Unique Marketing, Guaranteed Results.

Don’t Call it “Case Equality”

July 30th, 2009 by Brett Rasmussen

I’ve recently learned to love Ruby’s “triple equals” operator, sometimes referred to as the “case equality operator”. But I stand with Hal Fulton, author of The Ruby Way, in disliking the latter term, since there’s no real equality going on with its usage. It’s also not really an operator–it’s a method–but I’m not going to complain too loudly about that one, considering that I prefer the term “relationship operator”. I’m also not opposed to “trequals”, which has a certain jeunesse doree about it. You could say “trequals” at a trendy restaurant with post-modern decor and everyone wearing black.

With one equals sign you assign a value to a variable:

composer = "Beethoven"

With two equals signs you see if two things are the same thing:

puts "9th Symphony" if melody == "Ode to Joy"

With three equal signs you get, well, essentially you get a placeholder that you can use to define arbitrary relationships between objects which you will mostly never call by hand yourself but which Ruby will call for you when you run case statements:

class Composer
  attr_accessor :works
  def initialize(*works)
    @works = works

  def ===(work)

The trequals operator (ok, method) returns true or false depending on a condition I’ve defined. Now I can test a given work against a bunch of composer objects using a case statement:

beethoven = Composer.new("Fur Elise", "Missa Solemnis", "9th Symphony")
mozart = Composer.new("The Magic Flute", "C Minor Mass", "Requiem")
bach = Composer.new("St. Matthew Passion", "Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring")

case "Requiem"
  when beethoven
  when mozart
  when bach

The trequals is called behind the scenes by Ruby. Since I’ve defined it on the Composer class to look for a matching entry in that composer’s list of works, the case statement becomes a way of running different code based on which composer wrote the work in question.

This example is contrived, of course, because if it was this simple a need you’d probably just check “some_composer.works.include?(‘Requiem’)” by hand. But the example demonstrates the crucial point, that there’s no equality being checked for. A work in no way is the composer. It’s a relationship that the case statement is checking for–the given work was written by the given composer–and it’s a relationship that I’ve defined explicitly for my own music-categorizing purposes.

That case statements work this way is yet another example of the magical and powerful stuff that characterizes Ruby. Instead of simply a strict equality match, we can now switch against multiple types, all with different definitions of what qualifies as a relationship:

class String
  def ===(other_str)
    self.strip[0, other_str.length].downcase == other_str.downcase

class Array
  def ===(str)
    self.any? {|elem| elem.include?(str)}

class Fixnum
  def ===(str)
    self == str.to_i

string_to_test = "99 Monkeys"
case string_to_test
  when "99 monkeys jumping on the bed"
  when ["77 Rhinos Jumped", "88 Giraffes Danced", "99 Monkeys Sang"]
  when 99
  when /^\d+\s+\w+/

Here, if the string to be tested is the first portion of the larger string (case-insensitively speaking), if it is part of any of the elements in the specified array, if it starts out with 99 (string.to_i returns only leading integers), or if it matches the given regular expression, the respective code will be run. In this case, it matches all of them, so only the code for the first case–the string match–will be run (in Ruby, switches automatically stop at the first match, so you don’t need to give each case its own “end” line).

Note that I didn’t need to define (actually, override) the trequals on the regular expression. The relationship operator is a method on Object, so all Ruby objects inherit it. If not overridden, it defaults to a simple double-equals equality check (thus contributing to the momentum of the misnomer “case equality”). But some standard Ruby classes already come with their own definition for trequals. Regexp and Range are the notable examples: Regexp defines it to mean a match on that regular expression, and Range defines it to mean a number that falls somewhere within that range, as such:

num = 77
case num
  when 1..50
    puts "found a lower number"
  when 51..100
    puts "found a higher number"

Note that since === is really a method, it is not commutative, meaning you can’t swap sides on the call; “a === b” is not the same as “b === a”. If you think through it, it makes sense. You’re really calling “a.===(b)”. If a is an array, you’re calling a method on Array, which will be defined for Array’s own purposes. If b is a string, and you swapped the order, you’d be calling a String method, which would have a different purpose for its trequals operator, so “b.===(a)” would most likely be something quite different. This concept also means that the variable you’re testing in a case statement is being passed as a parameter to the trequals methods of the various case objects, not the other way around. These two snippets are equivalent:

case "St. Matthew Passion"
  when mozart

process_mozart_work if mozart === "St. Matthew Passion"

Note that the second snippet was not

process_mozart_work if "St. Matthew Passion" === mozart

It’s also good (although I’m not sure how useful) to know that the relationship operator is used implicitly by Ruby when rescuing errors in a begin-rescue block.

rescue ArgumentError, SyntaxError
rescue IOError
rescue NoMemoryError

In this example, Ruby runs ArgumentError.===, passing it the global variable $!, which holds the most recent error. If that returns false, it moves along, doing the same with SyntaxError, IOError, and NoMemoryError, each in turn. With errors, the trequals is defined to just compare the class of the error that occurred with that of each candidate class (in this case, ArgumentError, etc.) and its ancestors.

It took me a long time before I cared about this little Ruby feature, which I think is sad. I think I just saw the phrase “case equality” and thought something like “Hmm, another subtle variation on what it means for two objects to be equal. I’m sure I’ll have occasion to use this someday. I’ll figure it out then.” But it’s more useful than that, and I think it would get better traction without the specious nomenclature.

Filed under: Programming,Tutorials — Tags: — Brett Rasmussen @ 10:47 am on July 30, 2009

1 Comment

  1. That last point about error rescue using === also begets the idea of defining === for a customer error class. For example, a JenkinsErrorCatcher class could define === as returning true for any Exception subclass that has a to_s that contains “Jenkins”. Thus, we could have error handling based not just on class types, but also on any other exception data.

    (Of course, the example is lame, but the implications are huge.)


    Comment by Earl Jenkins — August 5, 2010 @ 3:21 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

Copyright © 2005-2016 PMA Media Group. All Rights Reserved &nbsp