Today I came across some strange behaviour of Array element assignment:
arr = ["a","b"]
arr2 = [1,2]
arr.unshift(arr2) #= [[1, 2], "a", "b"]
arr.push(arr2) #=> ["a", "b", [1, 2]]
This makes sense, however:
arr[0,0] = arr2 #=> [1, 2, "a", "b"]
I know that in [0,0]
the first zero is index
and second is the number of elements to be effected in that array starting from index
.
In my thoughts it should be the same as the unshift
, but it's not.
Can any one explain the behavior?
If we dive into the ruby source code, we'll find a function named rb_ary_splice called when array assignment happens with three arguments (i.e. index, length, and new value):
static VALUE
rb_ary_aset(int argc, VALUE *argv, VALUE ary)
{
long offset, beg, len;
if (argc == 3) {
rb_ary_modify_check(ary);
beg = NUM2LONG(argv[0]);
len = NUM2LONG(argv[1]);
rb_ary_splice(ary, beg, len, argv[2]);
return argv[2];
}
[...]
And if we follow along in rb_ary_splice
we'll happen upon where the magic happens:
static void
rb_ary_splice(VALUE ary, long beg, long len, VALUE rpl)
{
long rlen;
long olen;
if (len < 0) rb_raise(rb_eIndexError, "negative length (%ld)", len);
olen = RARRAY_LEN(ary);
[...]
if (len != rlen) {
RARRAY_PTR_USE(ary, ptr,
MEMMOVE(ptr + beg + rlen, ptr + beg + len,
VALUE, olen - (beg + len)));
ARY_SET_LEN(ary, alen);
}
if (rlen > 0) {
MEMMOVE(RARRAY_PTR(ary) + beg, RARRAY_CONST_PTR(rpl), VALUE, rlen);
}
}
RB_GC_GUARD(rpl);
}
First it makes room in the array for the new elements and updates the length:
RARRAY_PTR_USE(ary, ptr,
MEMMOVE(ptr + beg + rlen, ptr + beg + len,
VALUE, olen - (beg + len)));
ARY_SET_LEN(ary, alen);
Then through the magic of C pointers, it inserts the new element(s):
MEMMOVE(RARRAY_PTR(ary) + beg, RARRAY_CONST_PTR(rpl), VALUE, rlen);
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With