Hi all.
Let’s say I want to either create a new named array or append to that
array if it already exists. Is there a more elegant way of doing the
following?
@foo[:bar].nil? ? foo[:bar] = [“snafu”] : foo[:bar] << “snafu”
Thanks!
/afb
Adam B. wrote:
Hi all.
Let’s say I want to either create a new named array or append to that
array if it already exists. Is there a more elegant way of doing the
following?@foo[:bar].nil? ? foo[:bar] = [“snafu”] : foo[:bar] << “snafu”
I would use:
@foo[:bar] ||= []
@foo[:bar] << “snafu”
There probably is more compact, but I find this writing very readable
when you’re used to it (though, admittedly somehow puzzling for the
beginners).
Cheers,
Vince
Adam B. wrote:
Let’s say I want to either create a new named array or append to that
array if it already exists. Is there a more elegant way of doing the
following?@foo[:bar].nil? ? foo[:bar] = [“snafu”] : foo[:bar] << “snafu”
Dunno if you’d call it elegant, but I frequently write:
( @foo[:bar] ||= [] ) << “snafu”
On 20.01.2007 18:55, Adam B. wrote:
Hi all.
Let’s say I want to either create a new named array or append to that
array if it already exists. Is there a more elegant way of doing the
following?@foo[:bar].nil? ? foo[:bar] = [“snafu”] : foo[:bar] << “snafu”
Since you’re using a Hash the block constructor is the most elegant
solution IMHO:
def initialize
@foo = Hash.new {|h,k| h[k]=[]}
…
end
def other_method
…
@foo[:bar] << “snafu”
…
end
Kind regards
robert
Robert K. wrote:
Since you’re using a Hash the block constructor is the most elegant
solution IMHO:def initialize
@foo = Hash.new {|h,k| h[k]=[]}
…
end
To be clear for those unfamiliar with this: any time you ask for the
value of a key that doesn’t exist, the block will be called (which
creates a new empty array). This means you can never see this
particular Hash has a key, since:
if @foo[ :bar ]
will always succeed, and create a (possibly unwanted) array instance in
the process.
Rob B. wrote:
correctly:
if myhash.has_key? :missing
I prefer to use include?, since it also works on arrays:
irb(main):006:0> [‘foo’,‘bar’].include? ‘bar’
=> true
On Jan 20, 2007, at 1:15 PM, Phrogz wrote:
value of a key that doesn’t exist, the block will be called (which
creates a new empty array). This means you can never see this
particular Hash has a key, since:
if @foo[ :bar ]
will always succeed, and create a (possibly unwanted) array
instance in
the process.
That’s only because you’re not checking for the presence of a key
correctly:
myhash = Hash.new { |h,k| h[k] = Array.new }
=> {}
if myhash[:oops]
puts “nothing”
end
nothing
=> nil
myhash
=> {:oops=>[]}
if myhash.has_key? :missing
puts “:missing contains #{myhash[:missing] * ', '}”
end
=> nil
myhash
=> {:oops=>[]}
If you know that your code isn’t using the block initialization, then
the first form might be OK. However, the #has_key? will always do
what you expect. This is particularly true if the value can be nil
or false.
-Rob
Phrogz wrote:
value of a key that doesn’t exist, the block will be called (which
creates a new empty array). This means you can never see this
particular Hash has a key, since:
if @foo[ :bar ]
will always succeed, and create a (possibly unwanted) array instance in
the process.
What if foo[:bar] has been assigned a value of false?
That method of checking for the presence of a key is
too crude even for awk. Note below that the mere
attempt to access the value of a key creates an
entry for that key if it doesn’t already exist.
BEGIN {
SUBSEP = “^”
a[22,“yes”] = 88
a[33] = 99
The wrong way.
if ( a[“bar”] )
print “How did ‘bar’ get here?”
The right way.
if ( “foo” in a )
print “‘foo’ too?”
Any unauthorized entries?
for (key in a)
print key
}
— output -----
22^yes
33
bar