In POODR 2nd edition, page 125, Sandy Metz writes
There are two new messages, default_chain and default_tire_size, sent
on lines 6 and 7 below. ... Wrapping the defaults in methods is good
practice in general
The code she's referring to is below. Note how the default value for chain and tire_size is set.
class Bicycle
attr_reader :size, :chain, :tire_size
def initialize(**opts)
#size = opts[:size]
#chain = opts[:chain] || default_chain
#tire_size = opts[:tire_size] || default_tire_size
end
def default_chain # <- common default
"11-speed"
end
def default_tire_size # <- common default
"2.1"
end
end
Why is this approach better than the familiar method of simply setting the default value inside initialize(), i.e.
def initialize(chain: "11-speed", tire_size:"2.1", **opts):
This book is about OOP design, so I'm guessing the answer has something to do with good OOP practice but I'm not sure what.
Methods are easier to work with. You can stub them in tests or change the implementation (load values from a config file or something like that), all without touching code that uses them.
But the bigger difference between your code and what Sandi suggests is the handling of falsy values.
In your code, it's possible to pass nils explicitly instead of the default value.
Bicycle.new(chain: nil, tire_size: "2.1", ...)
It might not be a hardcoded nil in your code, but come from somewhere else. Regardless, Bicycle will accept it and then maybe crash at runtime when you try to use the value.
Whereas code from the book does not accept nil values, no matter if it's a default nil or explicitly sent. If chain is falsy, "11-speed" will be used.
Using a method modularizes the code so that subclasses can override the behavior without overriding the initializer:
class MountainBike < Bicycle
def default_tire_size
'18'
end
end
If you used positional arguments initialize(chain="11-speed", tire_size="2.1", **opts) this actually is a major downgrade as you now have to remember the order of the arguments. Positional arguments should only be used when there is an obvious order to the arguments.
You can actually set the defaults for both positional and keyword arguments in the arguments list from a method like this:
class Bicycle
attr_reader :size, :chain, :tire_size
def initialize(tire_size: default_tire_size, chain: default_tire_size, **opts)
end
# ...
end
However its not done very often since it tends to make the method signature very cluttered.
Related
I am trying to write this inside my class:
class << self
def steps
#steps.call
end
def transitions
#transitions.call
end
def steps(&steps)
#steps = steps
end
def transitions(&transitions)
#transitions = transitions
end
end
That won't work since in Ruby, I can't do this kind of method overloading. Is there a way around this?
You can kind of do this with method aliasing and mixins, but the way you handle methods with different signatures in Ruby is with optional arguments:
def steps(&block)
block.present? ? #steps = block : #steps.call
end
This sort of delegation is a code smell, though. It usually means there's something awkward about the interface you've designed. In this case, something like this is probably better:
def steps
#steps.call
end
def steps=(&block)
#steps = block
end
This makes it clear to other objects in the system how to use this interface since it follows convention. It also allows for other cases, like passing a block into the steps method for some other use:
def steps(&block)
#steps.call(&block)
end
Ruby does not support method overloading (see "Why doesn't ruby support method overloading?" for the reason). You can, however, do something like:
def run(args*)
puts args
end
args will then be an array of the arguments passed in.
You can also pass in a hash of options to handle arguments, or you can pass in nil when you don't want to supply arguments and handle nil in your method body.
There seems to be this initialization idiom in the ruby world where you do
def initialize(*someargs)
#begin initialization
yield self #so that the user can customize writable attributes
#finish initialization
end
and the user then does:
some_object = SomeClass.new do |o|
o.attribute1 = 'foo'
o.attribute2 = 'bar'
end
The Rake TestTask uses this, for example.
Is there any point in continuing this now that ruby has keyword arguments?
Standard arguments could have easily replaced this idiom, but positional arguments are inconvenient to the user when there's many of them, and a hash argument is inconvenient to the developer as he or she would have to check for valid keys. The above idiom seemed to eliminate both inconveniences, but keyword args do too and additionally they eliminate the need for a block and a repeated yielded_something. initialization pattern.
E.g.:
class SomeClass
def initialize(attribute1: nil, attribute2: nil)
end
end
SomeClass.new(
attribute2: 'bar',
attribute1: 'foo'
)
#Order doesn't matter like with the block idiom
#Invalid keys raise an error, just like invalid attribute assignments in the block idiom
Is this correct or am I missing something?
I think before keyword arguments, just passing a hash of options would have been fine, so I don't think arguments were the issue. Probably this type of instantiation was done for readablity and flexibility.
It makes it much easier to read config options when written like this. And also it makes it easier to do something like this:
Config.new do |c|
c.default_address = c.default_address + "/new"
end
The block syntax allows the user to add their own logic and call methods within the class which is especially useful for configuration objects.
For instance, RSpec's configuration object allows you to do something like:
RSpec.configure do |config|
config.before :each do
# do something before each test
end
end
This particular example isn't performed in the initializer, but depending on use case it could very well be.
Are there any plans to implement ruby behavior similar to the CoffeeScript feature of specifying an instance variable name in a method argument list?
Like
class User
def initialize(#name, age)
# #name is set implicitly, but #age isn't.
# the local variable "age" will be set, just like it currently works.
end
end
I'm aware of this question: in Ruby can I automatically populate instance variables somehow in the initialize method? , but all the solutions (including my own) don't seem to fit the ruby simplicity philosophy.
And, would there be any downsides for having this behavior?
UPDATE
One of the reasons for this is the DRY (don't repeat yourself) philosophy of the ruby community. I often find myself needing to repeat the name of an argument variable because I want it to be assigned to the instance variable of the same name.
def initialize(name)
# not DRY
#name = name
end
One downside I can think of is that it may look as though a method is doing nothing if it has no body. If you're scanning quickly, this may look like a no-op. But I think given time, we can adapt.
Another downside: if you're setting other instance variables in the body, and you try to be readable by putting all the assignments at the beginning, it can take more cognitive "power" to see that there assignments also happening in the argument list. But I don't think this is any harder than, say, seeing a constant or method call and having to jump to its definition.
# notice: instance var assignments are happening in 2 places!
def initialize(#name)
#errors = []
end
After some pondering, I wondered if it's possible to actually get the argument names from a ruby method. If so, I could use a special argument prefix like "iv_" to indicate which args should be set as instance variables.
And it is possible: How to get argument names using reflection.
Yes! So I can maybe write a module to handle this for me. Then I got stuck because if I call the module's helper method, it doesn't know the values of the arguments because they're local to the caller. Ah, but ruby has Binding objects.
Here's the module (ruby 1.9 only):
module InstanceVarsFromArgsSlurper
# arg_prefix must be a valid local variable name, and I strongly suggest
# ending it with an underscore for readability of the slurped args.
def self.enable_for(mod, arg_prefix)
raise ArgumentError, "invalid prefix name" if arg_prefix =~ /[^a-z0-9_]/i
mod.send(:include, self)
mod.instance_variable_set(:#instance_vars_from_args_slurper_prefix, arg_prefix.to_s)
end
def slurp_args(binding)
defined_prefix = self.class.instance_variable_get(:#instance_vars_from_args_slurper_prefix)
method_name = caller[0][/`.*?'/][1..-2]
param_names = method(method_name).parameters.map{|p| p.last.to_s }
param_names.each do |pname|
# starts with and longer than prefix
if pname.start_with?(defined_prefix) and (pname <=> defined_prefix) == 1
ivar_name = pname[defined_prefix.size .. -1]
eval "##{ivar_name} = #{pname}", binding
end
end
nil
end
end
And here's the usage:
class User
InstanceVarsFromArgsSlurper.enable_for(self, 'iv_')
def initialize(iv_name, age)
slurp_args(binding) # this line does all the heavy lifting
p [:iv_name, iv_name]
p [:age, age]
p [:#name, #name]
p [:#age, #age]
end
end
user = User.new("Methuselah", 969)
p user
Output:
[:iv_name, "Methuselah"]
[:age, 969]
[:#name, "Methuselah"]
[:#age, nil]
#<User:0x00000101089448 #name="Methuselah">
It doesn't let you have an empty method body, but it is DRY. I'm sure it can be enhanced further by merely specifying which methods should have this behavior (implemented via alias_method), rather than calling slurp_args in each method - the specification would have to be after all the methods are defined though.
Note that the module and helper method name could probably be improved. I just used the first thing that came to mind.
Well, actually...
class User
define_method(:initialize) { |#name| }
end
User.new(:name).instance_variable_get :#name
# => :name
Works in 1.8.7, but not in 1.9.3. Now, just where did I learn about this...
I think you answered your own question, it does not fit the ruby simplicity philosophy. It would add additional complexity for how parameters are handled in methods and moves the logic for managing variables up into the method parameters. I can see the argument that it makes the code less readable a toss up, but it does strike me as not very verbose.
Some scenarios the # param would have to contend with:
def initialize( first, last, #scope, #opts = {} )
def search( #query, condition )
def ratchet( #*arg )
Should all of these scenarios be valid? Just the initialize? The #*arg seems particularly dicey in my mind. All these rules and exclusions make the Ruby language more complicated. For the benefit of auto instance variables, I do not think it would be worth it.
I'm thinking in:
class X
def new()
#a = 1
end
def m( other )
#a == other.#a
end
end
x = X.new()
y = X.new()
x.m( y )
But it doesn't works.
The error message is:
syntax error, unexpected tIVAR
How can I compare two private attributes from the same class then?
There have already been several good answers to your immediate problem, but I have noticed some other pieces of your code that warrant a comment. (Most of them trivial, though.)
Here's four trivial ones, all of them related to coding style:
Indentation: you are mixing 4 spaces for indentation and 5 spaces. It is generally better to stick to just one style of indentation, and in Ruby that is generally 2 spaces.
If a method doesn't take any parameters, it is customary to leave off the parantheses in the method definition.
Likewise, if you send a message without arguments, the parantheses are left off.
No whitespace after an opening paranthesis and before a closing one, except in blocks.
Anyway, that's just the small stuff. The big stuff is this:
def new
#a = 1
end
This does not do what you think it does! This defines an instance method called X#new and not a class method called X.new!
What you are calling here:
x = X.new
is a class method called new, which you have inherited from the Class class. So, you never call your new method, which means #a = 1 never gets executed, which means #a is always undefined, which means it will always evaluate to nil which means the #a of self and the #a of other will always be the same which means m will always be true!
What you probably want to do is provide a constructor, except Ruby doesn't have constructors. Ruby only uses factory methods.
The method you really wanted to override is the instance method initialize. Now you are probably asking yourself: "why do I have to override an instance method called initialize when I'm actually calling a class method called new?"
Well, object construction in Ruby works like this: object construction is split into two phases, allocation and initialization. Allocation is done by a public class method called allocate, which is defined as an instance method of class Class and is generally never overriden. It just allocates the memory space for the object and sets up a few pointers, however, the object is not really usable at this point.
That's where the initializer comes in: it is an instance method called initialize, which sets up the object's internal state and brings it into a consistent, fully defined state which can be used by other objects.
So, in order to fully create a new object, what you need to do is this:
x = X.allocate
x.initialize
[Note: Objective-C programmers may recognize this.]
However, because it is too easy to forget to call initialize and as a general rule an object should be fully valid after construction, there is a convenience factory method called Class#new, which does all that work for you and looks something like this:
class Class
def new(*args, &block)
obj = alloc
obj.initialize(*args, &block)
return obj
end
end
[Note: actually, initialize is private, so reflection has to be used to circumvent the access restrictions like this: obj.send(:initialize, *args, &block)]
Lastly, let me explain what's going wrong in your m method. (The others have already explained how to solve it.)
In Ruby, there is no way (note: in Ruby, "there is no way" actually translates to "there is always a way involving reflection") to access an instance variable from outside the instance. That's why it's called an instance variable after all, because it belongs to the instance. This is a legacy from Smalltalk: in Smalltalk there are no visibility restrictions, all methods are public. Thus, instance variables are the only way to do encapsulation in Smalltalk, and, after all, encapsulation is one of the pillars of OO. In Ruby, there are visibility restrictions (as we have seen above, for example), so it is not strictly necessary to hide instance variables for that reason. There is another reason, however: the Uniform Access Principle.
The UAP states that how to use a feature should be independent from how the feature is implemented. So, accessing a feature should always be the same, i.e. uniform. The reason for this is that the author of the feature is free to change how the feature works internally, without breaking the users of the feature. In other words, it's basic modularity.
This means for example that getting the size of a collection should always be the same, regardless of whether the size is stored in a variable, computed dynamically every time, lazily computed the first time and then stored in a variable, memoized or whatever. Sounds obvious, but e.g. Java gets this wrong:
obj.size # stored in a field
vs.
obj.getSize() # computed
Ruby takes the easy way out. In Ruby, there is only one way to use a feature: sending a message. Since there is only one way, access is trivially uniform.
So, to make a long story short: you simply can't access another instance's instance variable. you can only interact with that instance via message sending. Which means that the other object has to either provide you with a method (in this case at least of protected visibility) to access its instance variable, or you have to violate that object's encapsulation (and thus lose Uniform Access, increase coupling and risk future breakage) by using reflection (in this case instance_variable_get).
Here it is, in all its glory:
#!/usr/bin/env ruby
class X
def initialize(a=1)
#a = a
end
def m(other)
#a == other.a
end
protected
attr_reader :a
end
require 'test/unit'
class TestX < Test::Unit::TestCase
def test_that_m_evaluates_to_true_when_passed_two_empty_xs
x, y = X.new, X.new
assert x.m(y)
end
def test_that_m_evaluates_to_true_when_passed_two_xs_with_equal_attributes
assert X.new('foo').m(X.new('foo'))
end
end
Or alternatively:
class X
def m(other)
#a == other.instance_variable_get(:#a)
end
end
Which one of those two you chose is a matter of personly taste, I would say. The Set class in the standard library uses the reflection version, although it uses instance_eval instead:
class X
def m(other)
#a == other.instance_eval { #a }
end
end
(I have no idea why. Maybe instance_variable_get simply didn't exist when Set was written. Ruby is going to be 17 years old in February, some of the stuff in the stdlib is from the very early days.)
There are several methods
Getter:
class X
attr_reader :a
def m( other )
a == other.a
end
end
instance_eval:
class X
def m( other )
#a == other.instance_eval { #a }
end
end
instance_variable_get:
class X
def m( other )
#a == other.instance_variable_get :#a
end
end
I don't think ruby has a concept of "friend" or "protected" access, and even "private" is easily hacked around. Using a getter creates a read-only property, and instance_eval means you have to know the name of the instance variable, so the connotation is similar.
If you don't use the instance_eval option (as #jleedev posted), and choose to use a getter method, you can still keep it protected
If you want a protected method in Ruby, just do the following to create a getter that can only be read from objects of the same class:
class X
def new()
#a = 1
end
def m( other )
#a == other.a
end
protected
def a
#a
end
end
x = X.new()
y = X.new()
x.m( y ) # Returns true
x.a # Throws error
Not sure, but this might help:
Outside of the class, it's a little bit harder:
# Doesn't work:
irb -> a.#foo
SyntaxError: compile error
(irb):9: syntax error, unexpected tIVAR
from (irb):9
# But you can access it this way:
irb -> a.instance_variable_get(:#foo)
=> []
http://whynotwiki.com/Ruby_/_Variables_and_constants#Variable_scope.2Faccessibility
Learning ruby. I'm under the impression that boolean attributes should be named as follows:
my_boolean_attribute?
However, I get syntax errors when attempting to do the following:
class MyClass
attr_accessor :my_boolean_attribute?
def initialize
:my_boolean_attribute? = false
end
end
Apparently ruby is hating the "?". Is this the convention? What am I doing wrong?
Edit: three-years later; the times, they are a-changin'…
Julik's answer is the simplest and best way to tackle the problem these days:
class Foo
attr_accessor :dead
alias_method :dead?, :dead # will pick up the reader method
end
My answer to the original question follows, for posterity…
The short version:
You can't use a question mark in the name of an instance variable.
The longer version:
Take, for example, attr_accessor :foo — it's simply conceptually a bit of syntactic sugar for the following:
def foo
#foo
end
def foo=(newfoo)
#foo = newfoo
end
Furthermore, the question-mark suffix is mostly just a convention to indicate that the return value of a method is a boolean.
The best approximation I can make of what you're going for here…
class MyClass
def initialize
#awesome = true
end
def awesome?
#awesome
end
end
In this case, there may be a case to be made for using attr_accessor — after all, it may be explicit that you're working directly with a boolean attribute. Generally, I save the question-mark suffix for when I am implementing a method whose boolean return value is based on slightly more complex conditions than just the value of an attribute.
Cheers!
Edit, two years later, after a recent comment:
Ruby enforces certain naming conventions. Symbols in Ruby can't have question marks. Thus invocations of :my_boolean_attribute? both will fail with a NameError. Edit: not correct, just use the quoted syntax for a symbol, e.g., :"my_attribute?"
Symbols are immutable, attempting to assign to one will throw a SyntaxError.
The easiest way to quickly add a "question method" is to use aliasing for your reader method
class Foo
attr_accessor :dead
alias_method :dead?, :dead # will pick up the reader method
end
The attr_accessor symbol implies that the variable name is #my_boolean_attribute, so that's what you should be setting (not the symbol).
Also, you can't use ? for variables, just method names.
? is convention for methodnames, not variables. You can't use an instance variable named #foo?, however you could use a variable named #foo and name the (manually created) getter method foo? if you wanted to.
Monkey-patching metaprogramming - maybe it can be made more elegant, this is only a quick draft, and I haven't done metaprogramming for a little while...
# inject the convenience method into the definition of the Object class
class Object
def Object::bool_attr(attrname)
class_eval { define_method(attrname.to_s,
lambda { instance_variable_get('#' + attrname.to_s.chop) }) }
class_eval { define_method(attrname.to_s.chop+"=",
lambda { |x| instance_variable_set('#'+attrname.to_s.chop, x) }) }
end
end
### somewhere later
class MyClass
bool_attr :my_boolean_attribute?
def initialize
#my_boolean_attribute = true
end
end
# yet even more later
foo = MyClass.new
bar = MyClass.new
foo.my_boolean_attribute = 1
puts foo.my_boolean_attribute?
puts bar.my_boolean_attribute?
With this approach, you can be DRY and get the nice questionmark too. You just might need to pick a better name than "bool_attr", like, "bool_attr_accessor" or something similar.
The definitions that I made are a bit cranky, in a sense that the question mark is present in the original symbol. Probably a cleaner approach would be to avoid the questionmark in the symbol name and append it during the definition of the method - should be less confusing.
Oh, and almost forgot to include the obligatory link: Seeing metaclasses clearly
I looked through the answers, and while the accepted answer is on-target, it introduces "extra" noise in the class. The way I'd suggest solving this issue is:
class Animal
attr_writer :can_swim
def initialize(animal_type_name)
#can_swim = true
#animal_type_name = animal_type_name
end
def can_swim?
#can_swim
end
def to_s
#animal_type_name
end
end
dog = Animal.new('Dog in a bag')
dog.can_swim = false
puts "Can this #{dog} Swim? --- [#{dog_without_legs.can_swim? ? 'YEP!' : 'NOPE!'}]"