Isn't hash default value behavior just a little bizarre???

[Farhad Farzaneh]

Try this:

x = Hash.new([]) => {}
x[:test] => []
x[:test] << 'this' => ["this"]
x[:bar]

=> ["this"]

Huh? It seems that when I index a hash with a new key, it returns the
Hash's default value object, not a copy of it. So if you modify that,
it modifies the default value, which then effects the default value for
every other new key.

I don't know, I wouldn't call this the "principle of least surprise"...
I was plenty surprised!

 

[Farhad Farzaneh]

ruby allows one to change the default value. that is good, imho.
i think the surprise stems fr the fact that it is _too simple to change
the default. hey, it's ruby

kind regards -botp

You're right. Somehow I missed that in the documentation.... did RTFM,
but obviously not carefully enough.

Still, I do find it pretty surprising. I got stung when I was actually
using the feature to initialize any entry to an array just to avoid the
business of

hash[key] ||= []

Lesson learned.

 

[Peña, Botp]
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 

[Alex Young]

ruby allows one to change the default value. that is good, imho.
i think the surprise stems fr the fact that it is _too simple to change
the default. hey, it's ruby

kind regards -botp

You're right. Somehow I missed that in the documentation.... did RTFM,
but obviously not carefully enough.

Still, I do find it pretty surprising. I got stung when I was actually
using the feature to initialize any entry to an array just to avoid the
business of

hash[key] ||= []

Apologies if you've already come across this, but I think the correct
way to do what you're trying to do is this:

h = Hash.new(){|h,k| h[k] = []}

The block passed to Hash.new gets called for each new entry in the hash,
so a new array will be constructed each time.

Hope this helps,

 

[Farhad Farzaneh]

Apologies if you've already come across this, but I think the correct
way to do what you're trying to do is this:

h = Hash.new(){|h,k| h[k] = []}

The block passed to Hash.new gets called for each new entry in the hash,
so a new array will be constructed each time.

Hope this helps,

Sweet. Now that looks very Ruby'ish! Thanks.

 

[dblack]

---2049402039-369337158-1183547419=:6742
Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="-2049402039-369337158-1183547419=:6742"

This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text,
while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.

---2049402039-369337158-1183547419=:6742
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=X-UNKNOWN; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE

Hi --

You're right. Somehow I missed that in the documentation.... did RTFM,
but obviously not carefully enough.

Still, I do find it pretty surprising.

All you're doing is assigning an object to a certain role. There's no
implication of automatic duplication of the object.

I got stung when I was actually
using the feature to initialize any entry to an array just to avoid the
business of

hash[key] ||=3D []

It doesn't do that anyway:

h =3D {}
h.default =3D []
p h["blah"] # [] (default value for undefined key)
p h # {} (no keys are defined)

The default value is for undefined keys, whereas hash[key] ||=3D []
actually sets a key.


David

--=20
* Books:
RAILS ROUTING (new! http://www.awprofessional.com/title/0321509242)
RUBY FOR RAILS (http://www.manning.com/black)
* Ruby/Rails training
& consulting: Ruby Power and Light, LLC (http://www.rubypal.com)
---2049402039-369337158-1183547419=:6742--
---2049402039-369337158-1183547419=:6742--

 

[Farhad Farzaneh]

Hi --


All you're doing is assigning an object to a certain role. There's no
implication of automatic duplication of the object.

I was thinking of it as initialization of the value of the item
accessed, but when you think of it as *the* default object it makes
sense.

I got stung when I was actually
using the feature to initialize any entry to an array just to avoid the
business of

hash[key] ||= []

It doesn't do that anyway:

h = {}
h.default = []
p h["blah"] # [] (default value for undefined key)
p h # {} (no keys are defined)

The default value is for undefined keys, whereas hash[key] ||= []
actually sets a key.

The misunderstanding on my part was that I thought it initialized the
key to the default object, rather than returned the actual default
object. In this context, if the key is automatically initialized to an
empty array, then when I wanted to assign something to it, I wouldn't
have to first make it an array.

 

[Just Another Victim of the Ambient Morality]

ruby allows one to change the default value. that is good, imho.
i think the surprise stems fr the fact that it is _too simple to change
the default. hey, it's ruby

kind regards -botp

You're right. Somehow I missed that in the documentation.... did RTFM,
but obviously not carefully enough.

Still, I do find it pretty surprising. I got stung when I was actually
using the feature to initialize any entry to an array just to avoid the
business of

hash[key] ||= []

Lesson learned.

I don't recall Ruby ever sacrificing power for Principle of Least
Surprise (indeed, it's arguable that this isn't even one of Ruby's design
goals...).
In particular, there are times (although not common) where you do want
the default value to be shared across key entries, in which case, Ruby
currently allows you to do so. Suppose Ruby behaved as you expected. How
would you do this? I think you'll quickly see that you can't and you will,
thus, see why Ruby does what it does...

 

[Farhad Farzaneh]

=> ["this"]
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

Copying is an interesting thing. For many objects there is a sane,
obvious
way to make a copy. But for many others it is not so clear. Consider for
instance, Hash.new($stdin). What should it mean, in this context, to
"copy"
$stdin? Or consider Hash.new(some_very_large_object). Do you want a copy
all
the time? Luckily, Hash does have a mechanism to acheive what you want:

x = Hash.new { |h,k| h[k] = [] } => {}
x[:test] => []
x[:test] << 'this' => ["this"]
x[:bar]

=> []

POLS also is matz.'s POLS.

Current behavior does (of course) make sense, and my confusion was due
to my misunderstanding of the feature and its intended use.

Thanks to all.