg. 4...1) is functionally almost the same as an empty range, is there an alternative in the standard library, where each would actually iterate over the elements from first to last, in this case 4, 3, 2? Thanks, Ken
On 04.06.2007 22:51, Kenneth McDonald wrote: > Since a reverse range (eg. 4...1) is functionally almost the same as an > empty range, is there an alternative in the standard library, where each > would actually iterate over the elements from first to last, in this > case 4, 3, 2?
$ ruby -e '4.downto 1 do |i| p i end' 4 3 2 1 robert@fussel ~ $ ruby -e '4.step 1, -1 do |i| p i end' 4 3 2 1 Kind regards robert
On 6/4/07, Kenneth McDonald <kenneth.m.mcdon@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > Since a reverse range (eg. 4...1) is functionally almost the same as an > empty range, is there an alternative in the standard library, where > .each would actually iterate over the elements from first to last, in > this case 4, 3, 2? > Thanks, > Ken
You could do 4.downto(2) { |i| ... } -- -fREW
fREW wrote: > On 6/4/07, Kenneth McDonald <kenneth.m.mcdon @sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> Since a reverse range (eg. 4...1) is functionally almost the same as an >> empty range, is there an alternative in the standard library, where >> .each would actually iterate over the elements from first to last, in >> this case 4, 3, 2? >> Thanks, >> Ken > You could do 4.downto(2) { |i| ... }
Oh, of course. I'm still not entirely used to thinking of numbers as having a bunch of their own methods. Thanks! Ken
From: Kenneth McDonald [mailto:kenneth.m.mcdon@sbcglobal.net] : # Since a reverse range (eg. 4...1) is functionally almost the # same as an # empty range, is there an alternative in the standard library, where # .each would actually iterate over the elements from first to last, in # this case 4, 3, 2? assumming we're all talking about range. irb(main):014:0> x => 1..4 irb(main):015:0> x.class => Range irb(main):016:0> x.last => 4 irb(main):017:0> x.first => 1 irb(main):018:0> x.last.downto x.first do |e| irb(main):019:1* p e irb(main):020:1> end 4 3 2 1 => 4 but i really hope something of a bidirectional range, ie, (4..1).to_a == [4,3,2,1] and (4..1)==(1..4).reverse, and then (4..1).each{|x| p x =>4,3,2,1 right now (4..1) is useless, but it does not _err.. kind regards -botp
Kenneth McDonald wrote: > Since a reverse range (eg. 4...1) is functionally almost the same as an > empty range, is there an alternative in the standard library, where > .each would actually iterate over the elements from first to last, in > this case 4, 3, 2?
I can't resist this one... class Range def reverse r = dup def r.each(&block) last.downto(first, &block) end r end end >> (1..9).to_a => [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9] >> (1..9).reverse.to_a => [9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1] :-D Daniel
I'd thought of that, but it's simply too risky. Changing the behavior of something as fundamental as Range could really screw up if another required module counted on that behavior. Generally, I'll reopen a class to add methods to it, but not to change its behavior. Too bad, though, that the original Range type didn't have different semantics, if only to throw an exception when given an inverted range. Cheers, Ken
Daniel DeLorme wrote: > Kenneth McDonald wrote: >> Since a reverse range (eg. 4...1) is functionally almost the same as >> an empty range, is there an alternative in the standard library, >> where .each would actually iterate over the elements from first to >> last, in this case 4, 3, 2? > I can't resist this one... > class Range > def reverse > r = dup > def r.each(&block) > last.downto(first, &block) > end > r > end > end > >> (1..9).to_a > => [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9] > >> (1..9).reverse.to_a > => [9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1] > :-D > Daniel
On Jun 4, 4:51 pm, Kenneth McDonald <kenneth.m.mcdon@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > Since a reverse range (eg. 4...1) is functionally almost the same as an > empty range, is there an alternative in the standard library, where > .each would actually iterate over the elements from first to last, in > this case 4, 3, 2?
Would be nice if Range supported this. It would mean working off a #pred, not just #succ. It's been a while since I've messed with it, but I'm pretty sure Facets' Interval class does this. For a lite solution however you might consider: (-4..-1).each { |i| i.abs } T.
First let me take the liberty of reversing the top posting: On 6/5/07, Kenneth McDonald <kenneth.m.mcdon@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Daniel DeLorme wrote: > > I can't resist this one... > > class Range > > def reverse > > r = dup > > def r.each(&block) > > last.downto(first, &block) > > end > > r > > end > > end > I'd thought of that, but it's simply too risky. Changing the behavior of > something as fundamental as Range could really screw up if another > required module counted on that behavior. > Generally, I'll reopen a class to add methods to it, but not to change > its behavior.
Actually if you look carefully that's what his code does. He added a method to range which returns a new instance of range with a singleton method which overrides each. Normal instances of range won't be affected. It's a nice usage of the nested method definitions we were discussing recently. Bravo Daniel. Of course the reversed range should probably also invariants like: (1..3).reverse.last == (1..3).reverse.to_a.last And methods like to_s and step should also do the right thing too. If you want to go that far it's probably better to have a ReverseRange class and have the Range#reverse return an instance of that. -- Rick DeNatale My blog on Ruby http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/
Oops, my bad, I saw the class being reopened and jumped to a conclusion without even looking at the code. Thanks for pointing this out. But I still wish it were possible to write (3...1) and have it do something that (IMHO) would be a bit more useful than the current behavior. :-) Oh well, too late now. K
Rick DeNatale wrote: > First let me take the liberty of reversing the top posting: > On 6/5/07, Kenneth McDonald <kenneth.m.mcdon @sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> Daniel DeLorme wrote: >> > I can't resist this one... >> > class Range >> > def reverse >> > r = dup >> > def r.each(&block) >> > last.downto(first, &block) >> > end >> > r >> > end >> > end >> I'd thought of that, but it's simply too risky. Changing the behavior of >> something as fundamental as Range could really screw up if another >> required module counted on that behavior. >> Generally, I'll reopen a class to add methods to it, but not to change >> its behavior. > Actually if you look carefully that's what his code does. He added a > method to range which returns a new instance of range with a singleton > method which overrides each. Normal instances of range won't be > affected. > It's a nice usage of the nested method definitions we were discussing > recently. > Bravo Daniel. > Of course the reversed range should probably also invariants like: > (1..3).reverse.last == (1..3).reverse.to_a.last > And methods like to_s and step should also do the right thing too. > If you want to go that far it's probably better to have a ReverseRange > class and have the Range#reverse return an instance of that.
On 06.06.2007 00:40, Kenneth McDonald wrote: > Oops, my bad, I saw the class being reopened and jumped to a conclusion > without even looking at the code. Thanks for pointing this out. > But I still wish it were possible to write (3...1) and have it do > something that (IMHO) would be a bit more useful than the current > behavior. :-) Oh well, too late now.
The real issue here is that there are at least two useful ways to deal with ranges where the second element lies before the first one: 1. no iteration This is useful for scenarios where you somehow determine the end point and you want to iterate only if it is to the right of the starting point. For example def show_silly_example(s, start, char) (start .. s.index(char)).each do |i| puts s[i] end end 2. backwards iteration This is useful when you want to be able to do backward iteration. Given the fact that not foo all possible range endpoints there is a meaningful #pred method, I guess option 1 is actually a better choice: irb(main):012:0> "ab".succ => "ac" irb(main):013:0> "ab".pred NoMethodError: undefined method `pred' for "ab":String from (irb):13 from :0 irb(main):014:0> IMHO a ReverseRange class would be good, but at the moment I cannot think of a compelling syntax that would make creation as straightforward as for Range. Kind regards robert
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|