```thank you that really clears things up. after I posted that I thought about
it some more and that's pretty much what I came up with, but your
explanation was much better (and very amusing).

It sounds to me like either you're not quite understanding what "store
a value in a variable" means, or I'm not understanding your question.

My thought process was that since I assigned num to the result of a method
(rand()) that each time num was called it would run the method instead of
running only once and assigning the result of that one run to num.

On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 12:41 PM, Dave Aronson <
ruby-talk.list.2.TRex / codosaur.us> wrote:

> On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 3:06 PM, Micky Scandal <mickyscandal / gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > if I do something like this:
> > num = rand(10)
> > 5.times {puts num}
> > that will give me the same random number 5 times (ie. 2 2 2 2 2). but if
> I
> > do the same thing but don't store the random number in a variable:
> > 5.times {puts rand(10)}
> > then it works as expected (2 6 1 1 9 4). does anyone know why that is?
>
> It's doing exactly what you told it to do, not what you *meant*.
> That's a very annoying habit computers often seem to have.  ;-)
>
> Computer programming is the art of giving precise instructions to a
> very fast and very literal-minded *idiot*, who has absolutely zero
> skills about interpreting what you really meant.  So, to understand
> what's going on, pretend that instead of writing Ruby to a computer,
> you are speaking to a person.  He's a very stupid person who only
> understands the very simplest instructions.  However, he can do things
> very quickly, he will do exactly as instructed (if at all possible),
> and if you give a *name* to a set of instructions, he can remember
> what instructions that name referred to, so that you can reference
> that name in later instructions.
>
> So the first conversation is like this:
>
>   YOU: Write down the word "num" on a piece of paper.
>
>   HIM: Okay.  {writes word}
>
>   YOU: Roll this ten-sided die, and whatever number comes up, write
> that underneath the word "num" on that piece of paper.
>
>   HIM: Okay.  {rolls die, it comes up 2, he writes 2 under "num"}
>
>   YOU: When I say "execute block", what I mean is, that number you
> just wrote underneath "num", write that on the next empty line on this
> other piece of paper.
>
>   HIM: Okay.  {remembers what "execute block" means -- but doesn't *do* it
> yet}
>
>   YOU: Execute block, five times.
>
>   HIM: Okay.  {writes 2 five times on the second piece of paper}
>
> While what you *really* wanted, and the second chunk of code would
> represent, is:
>
>   YOU: When I say "execute block", what I mean is, roll this ten-sided
> die, and whatever number comes up, write that on the next empty line
> on this piece of paper.
>
>   HIM: Okay.  {remembers what "execute block" means -- but doesn't *do* it
> yet}
>
>   YOU: Execute block, five times.
>
>   HIM: Okay.  {five times, he rolls the die and writes whatever number
> comes up.}
>
> It's not a matter of storing anything in a variable, it's a matter of
> rolling the die again.
>
> > and
> > if I did want to store a random value in a variable, how would i then do
> so
> > without getting the same number every time I call it?
>
> It sounds to me like either you're not quite understanding what "store
> a value in a variable" means, or I'm not understanding your question.
> Once you store a value in a variable, the value does not change unless
> you store another value in that same variable.  (Barring of course
> random accidents like bit-flips caused by hardware interference, some
> the main reason we use variables, to store some value we just
> calculated (or got as input, or whatever), so we can access that same
> value again.
>
> On the other claw, there is a way that "5.times {puts num}" can give
> you five (probably) different random value.  You could make "num" not
> a variable, but a method that returns rand(10).  So, when the "puts
> num" block is executed, it isn't puts'ing the value of a variable, but
> of a method call.  Does that help?
>
> For now, I'll leave you to ponder this classic comic strip:
>
> https://xkcd.com/221/
>
> --
> Dave Aronson, consulting software developer of Codosaur.us,
> PullRequestRoulette.com, Blog.Codosaur.us, and Dare2XL.com.
>
> Unsubscribe: <mailto:ruby-talk-request / ruby-lang.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> <http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-talk>
>
(supressed text/html)
Unsubscribe: <mailto:ruby-talk-request / ruby-lang.org?subject=unsubscribe>
<http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-talk>
```