Isn't hash default value behavior just a little bizarre?

Ruby
1

Try this:

x = Hash.new([])
=> {}

x[:test]
=> []

x[:test] << ‘this’
=> [“this”]

x[:bar]
=> [“this”]

Huh? It seems that when I index a hash with a new key, it returns the
Hash’s default value object, not a copy of it. So if you modify that,
it modifies the default value, which then effects the default value for
every other new key.

I don’t know, I wouldn’t call this the “principle of least surprise”…
I was plenty surprised!

2

On Behalf Of Farhad F.:

Hash’s default value object, not a copy of it. So if you modify that,

it modifies the default value, which then effects the default

value for every other new key.

it is defined.

irb(main):014:0> system “qri hash#new”
-------------------------------------------------------------- Hash::new
Hash.new => hash
Hash.new(obj) => aHash
Hash.new {|hash, key| block } => aHash

 Returns a new, empty hash. If this hash is subsequently accessed
 by a key that doesn't correspond to a hash entry, the value
 returned depends on the style of new used to create the hash. In
 the first form, the access returns nil. If obj is specified, this
 single object will be used for all default values. If a block is
 specified, it will be called with the hash object and the key, and
 should return the default value. It is the block's responsibility
 to store the value in the hash if required.

    h = Hash.new("Go Fish")
    h["a"] = 100
    h["b"] = 200
    h["a"]           #=> 100
    h["c"]           #=> "Go Fish"
    # The following alters the single default object
    h["c"].upcase!   #=> "GO FISH"
    h["d"]           #=> "GO FISH"
    h.keys           #=> ["a", "b"]

    # While this creates a new default object each time
    h = Hash.new { |hash, key| hash[key] = "Go Fish: #{key}" }
    h["c"]           #=> "Go Fish: c"
    h["c"].upcase!   #=> "GO FISH: C"
    h["d"]           #=> "Go Fish: d"
    h.keys           #=> ["c", "d"]

=> true

I don’t know, I wouldn’t call this the "principle of least

surprise"… I was plenty surprised!

ruby allows one to change the default value. that is good, imho.
i think the surprise stems fr the fact that it is _too simple to change
the default. hey, it’s ruby :wink:

kind regards -botp

3

Peña, Botp wrote:

ruby allows one to change the default value. that is good, imho.
i think the surprise stems fr the fact that it is _too simple to change
the default. hey, it’s ruby :wink:

kind regards -botp

You’re right. Somehow I missed that in the documentation… did RTFM,
but obviously not carefully enough.

Still, I do find it pretty surprising. I got stung when I was actually
using the feature to initialize any entry to an array just to avoid the
business of

hash[key] ||= []

Lesson learned.

4

Farhad F. wrote:

Still, I do find it pretty surprising. I got stung when I was actually
using the feature to initialize any entry to an array just to avoid the
business of

hash[key] ||= []

Apologies if you’ve already come across this, but I think the correct
way to do what you’re trying to do is this:

h = Hash.new(){|h,k| h[k] = []}

The block passed to Hash.new gets called for each new entry in the hash,
so a new array will be constructed each time.

Hope this helps,

5

On Behalf Of Farhad F.:

Still, I do find it pretty surprising. I got stung when I

was actually

using the feature to initialize any entry to an array just to

avoid the

business of

hash[key] ||= []

just be careful w hash#[]<< method (but not too careful, otherwise, you
would not enjoy ruby :). What you really wanted then was hash#[]=

irb(main):041:0> y = Hash.new
=> {}
irb(main):043:0> y[1]
=> nil
irb(main):044:0> y[1] << “test”
NoMethodError: undefined method `<<’ for nil:NilClass
from (irb):44
from :0

here, since y.default == nil or y[1] == nil, we are actually doing
nil << “test” wc is obviously wrong.

irb(main):045:0> y[1] = “test”
=> “test”

take a look also at hash#default

6

Alex Y. wrote:

Apologies if you’ve already come across this, but I think the correct
way to do what you’re trying to do is this:

h = Hash.new(){|h,k| h[k] = []}

The block passed to Hash.new gets called for each new entry in the hash,
so a new array will be constructed each time.

Hope this helps,

Sweet. Now that looks very Ruby’ish! Thanks.

7

Hi –

On Wed, 4 Jul 2007, Farhad F. wrote:

but obviously not carefully enough.

Still, I do find it pretty surprising.

All you’re doing is assigning an object to a certain role. There’s no
implication of automatic duplication of the object.

I got stung when I was actually
using the feature to initialize any entry to an array just to avoid the
business of

hash[key] ||= []

It doesn’t do that anyway:

h = {}
h.default = []
p h[“blah”] # [] (default value for undefined key)
p h # {} (no keys are defined)

The default value is for undefined keys, whereas hash[key] ||= []
actually sets a key.

David

8

unknown wrote:

Hi –

All you’re doing is assigning an object to a certain role. There’s no
implication of automatic duplication of the object.

I was thinking of it as initialization of the value of the item
accessed, but when you think of it as the default object it makes
sense.

I got stung when I was actually
using the feature to initialize any entry to an array just to avoid the
business of

hash[key] ||= []

It doesn’t do that anyway:

h = {}
h.default = []
p h[“blah”] # [] (default value for undefined key)
p h # {} (no keys are defined)

The default value is for undefined keys, whereas hash[key] ||= []
actually sets a key.

The misunderstanding on my part was that I thought it initialized the
key to the default object, rather than returned the actual default
object. In this context, if the key is automatically initialized to an
empty array, then when I wanted to assign something to it, I wouldn’t
have to first make it an array.

9

On 7/4/07, Farhad F. [email protected] wrote:

=> [“this”]
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

Copying is an interesting thing. For many objects there is a sane,
obvious
way to make a copy. But for many others it is not so clear. Consider for
instance, Hash.new($stdin). What should it mean, in this context, to
“copy”
$stdin? Or consider Hash.new(some_very_large_object). Do you want a copy
all
the time? Luckily, Hash does have a mechanism to acheive what you want:

x = Hash.new { |h,k| h[k] = [] }
=> {}
x[:test]
=> []
x[:test] << ‘this’
=> [“this”]
x[:bar]
=> []

POLS also is matz.'s POLS.

10

Logan C. wrote:

On 7/4/07, Farhad F. [email protected] wrote:

=> [“this”]
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

Copying is an interesting thing. For many objects there is a sane,
obvious
way to make a copy. But for many others it is not so clear. Consider for
instance, Hash.new($stdin). What should it mean, in this context, to
“copy”
$stdin? Or consider Hash.new(some_very_large_object). Do you want a copy
all
the time? Luckily, Hash does have a mechanism to acheive what you want:

x = Hash.new { |h,k| h[k] = [] }
=> {}
x[:test]
=> []
x[:test] << ‘this’
=> [“this”]
x[:bar]
=> []

POLS also is matz.'s POLS.

Current behavior does (of course) make sense, and my confusion was due
to my misunderstanding of the feature and its intended use.

Thanks to all.