James Tucker
5/27/2007 7:09:00 AM
Jon Harrop wrote:
> M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
>> Well, I wouldn't call Ruby a "functional" programming language in the
>> same sense as Lisp/Scheme, Haskell and Erlang define themselves as
>> functional programming languages.
>
> Ok. I'm from an OCaml/F# background. May I just ask if anyone can translate
> the following OCaml one-liner into Ruby:
>
> let rec nest ?(n=2) f x = if n=0 then x else nest ~n:(n-1) f (f x)
>
> it nests "n" applications of "f" to "x" with "n" defaulting to 2 if it isn't
> specified, e.g. "nest ~n:3 f x" gives f(f(f(x))).
>
> This trivial example encapsulates much of what I love about OCaml and it
> doesn't translate well into any other language that I know.
>
If I understood your description, and the code correctly, this should work:
n ||=2; if n == 0; x else n.times do x = f x; end end
or should that be:
n ||=2; f ( x = if n == 0; x; else; n.times do x = f x; end; x; end )
of course, you could recurse using a temporary value rather than x, if
you wanted to.
initialize an example with:
def f x; 2 * x; end; x = 2
I'm sure there's probably a more 'functional' way also.
If I do have your example correct, I should think a generic recursor
function would not be hard to implement in ruby.
In fact:
def recurse func, depth, *initials
working = initials
depth.times do
working = func.call *working
end
working
end
Initialize like so:
def f x, y
[2 * x, 1 * y]
end
x,y=2,10
Use like so:
recurse method(:f), 2, x, y
n.b. this should work for arbitrary argument lengths provided the called
function returns an array of arguments for itself.
Does this satisfy?
Oh, I thought I'd add a block version too, just for all those people
that love blocks (and because it may be useful in this context):
def recurse_blk depth, *initials, &blk
working = initials
depth.times do
working = yield(*working)
end
working
end
example: recurse_blk(2, x, y) do |a,b| f(a,b) end
Enjoy.