Is there a way in Ruby to make just any one out of many keyword arguments required? Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)Ruby on rails complex select statement…there has to be a better way!What if any design issues are there in this method of loading configuration data from YAML in Ruby?Is there a more succinct way to write this Ruby function?Are there any glaring issues with the way I write and test my Ruby classes?Pretty way of keeping sensitive info out of a logged command string in Ruby?Machi Koro card/dice game
When is phishing education going too far?
Is there a documented rationale why the House Ways and Means chairman can demand tax info?
Letter Boxed validator
Does surprise arrest existing movement?
Did Xerox really develop the first LAN?
How do I mention the quality of my school without bragging
Proof involving the spectral radius and Jordan Canonical form
Is there a Spanish version of "dot your i's and cross your t's" that includes the letter 'ñ'?
Models of set theory where not every set can be linearly ordered
Is there a "higher Segal conjecture"?
How to bypass password on Windows XP account?
Is the Standard Deduction better than Itemized when both are the same amount?
Single word antonym of "flightless"
How to find all the available tools in macOS terminal?
What's the purpose of writing one's academic bio in 3rd person?
What makes black pepper strong or mild?
Output the ŋarâþ crîþ alphabet song without using (m)any letters
Bonus calculation: Am I making a mountain out of a molehill?
How to motivate offshore teams and trust them to deliver?
Sorting numerically
How do I keep my slimes from escaping their pens?
Can inflation occur in a positive-sum game currency system such as the Stack Exchange reputation system?
Can a non-EU citizen traveling with me come with me through the EU passport line?
What does the "x" in "x86" represent?
Is there a way in Ruby to make just any one out of many keyword arguments required?
Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)Ruby on rails complex select statement…there has to be a better way!What if any design issues are there in this method of loading configuration data from YAML in Ruby?Is there a more succinct way to write this Ruby function?Are there any glaring issues with the way I write and test my Ruby classes?Pretty way of keeping sensitive info out of a logged command string in Ruby?Machi Koro card/dice game
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
$begingroup$
I am trying to write a method, that works with three types of arguments, but requires only one of them.
def convert(arg_a: 1, arg_b: 2, arg_c: 'foo')
end
Please note, that both: arg_a, and arg_b are the same type (let's say Numeric), so using one mandatory argument, and then making decision based on the input type won't work here.
At this point my code looks like this:
def convert(arg_a: nil, arg_b: nil, arg_c: nil)
if arg_b.nil? && arg_c.nil? && arg_a
# do something with arg_a
elsif arg_a.nil? && arg_c.nil? && arg_b
# do something with arg_b
elsif arg_a.nil? && arg_b.nil? && arg_c
# do something with arg_c
else
raise ArgumentError
end
In my opinion this code smells a little, and can be improved. Any thoughts?
ruby
$endgroup$
migrated from stackoverflow.com 9 hours ago
This question came from our site for professional and enthusiast programmers.
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I am trying to write a method, that works with three types of arguments, but requires only one of them.
def convert(arg_a: 1, arg_b: 2, arg_c: 'foo')
end
Please note, that both: arg_a, and arg_b are the same type (let's say Numeric), so using one mandatory argument, and then making decision based on the input type won't work here.
At this point my code looks like this:
def convert(arg_a: nil, arg_b: nil, arg_c: nil)
if arg_b.nil? && arg_c.nil? && arg_a
# do something with arg_a
elsif arg_a.nil? && arg_c.nil? && arg_b
# do something with arg_b
elsif arg_a.nil? && arg_b.nil? && arg_c
# do something with arg_c
else
raise ArgumentError
end
In my opinion this code smells a little, and can be improved. Any thoughts?
ruby
$endgroup$
migrated from stackoverflow.com 9 hours ago
This question came from our site for professional and enthusiast programmers.
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I am trying to write a method, that works with three types of arguments, but requires only one of them.
def convert(arg_a: 1, arg_b: 2, arg_c: 'foo')
end
Please note, that both: arg_a, and arg_b are the same type (let's say Numeric), so using one mandatory argument, and then making decision based on the input type won't work here.
At this point my code looks like this:
def convert(arg_a: nil, arg_b: nil, arg_c: nil)
if arg_b.nil? && arg_c.nil? && arg_a
# do something with arg_a
elsif arg_a.nil? && arg_c.nil? && arg_b
# do something with arg_b
elsif arg_a.nil? && arg_b.nil? && arg_c
# do something with arg_c
else
raise ArgumentError
end
In my opinion this code smells a little, and can be improved. Any thoughts?
ruby
$endgroup$
I am trying to write a method, that works with three types of arguments, but requires only one of them.
def convert(arg_a: 1, arg_b: 2, arg_c: 'foo')
end
Please note, that both: arg_a, and arg_b are the same type (let's say Numeric), so using one mandatory argument, and then making decision based on the input type won't work here.
At this point my code looks like this:
def convert(arg_a: nil, arg_b: nil, arg_c: nil)
if arg_b.nil? && arg_c.nil? && arg_a
# do something with arg_a
elsif arg_a.nil? && arg_c.nil? && arg_b
# do something with arg_b
elsif arg_a.nil? && arg_b.nil? && arg_c
# do something with arg_c
else
raise ArgumentError
end
In my opinion this code smells a little, and can be improved. Any thoughts?
ruby
ruby
asked 10 hours ago
ciejjciejj
214
214
migrated from stackoverflow.com 9 hours ago
This question came from our site for professional and enthusiast programmers.
migrated from stackoverflow.com 9 hours ago
This question came from our site for professional and enthusiast programmers.
add a comment |
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
There are lots of ways of improving this; at a high level, I'd say it's possible the method itself should be broken up into multiple methods with distinct names, because a method that accepts three different inputs and does three different things with them probably doesn't have a single responsibility.
That not withstanding, you can clean this method up by separating the argument validation from the rest of the logic. There are lots of ways of doing this, but if you just need exactly one non-nil argument, you can use something along these lines:
def convert(arg_a: nil, arg_b: nil, arg_c: nil)
raise ArgumentError unless [arg_a, arg_b, arg_c].compact.one?
if arg_a
# do something with arg_a
elsif arg_b
# do something with arg_b
elsif arg_c
# do something with arg_c
end
end
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
The solution proposed by you does makes the code much clearer - I think this is the answer I was looking for. This convert method is only for argument validation - based on it other methods are called.
$endgroup$
– ciejj
9 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
From what I can tell, your implementation only makes use of one of the three arguments, and only really expects (or allows) a single argument at a time.
i.e., with your current implementation, this is what an error-free call-site looks like:
convert(arg_a: 1)
convert(arg_b: 2)
convert(arg_c: 'foo')
If the method were called with two or more arguments (any of them), it would raise an ArgumentError
, so really, this method can only be called with a single argument.
Given that you're already using keyword arguments with a default value of nil
, I cannot see how this is any better than simply writing three different methods that handle the three values. Therefore, something like...
def convert_arg_a(a)
# Handle a...
end
def convert_arg_b(b)
# Handle b...
end
def convert_arg_c(c)
# Handle c...
end
...should be able to do exactly what is possible with the implementation you've described, with none of the branching.
New contributor
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function ()
StackExchange.using("snippets", function ()
StackExchange.snippets.init();
);
);
, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "196"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fcodereview.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f217502%2fis-there-a-way-in-ruby-to-make-just-any-one-out-of-many-keyword-arguments-requir%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
There are lots of ways of improving this; at a high level, I'd say it's possible the method itself should be broken up into multiple methods with distinct names, because a method that accepts three different inputs and does three different things with them probably doesn't have a single responsibility.
That not withstanding, you can clean this method up by separating the argument validation from the rest of the logic. There are lots of ways of doing this, but if you just need exactly one non-nil argument, you can use something along these lines:
def convert(arg_a: nil, arg_b: nil, arg_c: nil)
raise ArgumentError unless [arg_a, arg_b, arg_c].compact.one?
if arg_a
# do something with arg_a
elsif arg_b
# do something with arg_b
elsif arg_c
# do something with arg_c
end
end
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
The solution proposed by you does makes the code much clearer - I think this is the answer I was looking for. This convert method is only for argument validation - based on it other methods are called.
$endgroup$
– ciejj
9 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There are lots of ways of improving this; at a high level, I'd say it's possible the method itself should be broken up into multiple methods with distinct names, because a method that accepts three different inputs and does three different things with them probably doesn't have a single responsibility.
That not withstanding, you can clean this method up by separating the argument validation from the rest of the logic. There are lots of ways of doing this, but if you just need exactly one non-nil argument, you can use something along these lines:
def convert(arg_a: nil, arg_b: nil, arg_c: nil)
raise ArgumentError unless [arg_a, arg_b, arg_c].compact.one?
if arg_a
# do something with arg_a
elsif arg_b
# do something with arg_b
elsif arg_c
# do something with arg_c
end
end
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
The solution proposed by you does makes the code much clearer - I think this is the answer I was looking for. This convert method is only for argument validation - based on it other methods are called.
$endgroup$
– ciejj
9 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There are lots of ways of improving this; at a high level, I'd say it's possible the method itself should be broken up into multiple methods with distinct names, because a method that accepts three different inputs and does three different things with them probably doesn't have a single responsibility.
That not withstanding, you can clean this method up by separating the argument validation from the rest of the logic. There are lots of ways of doing this, but if you just need exactly one non-nil argument, you can use something along these lines:
def convert(arg_a: nil, arg_b: nil, arg_c: nil)
raise ArgumentError unless [arg_a, arg_b, arg_c].compact.one?
if arg_a
# do something with arg_a
elsif arg_b
# do something with arg_b
elsif arg_c
# do something with arg_c
end
end
$endgroup$
There are lots of ways of improving this; at a high level, I'd say it's possible the method itself should be broken up into multiple methods with distinct names, because a method that accepts three different inputs and does three different things with them probably doesn't have a single responsibility.
That not withstanding, you can clean this method up by separating the argument validation from the rest of the logic. There are lots of ways of doing this, but if you just need exactly one non-nil argument, you can use something along these lines:
def convert(arg_a: nil, arg_b: nil, arg_c: nil)
raise ArgumentError unless [arg_a, arg_b, arg_c].compact.one?
if arg_a
# do something with arg_a
elsif arg_b
# do something with arg_b
elsif arg_c
# do something with arg_c
end
end
edited 9 hours ago
answered 9 hours ago
meagarmeagar
878513
878513
$begingroup$
The solution proposed by you does makes the code much clearer - I think this is the answer I was looking for. This convert method is only for argument validation - based on it other methods are called.
$endgroup$
– ciejj
9 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The solution proposed by you does makes the code much clearer - I think this is the answer I was looking for. This convert method is only for argument validation - based on it other methods are called.
$endgroup$
– ciejj
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
The solution proposed by you does makes the code much clearer - I think this is the answer I was looking for. This convert method is only for argument validation - based on it other methods are called.
$endgroup$
– ciejj
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
The solution proposed by you does makes the code much clearer - I think this is the answer I was looking for. This convert method is only for argument validation - based on it other methods are called.
$endgroup$
– ciejj
9 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
From what I can tell, your implementation only makes use of one of the three arguments, and only really expects (or allows) a single argument at a time.
i.e., with your current implementation, this is what an error-free call-site looks like:
convert(arg_a: 1)
convert(arg_b: 2)
convert(arg_c: 'foo')
If the method were called with two or more arguments (any of them), it would raise an ArgumentError
, so really, this method can only be called with a single argument.
Given that you're already using keyword arguments with a default value of nil
, I cannot see how this is any better than simply writing three different methods that handle the three values. Therefore, something like...
def convert_arg_a(a)
# Handle a...
end
def convert_arg_b(b)
# Handle b...
end
def convert_arg_c(c)
# Handle c...
end
...should be able to do exactly what is possible with the implementation you've described, with none of the branching.
New contributor
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
From what I can tell, your implementation only makes use of one of the three arguments, and only really expects (or allows) a single argument at a time.
i.e., with your current implementation, this is what an error-free call-site looks like:
convert(arg_a: 1)
convert(arg_b: 2)
convert(arg_c: 'foo')
If the method were called with two or more arguments (any of them), it would raise an ArgumentError
, so really, this method can only be called with a single argument.
Given that you're already using keyword arguments with a default value of nil
, I cannot see how this is any better than simply writing three different methods that handle the three values. Therefore, something like...
def convert_arg_a(a)
# Handle a...
end
def convert_arg_b(b)
# Handle b...
end
def convert_arg_c(c)
# Handle c...
end
...should be able to do exactly what is possible with the implementation you've described, with none of the branching.
New contributor
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
From what I can tell, your implementation only makes use of one of the three arguments, and only really expects (or allows) a single argument at a time.
i.e., with your current implementation, this is what an error-free call-site looks like:
convert(arg_a: 1)
convert(arg_b: 2)
convert(arg_c: 'foo')
If the method were called with two or more arguments (any of them), it would raise an ArgumentError
, so really, this method can only be called with a single argument.
Given that you're already using keyword arguments with a default value of nil
, I cannot see how this is any better than simply writing three different methods that handle the three values. Therefore, something like...
def convert_arg_a(a)
# Handle a...
end
def convert_arg_b(b)
# Handle b...
end
def convert_arg_c(c)
# Handle c...
end
...should be able to do exactly what is possible with the implementation you've described, with none of the branching.
New contributor
$endgroup$
From what I can tell, your implementation only makes use of one of the three arguments, and only really expects (or allows) a single argument at a time.
i.e., with your current implementation, this is what an error-free call-site looks like:
convert(arg_a: 1)
convert(arg_b: 2)
convert(arg_c: 'foo')
If the method were called with two or more arguments (any of them), it would raise an ArgumentError
, so really, this method can only be called with a single argument.
Given that you're already using keyword arguments with a default value of nil
, I cannot see how this is any better than simply writing three different methods that handle the three values. Therefore, something like...
def convert_arg_a(a)
# Handle a...
end
def convert_arg_b(b)
# Handle b...
end
def convert_arg_c(c)
# Handle c...
end
...should be able to do exactly what is possible with the implementation you've described, with none of the branching.
New contributor
New contributor
answered 9 hours ago
Hari GopalHari Gopal
1211
1211
New contributor
New contributor
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Code Review Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fcodereview.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f217502%2fis-there-a-way-in-ruby-to-make-just-any-one-out-of-many-keyword-arguments-requir%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown