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| ... }
···
On 6/4/07, Kenneth McDonald <kenneth.m.mcdonald@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
--
-fREW
$ 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 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?
# 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
···
From: Kenneth McDonald [mailto:kenneth.m.mcdonald@sbcglobal.net] :
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]
Daniel
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.
···
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?
fREW wrote:
···
On 6/4/07, Kenneth McDonald <kenneth.m.mcdonald@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,
KenYou 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
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]
Daniel
First let me take the liberty of reversing the top posting:
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
> endI'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 6/5/07, Kenneth McDonald <kenneth.m.mcdonald@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
--
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.mcdonald@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
> endI'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.
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.
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
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
···
On 06.06.2007 00:40, Kenneth McDonald wrote:
from :0