# Hash#select returns an array but Hash#reject returns a hash **URL:** \ **Category:** Ruby\ **Created:** [July 1, 2008, 10:17am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/hash-select-returns-an-array-but-hash-reject-returns-a-hash/141875 "2008-07-01T10:17:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Srijayanth\_S](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/e95f7d/32.png) [@Srijayanth\_S](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Srijayanth_S)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2008, 10:17am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/hash-select-returns-an-array-but-hash-reject-returns-a-hash/141875/1 "2008-07-01T10:17:05Z")
Hello, Is there any design reason for select returning an array and reject returning a hash? Why this disparity? Thank you, Jayanth ---
**Author:** ![Srijayanth\_S](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/e95f7d/32.png) [@Srijayanth\_S](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Srijayanth_S)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2008, 12:42pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/hash-select-returns-an-array-but-hash-reject-returns-a-hash/141875/2 "2008-07-01T12:42:12Z")
Srijayanth S. wrote: > Is there any design reason for select returning an array and reject > returning a hash? Why this disparity? In module Enumerable, both select and reject return an array (according to the Pickaxe). ---
**Author:** ![Srijayanth\_S](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/e95f7d/32.png) [@Srijayanth\_S](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Srijayanth_S)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2008, 12:51pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/hash-select-returns-an-array-but-hash-reject-returns-a-hash/141875/3 "2008-07-01T12:51:12Z")
irb(main):001:0\> a=Hash.new =\> {} irb(main):002:0\> a[1]=2 =\> 2 irb(main):003:0\> a[2]=2 =\> 2 irb(main):004:0\> a[3]=4 =\> 4 irb(main):005:0\> a.select { |key,value| value \> 2 } =\> [[3, 4]] irb(main):006:0\> a.reject { |key,value| value \<= 2 } =\> {3=\>4} ---
**Author:** ![Srijayanth\_S](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/e95f7d/32.png) [@Srijayanth\_S](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Srijayanth_S)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2008, 2:18pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/hash-select-returns-an-array-but-hash-reject-returns-a-hash/141875/4 "2008-07-01T14:18:40Z")
> =\> 2 > irb(main):019:0\> a[3]=4 > =\> 4 > irb(main):020:0\> a.select { |key,value| value \> 2 } > =\> {3=\>4} > irb(main):021:0\> a.reject { |key,value| value \<= 2 } > =\> {3=\>4} > > kind regards -botp Thanks. So this is just some sort of artefact/legacy code that never got changed? Jayanth ---
**Author:** ![Srijayanth\_S](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/e95f7d/32.png) [@Srijayanth\_S](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Srijayanth_S)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2008, 1:04pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/hash-select-returns-an-array-but-hash-reject-returns-a-hash/141875/5 "2008-07-01T13:04:40Z")
From: Srijayanth S. [[mailto:removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid)] # irb(main):001:0\> a=Hash.new # =\> {} # irb(main):002:0\> a[1]=2 # =\> 2 # irb(main):003:0\> a[2]=2 # =\> 2 # irb(main):004:0\> a[3]=4 # =\> 4 # irb(main):005:0\> a.select { |key,value| value \> 2 } # =\> [[3, 4]] # irb(main):006:0\> a.reject { |key,value| value \<= 2 } # =\> {3=\>4} that will change in newer version of ruby, eg ruby1.9 irb(main):015:0\> RUBY\_VERSION =\> “1.9.0” irb(main):016:0\> a=Hash.new =\> {} irb(main):017:0\> a[1]=2 =\> 2 irb(main):018:0\> a[2]=2 =\> 2 irb(main):019:0\> a[3]=4 =\> 4 irb(main):020:0\> a.select { |key,value| value \> 2 } =\> {3=\>4} irb(main):021:0\> a.reject { |key,value| value \<= 2 } =\> {3=\>4} kind regards -botp ---
**Author:** ![Srijayanth\_S](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/e95f7d/32.png) [@Srijayanth\_S](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Srijayanth_S)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2008, 2:52pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/hash-select-returns-an-array-but-hash-reject-returns-a-hash/141875/6 "2008-07-01T14:52:08Z")
Hi – On Tue, 1 Jul 2008, Srijayanth S. wrote: > > =\> 2 > > Thanks. > > So this is just some sort of artefact/legacy code that never got changed? You can actually make a case that select and reject are not exactly symmetrical operations. Imagine a line of people: ``` Joe John Joan David Jim Jenny Jeff Matz ``` If I tell everyone in the line whose name does not begin with J to step backwards (reject), the original line is smaller but it’s still the same line. If I tell everyone whose name _does_ begin with J to step forwards (select), I’ve got a new line of J people. “Same line” and “new line” don’t necessarily map to “same object” and “new object” in Ruby (since the post-reject hash is a different hash). But it suggests that there’s a difference, arguably, between select and reject, in terms of the formal disturbance of the object, which in turn makes it easier to understand why select would return objects in a different container, while reject would leave the container in the same form but just contain fewer things. However, that doesn’t mean it’s bad for select to return a hash (which it does, as was mentioned, as of 1.9). Just that the behavior of one doesn’t necessarily imply the behavior of the other. David ---
**Author:** ![Srijayanth\_S](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/e95f7d/32.png) [@Srijayanth\_S](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Srijayanth_S)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2008, 2:58pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/hash-select-returns-an-array-but-hash-reject-returns-a-hash/141875/7 "2008-07-01T14:58:00Z")
Well put. Thanks again. Jayanth ---
**Author:** ![Srijayanth\_S](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/e95f7d/32.png) [@Srijayanth\_S](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Srijayanth_S)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2008, 3:46pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/hash-select-returns-an-array-but-hash-reject-returns-a-hash/141875/8 "2008-07-01T15:46:09Z")
On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 8:48 AM, David A. Black [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > > > irb(main):016:0\> a=Hash.new > > > =\> {3=\>4} > > > You can actually make a case that select and reject are not exactly > > > (select), I’ve got a new line of J people. > > > I’m having a hard time making the connection between this analogy and > > > the > > > methods. In the first case one could say that we end up with two lines, the ‘original’ one and the line of rejects. But first of all, x.reject leaves x alone so the original ‘line’ is unchanged. And why can’t we see your select example exactly the same way, except with the resultant line of ‘selects’ just closer to you. > “Same line” and “new line” don’t necessarily map to “same object” and > “new object” in Ruby (since the post-reject hash is a different hash). > But it suggests that there’s a difference, arguably, between select > and reject, in terms of the formal disturbance of the object, which in > turn makes it easier to understand why select would return objects in > a different container, while reject would leave the container in the > same form but just contain fewer things. Except that both select and reject leave the original container the same. The analogy might be more apt for reject! and select! (if the latter method existed). > However, that doesn’t mean it’s bad for select to return a hash (which > it does, as was mentioned, as of 1.9). Just that the behavior of one > doesn’t necessarily imply the behavior of the other. The real change, it seems to me is that pre 1.9 the Ruby enumerator methods had/have a preference for returning arrays rather than an instance of the same class as the receiver, whereas 1.9 seems to be shifting to a preference for returning an instance of the same class as the receiver where that makes sense. – Rick DeNatale My blog on Ruby [http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/](http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/) ---
**Author:** ![Srijayanth\_S](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/e95f7d/32.png) [@Srijayanth\_S](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Srijayanth_S)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2008, 4:07pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/hash-select-returns-an-array-but-hash-reject-returns-a-hash/141875/9 "2008-07-01T16:07:56Z")
On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 7:26 PM, Robert D. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 3:42 PM, Rick DeNatale [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > I rather agree with Rick although David has a point too. Yeah I agree with Rick as well or I wouldn’t have asked the question in the first place. > I therefore implemented hselect in Labrador (also kselect for keys and > vselect for values) all returning hashes. Parts of Labrador are > however highly experimental - and I intend to put some order into this > soon - therefore maybe you can find what you want in Facets which is a > highly tested and widely used framework or just borrow my code from > Labrador (BSD license). I am just hacking up the classes as of now. Don’t really intend to use it anywhere. Thank you all, Jayanth ---
**Author:** ![Srijayanth\_S](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/e95f7d/32.png) [@Srijayanth\_S](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Srijayanth_S)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2008, 3:59pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/hash-select-returns-an-array-but-hash-reject-returns-a-hash/141875/10 "2008-07-01T15:59:41Z")
On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 3:42 PM, Rick DeNatale [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: I rather agree with Rick although David has a point too. I therefore implemented hselect in Labrador (also kselect for keys and vselect for values) all returning hashes. Parts of Labrador are however highly experimental - and I intend to put some order into this soon - therefore maybe you can find what you want in Facets which is a highly tested and widely used framework or just borrow my code from Labrador (BSD license). HTH Robert – [http://ruby-smalltalk.blogspot.com/](http://ruby-smalltalk.blogspot.com/) * * * AALST (n.) One who changes his name to be further to the front D.Adams; The Meaning of LIFF ---
**Author:** ![Srijayanth\_S](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/e95f7d/32.png) [@Srijayanth\_S](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Srijayanth_S)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2008, 4:24pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/hash-select-returns-an-array-but-hash-reject-returns-a-hash/141875/11 "2008-07-01T16:24:57Z")
Hi – On Tue, 1 Jul 2008, Rick DeNatale wrote: > > > > irb(main):015:0\> RUBY\_VERSION > > > > =\> {3=\>4} > > But first of all, x.reject leaves x alone so the original ‘line’ is > > > turn makes it easier to understand why select would return objects in > > a different container, while reject would leave the container in the > > same form but just contain fewer things. > > Except that both select and reject leave the original container the same. > The analogy might be more apt for reject! and select! (if the latter method > existed). It’s specifically not about the exact objects, though. As I said, “same line” in this model doesn’t map to “same object”. Rather, the analogy has to do with types of structure or container. Here’s another, perhaps better analogy. You’ve got a shelf of books, and you’ve got an empty box. You select some books from the shelf, and put them in the box. Now you’ve got two structures: a shelf, and a box. If you were describing this operation, you’d say: “I selected some books and put them in a box.” The box of books is the result of the operation, and is structurally different from the shelf. The point is not that this is the only way it can be done, but that it _can_ be done this way. It’s reasonable to select from a collection into something that is not only a different collection, but a different container type. Now, if you do it reject-wise, you take the books you don’t want and throw them out the window. The box never enters into it. You’re not selecting, so you don’t care about observing or measuring the books that you’re removing from the shelf. And the shelf is still a shelf. There’s no new type of container involved, just the same type of container with different contents. The reject operation does not imply the transfer of objects to a different type of container. Also, the fact that Ruby can do this in terms of duplicate objects, rather than in place, isn’t relevant. The change or conservation of the container type is what’s important. That’s all I’m saying 🙂 And thereafter, to make sense of the new 1.9 behavior, all you have to do is decide that instead of a box, you’re putting the selected books on another shelf. Again, this has nothing to do with the identity of objects vs. copies. It’s about the proliferation (or not) of structures. > > However, that doesn’t mean it’s bad for select to return a hash (which > > it does, as was mentioned, as of 1.9). Just that the behavior of one > > doesn’t necessarily imply the behavior of the other. > > The real change, it seems to me is that pre 1.9 the Ruby enumerator methods > had/have a preference for returning arrays rather than an instance of the > same class as the receiver, whereas 1.9 seems to be shifting to a preference > for returning an instance of the same class as the receiver where that makes > sense. Yes, that’s clearly the change. I wasn’t talking about the change, though; I was suggesting a model for understanding why the pre-change way might not have been as irrational as has sometimes been suggested. It’s all moot as of 1.9. David ---
**Author:** ![Srijayanth\_S](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/e95f7d/32.png) [@Srijayanth\_S](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Srijayanth_S)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2008, 4:29pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/hash-select-returns-an-array-but-hash-reject-returns-a-hash/141875/12 "2008-07-01T16:29:39Z")
Hi – On Tue, 1 Jul 2008, Srijayanth S. wrote: > On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 7:26 PM, Robert D. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > > > On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 3:42 PM, Rick DeNatale [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > > I rather agree with Rick although David has a point too. > > Yeah I agree with Rick as well or I wouldn’t have asked the question > in the first place. Rick made some points about in-place changes vs. copies of Ruby objects that I agree with, but that wasn’t what my post was about 🙂 See my last one too. David ---
**Author:** ![Srijayanth\_S](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/e95f7d/32.png) [@Srijayanth\_S](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Srijayanth_S)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2008, 4:47pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/hash-select-returns-an-array-but-hash-reject-returns-a-hash/141875/13 "2008-07-01T16:47:54Z")
On Jul 1, 9:18 am, “David A. Black” [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > Now, if you do it reject-wise, you take the books you don’t want and > throw them out the window. The box never enters into it. You’re not > selecting, so you don’t care about observing or measuring the books > that you’re removing from the shelf. Throw them out the window? You could hurt someone. Let’s not be so hasty, David. You could put those books in the box and take them to a used-book store instead. ---
**Author:** ![Srijayanth\_S](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/e95f7d/32.png) [@Srijayanth\_S](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Srijayanth_S)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2008, 4:50pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/hash-select-returns-an-array-but-hash-reject-returns-a-hash/141875/14 "2008-07-01T16:50:14Z")
Hi – On Tue, 1 Jul 2008, Yossef M. wrote: > On Jul 1, 9:18 am, “David A. Black” [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > > > Now, if you do it reject-wise, you take the books you don’t want and > > throw them out the window. The box never enters into it. You’re not > > selecting, so you don’t care about observing or measuring the books > > that you’re removing from the shelf. > > Throw them out the window? You could hurt someone. > > Let’s not be so hasty, David. You could put those books in the box and > take them to a used-book store instead. Yeah, I thought of that, but I figured the window would make the point better 🙂 Besides, used book stores have gotten so picky lately… David ---
**Author:** ![Srijayanth\_S](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/e95f7d/32.png) [@Srijayanth\_S](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Srijayanth_S)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2008, 5:32pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/hash-select-returns-an-array-but-hash-reject-returns-a-hash/141875/15 "2008-07-01T17:32:34Z")
On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 10:18 AM, David A. Black [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > > ‘original’ one and the line of rejects. > > analogy has to do with types of structure or container. > > done this way. It’s reasonable to select from a collection into > > something that is not only a different collection, but a different > > container type. > > Now, if you do it reject-wise, you take the books you don’t want and > throw them out the window. The box never enters into it. You’re not > selecting, so you don’t care about observing or measuring the books > that you’re removing from the shelf. I still have the same problem with this analogy. reject and select are not about the books. They don’t move books from one collection to another. They BOTH return a new collection which references some of the objects referenced by the receiver. select returns a collection of all of the objects in the receiver which meet the criterion specified by the block, reject returns a collection of all the objects in the receiver which DON’T meet the criterion specified by the block. The fact that Ruby \<1.9 tends to return arrays rather than something of the same species as the receiver on such methods was something I had to get used to after my Smalltalk experience. And, compatibility aside, I think that 1.9 is going in the right direction here. – Rick DeNatale My blog on Ruby [http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/](http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/) ---
**Author:** ![Srijayanth\_S](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/e95f7d/32.png) [@Srijayanth\_S](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Srijayanth_S)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2008, 5:52pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/hash-select-returns-an-array-but-hash-reject-returns-a-hash/141875/16 "2008-07-01T17:52:31Z")
Hi – On Wed, 2 Jul 2008, Rick DeNatale wrote: > > > > > > > It’s specifically not about the exact objects, though. As I said, > > operation, and is structurally different from the shelf. The point is > > I still have the same problem with this analogy. > > reject and select are not about the books. They don’t move books from one > collection to another. They BOTH return a new collection which references > some of the objects referenced by the receiver. It’s an analogy, not a roman à clef about some Ruby objects 🙂 > here. > I must not be making it clear that what I’m discussing has nothing to > do with whether Object a and Object b are the same object in Ruby’s > memory, and I’m certainly not arguing that 1.9 should not change what > it’s changing. I think we’re all so used to discussions that are about > what should and should not be in the language that it becomes hard to > make points that aren’t about that kind of advocacy 🙂 If you have a shelf of books, and you take some off, and then you look back up at your shelf and it has turned into a canvas sack – that would be kind of weird. Similarly, if you remove items from a hash and the non-removed items get transferred to an array, that would be weird. If, however, you select some books from the shelf, and they end up in a canvas sack (1.8), that isn’t necessarily weird. If they end up on another shelf (1.9), that also isn’t weird. David ---
**Author:** ![Srijayanth\_S](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/e95f7d/32.png) [@Srijayanth\_S](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Srijayanth_S)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2008, 10:01pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/hash-select-returns-an-array-but-hash-reject-returns-a-hash/141875/17 "2008-07-01T22:01:07Z")
On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 4:24 PM, David A. Black [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > > > > > > > Yeah I agree with Rick as well or I wouldn’t have asked the question > > in the first place. > > Rick made some points about in-place changes vs. copies of Ruby > objects that I agree with, but that wasn’t what my post was about 🙂 > See my last one too. Actually I think the most important thing about this is, yes I know you guessed and you disagree, consistency;) But give me a chance, it can be consistent that whatever.reject.class == whatever.class and whatever.select.class == Array. That was exactly why I named my Hash returning methods hselect, vselect and kselect. However personally I would prefer a different kind of consistency on this one, as some others would, I do not even daresay that we are a majority ;). Cheers Robert ---
**Author:** ![Srijayanth\_S](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/e95f7d/32.png) [@Srijayanth\_S](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Srijayanth_S)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2008, 4:12am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/hash-select-returns-an-array-but-hash-reject-returns-a-hash/141875/18 "2008-07-02T04:12:25Z")
Hi – On Wed, 2 Jul 2008, Robert D. wrote: > > > > I rather agree with Rick although David has a point too. > > > > you guessed and you disagree, consistency;) > > > > But give me a chance, it can be consistent that whatever.reject.class > > > > == whatever.class and > > > > whatever.select.class == Array. That was exactly why I named my Hash > > > > returning methods hselect, vselect and kselect. It depends on the class, though. Neither File#select nor File#reject is going to be return a File object. David ---
**Author:** ![Srijayanth\_S](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/e95f7d/32.png) [@Srijayanth\_S](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Srijayanth_S)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2008, 2:21pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/hash-select-returns-an-array-but-hash-reject-returns-a-hash/141875/19 "2008-07-02T14:21:17Z")
On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 4:07 AM, David A. Black [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > It depends on the class, though. Neither File#select nor File#reject > is going to be return a File object. > OMG, but are these names really baring the same semantic meaning? > Robert ---
**Author:** ![Srijayanth\_S](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/e95f7d/32.png) [@Srijayanth\_S](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Srijayanth_S)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2008, 5:48pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/hash-select-returns-an-array-but-hash-reject-returns-a-hash/141875/20 "2008-07-01T17:48:24Z")
OK, then there’s a box of books. You get another box. You move books that you like from the first box to the second and ditch the others. It’s all the same and the minutia aren’t really that important when describing the general behavior. I think the analogy works perfectly fine to get the point across about the behavior of the method. –Jeremy On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 10:28 AM, Rick DeNatale [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > > > > > > > It’s specifically not about the exact objects, though. As I said, > > operation, and is structurally different from the shelf. The point is > > My blog on Ruby > [http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/](http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/) – [http://jeremymcanally.com/](http://jeremymcanally.com/) [http://entp.com](http://entp.com) Read my books: Ruby in Practice ([Ruby in Practice](http://manning.com/mcanally/)) My free Ruby e-book ([http://humblelittlerubybook.com/](http://humblelittlerubybook.com/)) Or, my blogs: > **[Site not found · DreamHost](http://mrneighborly.com)** > > The owner of this domain has not yet uploaded their website. [http://rubyinpractice.com](http://rubyinpractice.com) [Next page](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/hash-select-returns-an-array-but-hash-reject-returns-a-hash/141875.md?page=2)