Does the following code behave as you’d expect?
2.times{|n| i,j = n,i; puts “i=#{i}, j=#{j.inspect}”}
Can you explain why j is nil rather than 0, the second time round?
Thanks,
Robin
Does the following code behave as you’d expect?
2.times{|n| i,j = n,i; puts “i=#{i}, j=#{j.inspect}”}
Can you explain why j is nil rather than 0, the second time round?
Thanks,
Robin
“robin” [email protected] wrote/schrieb
[email protected]:
2.times{|n| i,j = n,i; puts “i=#{i}, j=#{j.inspect}”}
Can you explain why j is nil rather than 0, the second time round?
I’ll try. Everytime the block is executed, new variables n, i and j
are created, because they don’t already exist outside the block. If
you want i to be shared, it should already exist before, e.g.:
i = nil
2.times{|n| i,j = n,i; puts “i=#{i}, j=#{j.inspect}”}
Regards
Thomas
On 1/27/07, Thomas H. [email protected] wrote:
you want i to be shared, it should already exist before, e.g.:
i = nil
2.times{|n| i,j = n,i; puts “i=#{i}, j=#{j.inspect}”}
maybe OP thought that
i,j = n,i
is semantically equivalent to
i=n
j=i
but it is not :(, which is good ![]()
the assignments are performed in parallel, and i is still nil when
assigned
to j.
But this is very useful thus one can e.g. swap
the value of two variables as follows
a,b = b,a
HTH
Robert
On Jan 27, 6:24 pm, Thomas H. [email protected] wrote:
I’ll try. Everytime the block is executed, new variables n, i and j
are created, because they don’t already exist outside the block. If
you want i to be shared, it should already exist before, e.g.:i = nil
2.times{|n| i,j = n,i; puts “i=#{i}, j=#{j.inspect}”}
Thanks for the reply. I think I’ve succeeded in adjusting my mental
model enough that this now makes sense. ![]()
Robin
This forum is not affiliated to the Ruby language, Ruby on Rails framework, nor any Ruby applications discussed here.
Sponsor our Newsletter | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Remote Ruby Jobs