Is it possible to define own literals in Ruby?

up vote
1
down vote

favorite

For arbitrary-precision floating point decimal arithmetic in Ruby we can use the library BigDecimal. Unfortunately, compared to floats every explicitly given BigDecimal needs a lot of typing:

bd = BigDecimal("42.0")

# vs.

fl = 42.0

Is is possible to define own literals in Ruby?

So that for example the BigDecimal from above could be expressed like:

bd = 42°0

Or at least:

bd = %b(42.0)

asked Nov 18 at 12:12

Min-Soo Pipefeet

19310

Saves a little bit of typing: BD = BigDecimal. Gets you close to %b, with same amount of typing.
– Casper
Nov 18 at 12:28

1

@Casper You mean alias BD BigDecimal?
– Min-Soo Pipefeet
Nov 18 at 12:37

Yes that's what I meant, but I just realized you need the quotes for floats, so it's not the same as %b would be. Still a bit clunky, just shorter.
– Casper
Nov 18 at 13:46

add a comment |

up vote
1
down vote

favorite

For arbitrary-precision floating point decimal arithmetic in Ruby we can use the library BigDecimal. Unfortunately, compared to floats every explicitly given BigDecimal needs a lot of typing:

bd = BigDecimal("42.0")

# vs.

fl = 42.0

Is is possible to define own literals in Ruby?

So that for example the BigDecimal from above could be expressed like:

bd = 42°0

Or at least:

bd = %b(42.0)

asked Nov 18 at 12:12

Min-Soo Pipefeet

19310

Saves a little bit of typing: BD = BigDecimal. Gets you close to %b, with same amount of typing.
– Casper
Nov 18 at 12:28

1

@Casper You mean alias BD BigDecimal?
– Min-Soo Pipefeet
Nov 18 at 12:37

Yes that's what I meant, but I just realized you need the quotes for floats, so it's not the same as %b would be. Still a bit clunky, just shorter.
– Casper
Nov 18 at 13:46

add a comment |

up vote
1
down vote

favorite

For arbitrary-precision floating point decimal arithmetic in Ruby we can use the library BigDecimal. Unfortunately, compared to floats every explicitly given BigDecimal needs a lot of typing:

bd = BigDecimal("42.0")

# vs.

fl = 42.0

Is is possible to define own literals in Ruby?

So that for example the BigDecimal from above could be expressed like:

bd = 42°0

Or at least:

bd = %b(42.0)

asked Nov 18 at 12:12

Min-Soo Pipefeet

19310

For arbitrary-precision floating point decimal arithmetic in Ruby we can use the library BigDecimal. Unfortunately, compared to floats every explicitly given BigDecimal needs a lot of typing:

bd = BigDecimal("42.0")

# vs.

fl = 42.0

Is is possible to define own literals in Ruby?

So that for example the BigDecimal from above could be expressed like:

bd = 42°0

Or at least:

bd = %b(42.0)

ruby literals

asked Nov 18 at 12:12

Min-Soo Pipefeet

19310

asked Nov 18 at 12:12

Min-Soo Pipefeet

19310

asked Nov 18 at 12:12

Min-Soo Pipefeet

19310

asked Nov 18 at 12:12

Min-Soo Pipefeet

19310

asked Nov 18 at 12:12

Min-Soo Pipefeet

19310

Saves a little bit of typing: BD = BigDecimal. Gets you close to %b, with same amount of typing.
– Casper
Nov 18 at 12:28

1

@Casper You mean alias BD BigDecimal?
– Min-Soo Pipefeet
Nov 18 at 12:37

Yes that's what I meant, but I just realized you need the quotes for floats, so it's not the same as %b would be. Still a bit clunky, just shorter.
– Casper
Nov 18 at 13:46

add a comment |

Saves a little bit of typing: BD = BigDecimal. Gets you close to %b, with same amount of typing.
– Casper
Nov 18 at 12:28

1

@Casper You mean alias BD BigDecimal?
– Min-Soo Pipefeet
Nov 18 at 12:37

Yes that's what I meant, but I just realized you need the quotes for floats, so it's not the same as %b would be. Still a bit clunky, just shorter.
– Casper
Nov 18 at 13:46

Saves a little bit of typing: BD = BigDecimal. Gets you close to %b, with same amount of typing.
– Casper
Nov 18 at 12:28

@Casper You mean alias BD BigDecimal?
– Min-Soo Pipefeet
Nov 18 at 12:37

Yes that's what I meant, but I just realized you need the quotes for floats, so it's not the same as %b would be. Still a bit clunky, just shorter.
– Casper
Nov 18 at 13:46

add a comment |

2 Answers
2

active

oldest

votes

up vote
1
down vote

accepted

No, Ruby does not allow user-defined literals, overloading of literals, or any other similar thing.

Ruby does allow defining operator methods for existing operators, but not the definition of new operators, so even treating

42°0

as a binary operator ° will not work.

The closest you can get would be monkey-patching a ° method on Integer:

class Integer

  def °(decimal_part)

    BigDecimal("#{self}.#{decimal_part}")

  end

end

edited Nov 18 at 12:49

answered Nov 18 at 12:23

Jörg W Mittag

286k62352544

Thx. Smart solution. So, the closest we get with this solution is 42.° 0.
– Min-Soo Pipefeet
Nov 18 at 12:46

1

@Dorian: Ruby allows you to leave out the parentheses around an argument list. I am surprised that you have never seen it used, e.g. it is quite common to use puts "Hello" instead of puts("Hello"), require "bigdecimal" instead of require("bigdecimal"), attr_accessor :foo instead of attr_accessor(:foo), or include Foo instead of include(Foo). In all of these cases it is, in fact, not just merely common, it is idiomatic.
– Jörg W Mittag
Nov 18 at 16:52

add a comment |

up vote
0
down vote

You could have:

def b(number)

  BigDecimal(number)

end

Then b(42.0) would work, pretty close to %b(42.0)

answered Nov 18 at 15:52

Dorian

12.5k37383

No, it wouldn't. Because b(42.0) already imposes the loss of precision. b("42.0") would work. But this is no more so close to %b(42.0).
– Min-Soo Pipefeet
Nov 18 at 18:37

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: "1"
};
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',
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
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
});

}
});

draft saved

draft discarded

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});

Post as a guest

Name

Required, but never shown

StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53360723%2fis-it-possible-to-define-own-literals-in-ruby%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest

Name

Required, but never shown

2 Answers
2

active

oldest

votes

2 Answers
2

active

oldest

votes

up vote
1
down vote

accepted

No, Ruby does not allow user-defined literals, overloading of literals, or any other similar thing.

Ruby does allow defining operator methods for existing operators, but not the definition of new operators, so even treating

42°0

as a binary operator ° will not work.

The closest you can get would be monkey-patching a ° method on Integer:

class Integer

  def °(decimal_part)

    BigDecimal("#{self}.#{decimal_part}")

  end

end

edited Nov 18 at 12:49

answered Nov 18 at 12:23

Jörg W Mittag

286k62352544

Thx. Smart solution. So, the closest we get with this solution is 42.° 0.
– Min-Soo Pipefeet
Nov 18 at 12:46

1

@Dorian: Ruby allows you to leave out the parentheses around an argument list. I am surprised that you have never seen it used, e.g. it is quite common to use puts "Hello" instead of puts("Hello"), require "bigdecimal" instead of require("bigdecimal"), attr_accessor :foo instead of attr_accessor(:foo), or include Foo instead of include(Foo). In all of these cases it is, in fact, not just merely common, it is idiomatic.
– Jörg W Mittag
Nov 18 at 16:52

add a comment |

up vote
1
down vote

accepted

No, Ruby does not allow user-defined literals, overloading of literals, or any other similar thing.

Ruby does allow defining operator methods for existing operators, but not the definition of new operators, so even treating

42°0

as a binary operator ° will not work.

The closest you can get would be monkey-patching a ° method on Integer:

class Integer

  def °(decimal_part)

    BigDecimal("#{self}.#{decimal_part}")

  end

end

edited Nov 18 at 12:49

answered Nov 18 at 12:23

Jörg W Mittag

286k62352544

Thx. Smart solution. So, the closest we get with this solution is 42.° 0.
– Min-Soo Pipefeet
Nov 18 at 12:46

1

@Dorian: Ruby allows you to leave out the parentheses around an argument list. I am surprised that you have never seen it used, e.g. it is quite common to use puts "Hello" instead of puts("Hello"), require "bigdecimal" instead of require("bigdecimal"), attr_accessor :foo instead of attr_accessor(:foo), or include Foo instead of include(Foo). In all of these cases it is, in fact, not just merely common, it is idiomatic.
– Jörg W Mittag
Nov 18 at 16:52

add a comment |

up vote
1
down vote

accepted

No, Ruby does not allow user-defined literals, overloading of literals, or any other similar thing.

Ruby does allow defining operator methods for existing operators, but not the definition of new operators, so even treating

42°0

as a binary operator ° will not work.

The closest you can get would be monkey-patching a ° method on Integer:

class Integer

  def °(decimal_part)

    BigDecimal("#{self}.#{decimal_part}")

  end

end

edited Nov 18 at 12:49

answered Nov 18 at 12:23

Jörg W Mittag

286k62352544

No, Ruby does not allow user-defined literals, overloading of literals, or any other similar thing.

Ruby does allow defining operator methods for existing operators, but not the definition of new operators, so even treating

42°0

as a binary operator ° will not work.

The closest you can get would be monkey-patching a ° method on Integer:

class Integer

  def °(decimal_part)

    BigDecimal("#{self}.#{decimal_part}")

  end

end

edited Nov 18 at 12:49

answered Nov 18 at 12:23

Jörg W Mittag

286k62352544

edited Nov 18 at 12:49

answered Nov 18 at 12:23

Jörg W Mittag

286k62352544

answered Nov 18 at 12:23

Jörg W Mittag

286k62352544

answered Nov 18 at 12:23

Jörg W Mittag

286k62352544

Thx. Smart solution. So, the closest we get with this solution is 42.° 0.
– Min-Soo Pipefeet
Nov 18 at 12:46

1

@Dorian: Ruby allows you to leave out the parentheses around an argument list. I am surprised that you have never seen it used, e.g. it is quite common to use puts "Hello" instead of puts("Hello"), require "bigdecimal" instead of require("bigdecimal"), attr_accessor :foo instead of attr_accessor(:foo), or include Foo instead of include(Foo). In all of these cases it is, in fact, not just merely common, it is idiomatic.
– Jörg W Mittag
Nov 18 at 16:52

add a comment |

Thx. Smart solution. So, the closest we get with this solution is 42.° 0.
– Min-Soo Pipefeet
Nov 18 at 12:46

1

@Dorian: Ruby allows you to leave out the parentheses around an argument list. I am surprised that you have never seen it used, e.g. it is quite common to use puts "Hello" instead of puts("Hello"), require "bigdecimal" instead of require("bigdecimal"), attr_accessor :foo instead of attr_accessor(:foo), or include Foo instead of include(Foo). In all of these cases it is, in fact, not just merely common, it is idiomatic.
– Jörg W Mittag
Nov 18 at 16:52

Thx. Smart solution. So, the closest we get with this solution is 42.° 0.
– Min-Soo Pipefeet
Nov 18 at 12:46

@Dorian: Ruby allows you to leave out the parentheses around an argument list. I am surprised that you have never seen it used, e.g. it is quite common to use puts "Hello" instead of puts("Hello"), require "bigdecimal" instead of require("bigdecimal"), attr_accessor :foo instead of attr_accessor(:foo), or include Foo instead of include(Foo). In all of these cases it is, in fact, not just merely common, it is idiomatic.
– Jörg W Mittag
Nov 18 at 16:52

add a comment |

up vote
0
down vote

You could have:

def b(number)

  BigDecimal(number)

end

Then b(42.0) would work, pretty close to %b(42.0)

answered Nov 18 at 15:52

Dorian

12.5k37383

No, it wouldn't. Because b(42.0) already imposes the loss of precision. b("42.0") would work. But this is no more so close to %b(42.0).
– Min-Soo Pipefeet
Nov 18 at 18:37

add a comment |

up vote
0
down vote

You could have:

def b(number)

  BigDecimal(number)

end

Then b(42.0) would work, pretty close to %b(42.0)

answered Nov 18 at 15:52

Dorian

12.5k37383

No, it wouldn't. Because b(42.0) already imposes the loss of precision. b("42.0") would work. But this is no more so close to %b(42.0).
– Min-Soo Pipefeet
Nov 18 at 18:37

add a comment |

up vote
0
down vote

You could have:

def b(number)

  BigDecimal(number)

end

Then b(42.0) would work, pretty close to %b(42.0)

answered Nov 18 at 15:52

Dorian

12.5k37383

You could have:

def b(number)

  BigDecimal(number)

end

Then b(42.0) would work, pretty close to %b(42.0)

answered Nov 18 at 15:52

Dorian

12.5k37383

answered Nov 18 at 15:52

Dorian

12.5k37383

answered Nov 18 at 15:52

Dorian

12.5k37383

answered Nov 18 at 15:52

Dorian

12.5k37383

No, it wouldn't. Because b(42.0) already imposes the loss of precision. b("42.0") would work. But this is no more so close to %b(42.0).
– Min-Soo Pipefeet
Nov 18 at 18:37

add a comment |

No, it wouldn't. Because b(42.0) already imposes the loss of precision. b("42.0") would work. But this is no more so close to %b(42.0).
– Min-Soo Pipefeet
Nov 18 at 18:37

No, it wouldn't. Because b(42.0) already imposes the loss of precision. b("42.0") would work. But this is no more so close to %b(42.0).
– Min-Soo Pipefeet
Nov 18 at 18:37

add a comment |

draft saved

draft discarded

draft saved

draft discarded

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});

Post as a guest

Name

Required, but never shown

Post as a guest

Name

Required, but never shown

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});

Post as a guest

Name

Required, but never shown

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});

Post as a guest

Name

Required, but never shown

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});

Post as a guest

Name

Required, but never shown

Name

Required, but never shown

Name

Required, but never shown

This page is only for reference, If you need detailed information, please check here

搜尋此網誌

Argthtjtr