This is probably easy to do! I’m not able envision the loop yet, I was thinking about a nested for loop but not quite sure how to alternate between the two hashes.
Lets say I have a class with a def that containts two hash tables:
class Teststuff
def test_stuff
letters = { "0" => " A ", "1" => " B ", "2" => " C " }
position = {"1" => "one ", "2"=> " two ", "3"=> " three ", "4"=>" four " }
my_array=[0,1,2,2] #this represents user input stored in an array valid to 4 elements
array_size = my_array.size #this represents the size of the user inputed array
element_indexer = my_array.size # parellel assignment so I can use same array for array in dex
array_start_index = element_indexer-1 #give me the ability later to get start at index zero for my array
#for loop?? downto upto??
# trying to get loop to grab the first number "0" in element position "0", grab the hash values then
# the loop repeats and grabs the second number "1" in element position "1" grab the hash values
# the loop repeats and grabs the third number "2" in elements position "2" grab the hash values
# the final iteration grabs the fourth number "2" in elements position "3" grab the hash values
# all this gets returned when called. Out put from puts statement after grabing hash values
# is: **A one B two C three C four**
return a_string
end
end
How do I go about returning string output to the screen like this:
**A one B two C three C four**
or simply letter position letter position…
Thanks for the help, put code up so I can try on my editor!
I think I figured out what it is you want, although I still have no idea what
array_size,element_indexer,array_start_indexandTestStuffare for.[I took the liberty of reformatting your code to standard Ruby coding style.]
However, everything would be much simpler, if there weren’t all those type conversions, and all those superfluous spaces. Also, the method would be much more useful, if it actually had a way to return different results, instead of always returning the same thing, because at the moment, it is actually exactly equivalent to
Something along these lines would make much more sense:
If you don’t want to pollute the
Objectnamespace with your method, you could do something like this: