Hash#map

[Fredrik]

Is there any good reason why Hash#map does not give back a Hash (Ruby
1.8 but same in 1.9 as far as I know)? I often find myself writing
these kind of things:

newhash = oldhash.inject({}) { |h,(k,v)| h[k] = some_operation(v); h }

but that doesn't look pretty at all in my opinion. I want to just
write like this:

newhash = oldhash.map { |k,v| some_operation(v) }

I finally got around to change this behaviour for my own code, but are
all Ruby users supposed to invent this wheel on their own? Wouldn't it
be better if Hash#map behaved like this? Or is there something I am
missing?

class Hash
def hashmap
self.inject({}) do |newhash, (k,v)|
newhash[k] = yield(k, v)
newhash
end
end
end


Regards,
Fredrik

 

[Andrew Timberlake]

Is there any good reason why Hash#map does not give back a Hash (Ruby
1.8 but same in 1.9 as far as I know)? I often find myself writing
these kind of things:

newhash =3D oldhash.inject({}) { |h,(k,v)| h[k] =3D some_operation(v); h = }

but that doesn't look pretty at all in my opinion. I want to just
write like this:

newhash =3D oldhash.map { |k,v| some_operation(v) }

I finally got around to change this behaviour for my own code, but are
all Ruby users supposed to invent this wheel on their own? Wouldn't it
be better if Hash#map behaved like this? Or is there something I am
missing?

class Hash
=A0def hashmap
=A0 =A0self.inject({}) do |newhash, (k,v)|
=A0 =A0 =A0newhash[k] =3D yield(k, v)
=A0 =A0 =A0newhash
=A0 =A0end
=A0end
end


Regards,
Fredrik

Becuase #map comes from form Enumerable (and is an alias for collect)

enum.collect {| obj | block } =3D> array
enum.map {| obj | block } =3D> array

Returns a new array with the results of running block once for every
element in enum.

(1..4).collect {|i| i*i } #=3D> [1, 4, 9, 16]
(1..4).collect { "cat" } #=3D> ["cat", "cat", "cat", "cat"]


Andrew Timberlake
http://ramblingsonrails.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/andrewtimberlake

"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education" - Mark Twain

 

[KDr2]

[Note: parts of this message were removed to make it a legal post.]

irb(main):041:0> o={"a",1,"b",2}
=> {"a"=>1, "b"=>2}
irb(main):042:0> o.merge(o){|k,ov|ov*2}
=> {"a"=>2, "b"=>4}

Is there any good reason why Hash#map does not give back a Hash (Ruby
1.8 but same in 1.9 as far as I know)? I often find myself writing
these kind of things:

newhash = oldhash.inject({}) { |h,(k,v)| h[k] = some_operation(v); h }

but that doesn't look pretty at all in my opinion. I want to just
write like this:

newhash = oldhash.map { |k,v| some_operation(v) }

I finally got around to change this behaviour for my own code, but are
all Ruby users supposed to invent this wheel on their own? Wouldn't it
be better if Hash#map behaved like this? Or is there something I am
missing?

class Hash
def hashmap
self.inject({}) do |newhash, (k,v)|
newhash[k] = yield(k, v)
newhash
end
end
end


Regards,
Fredrik

 

[Srijayanth Sridhar]

[Note: parts of this message were removed to make it a legal post.]

class Hash
def new_map
result = self.map do |k,v|
r = yield v
[k,r]
end
Hash[*result.flatten]
end
end

a = {}
a[2] = 4
a[3] = 6

b=a.new_map do |v|
v+2
end

puts b.class
puts b.inspect

yields:

Hash
{2=>6, 3=>8}

Does this help?

Jayanth

 

[7stud --]

Is there any good reason why Hash#map does not give back a Hash (Ruby
1.8 but same in 1.9 as far as I know)? I often find myself writing
these kind of things:

newhash = oldhash.inject({}) { |h,(k,v)| h[k] = some_operation(v); h }

but that doesn't look pretty at all in my opinion. I want to just
write like this:

newhash = oldhash.map { |k,v| some_operation(v) }

class Hash
def hashbackmap
result = {}

self.each do |key, val|
result[key] = yield val
end

result
end
end

h = {
"red" => 10,
"blue" => 20,
"green" => 30
}

p h.hashbackmap {|x| x*2}

--output:--
{"green"=>60, "blue"=>40, "red"=>20}

I HAVE A PATENT!! My licensing fees are cheap: $10 mth.

 

[Fredrik]

irb(main):041:0> o={"a",1,"b",2}

=> {"a"=>1, "b"=>2}
irb(main):042:0> o.merge(o){|k,ov|ov*2}
=> {"a"=>2, "b"=>4}

Thanks! That's the piece missing from my Ruby skills! Though o.merge
(o) doesn't look as pedagogically clear as o.map, it'll have to do.

 

[Fredrik]

Becuase #map comes from form Enumerable (and is an alias for collect)

Well ok, that is a reason but it's not a good motivation why it HAS to
be like that. What use does one really have of getting an Array (with
elements in an undefined order) from a Hash#map ?

 

[James Gray]

Is there any good reason why Hash#map does not give back a Hash (Ruby
1.8 but same in 1.9 as far as I know)?

It wouldn't make sense for Hash#map to return a Hash since you are not
required to transform it into key-value pairs:
=> ["1 is one", "2 is two"]

I often find myself writing
these kind of things:

newhash = oldhash.inject({}) { |h,(k,v)| h[k] = some_operation(v); h }

1.9 adds each_with_object() for this very usage. You don't want the
return value of the block to carry forward, but instead the object you
started with. That's what each_with_object() does. So your code
becomes the following in Ruby 1.9:

newhash = oldhash.each_with_object({}) { |(k, v), h|
h[k] = some_operation(v)
}

Hope that helps.

James Edward Gray II

 

[Fredrik]

Is there any good reason why Hash#map does not give back a Hash (Ruby
1.8 but same in 1.9 as far as I know)?

It wouldn't make sense for Hash#map to return a Hash since you are not  
required to transform it into key-value pairs:

 >> {1 => "one", 2 => "two"}.map { |k, v| "#{k} is #{v}" }
=> ["1 is one", "2 is two"]

I often find myself writing
these kind of things:

newhash = oldhash.inject({}) { |h,(k,v)| h[k] = some_operation(v); h }

1.9 adds each_with_object() for this very usage.  You don't want the  
return value of the block to carry forward, but instead the object you  
started with.  That's what each_with_object() does.  So your code  
becomes the following in Ruby 1.9:

newhash = oldhash.each_with_object({}) { |(k, v), h|
   h[k] = some_operation(v)

}

Hope that helps.

James Edward Gray II

Thanks! It's not a very big improvement over inject though. I don't
see the use of Hash#map -> Array so if it was up to me, Hash#map would
give a Hash. If one really wants an Array it seems more reasonable to
use something like
hash.to_a{|k,v| "#{k} is #{v}" }

Maybe it's just me, but when I read "map" I am thinking "map this
block to each element and give back the same structure" (i.e.
Array#map gives an Array and Hash#map gives a Hash).

(I know map is just an alias for collect, but I never understood why
"collect" is a good name for this method.)