Re: Scheme's (cond ((assertion) (value))...(else (value))) statement implemented in ruby?

timr wrote:
> Hi Rubyists,
> I love ruby, but am learning scheme and kinda like the (cond
> ((assertion) (value))...(else (value))) syntax

I am a little bit confused by your question. In the subject line you
are asking about a Ruby equivalent to Scheme's 'cond' statement. But
AFAIK, Scheme doesn't *have* statements, it only has epxressions and
definitions.

If you are looking for an equivalent of the 'cond' derived conditional
expression, then Ruby has something which is exactly equivalent
(modulo the guarantees about proper tail calls) to the specification
in clause 11.4.5 of the 6th Revised Report on the Algorithmic Language
Scheme: the "'case' expression without expression" (which is quite a
mouthful ...)

    case
    when <test> then <expression>
    when <test>
      <expression>
      <expression>
    else
      <expression>
    end

> for what would normally
> look like this in ruby:
> 
> if (assertion 1)
>   value 1
> elsif (assertion 2)
>   value 2
> else
>   default
> end
> 
> I find scheme's cond syntax more quickly digestible since it reads
> like a table.
> (cond
>     ((assertion 1) (value 1))
>     ((assertion 2) (value 2))
>                 (else (default)))

That's equivalent (again, modulo tail context guarantees) to

    case
    when assertion 1 then value 1
    when assertion 2 then value 2
    else                  default
    end

> So I wondered if I could get a similar looking function in ruby. Here
> is an attempt:
> 
> class Object
>   alias l lambda
> 
>   def cond(tests)
>     #acts similar to scheme/LISP cond function using hash
>     #key => value rather than scheme's (cond (assertion)(value)...
> (else(value)))
>     tests.each_pair do |k,v|
>       if k.call
>         v.call
>         break
>       else
>         next
>       end
>     end
>   end
> 
>   def end_cond; l{true}; end
> end
> 
> cond  l{3 < 2}      =>  l{ puts "3 is less than 2"},
>          l{3 > 3}      =>  l{ puts "3 is greater than 3"},
>          l{3+1 > 4}  =>  l{ puts "4 is greater than 4"},
>        end_cond    =>  l{ puts "hey, it works!"}
> 
> # >> hey, it works!

AFAICS, this *does not* behave like either Scheme's 'cond' or Ruby's
'case' expression without expression. In particular, it doesn't seem
to return the value of the evaluated consequence expression. Instead,
it simply returns the hash that was passed in, which doesn't seem
particularly useful to me.

This seems to be closer to what you are looking for:

    class Object
      private

      def cond(conds)
        conds.each {|t, e| if t.is_a?(Proc) then t.() else t end and return e.() }
      end
    end

    puts cond ->{  3  < 2 } => ->{ '3 is less than 2' },
              ->{  3  > 3 } => ->{ '3 is greater than 3' },
              ->{ 3+1 > 4 } => ->{ '4 is greater than 4' },
                         else: ->{ 'hey, it works!' }

> I was surprised that the hash seems not to mix-up the order of the k:v
> pairs like it would if the keys were strings or symbols. I suppose
> because they are lambda's, the hash doesn't bother alphabetizing them
> during for the .each_pair method. Since they stay ordered, this table-
> like if;elsif;else seems to work fine. Can anyone think of any issues
> to using this approach? Can it give rise to unpredicted values--due to
> some behind the curtain hash key sorting?

In Ruby 1.9, hashes are always guaranteed to be ordered by insertion.
In Ruby 1.8, hashes are always unordered, regardless of whether their
keys are symbols, strings, procs or unicorns.

> Or can anyone come up with a cleaner syntax than a hash of lambdas for 
> both keys and values?

In Ruby 1.9, I think it is just fine. In Ruby 1.8, you would have to
use something which is ordered, like an array, or you would have to
require that the branches are mutually exclusive, which of course
rules out the possiblity of an 'else' branch.

What I am not entirely clear about is what's wrong with

    puts case
         when  3  < 2 then '3 is less than 2'
         when  3  > 3 then '3 is greater than 3'
         when 3+1 > 4 then '4 is greater than 4'
         else              'hey, it works!'
         end

That looks just fine to me.

Another thing that bugs me is that Ruby is an object-oriented
language, but I don't see an obvious object that the cond method
should belong to.

jwm