Monkey patching: Does define_method take precedence over bind? - ruby

In the below code snippet, I monkey patch Foo#bar with a define_method block. After I initialize a new instance of Foo, I overwrite it with a bind call to the parent class bar method, but when I call the method the block defined by the define_method block is called. Why doesn't the bind call change the behavior of the method?
class OriginalFoo
def bar
puts 'in OriginalFoo!'
end
end
class Foo < OriginalFoo
def bar
puts 'in Foo'
end
end
class Foo < OriginalFoo
old_bar = instance_method(:bar)
define_method(:bar) do
puts 'in define_method block'
old_bar.bind(self).call
end
end
foo_instance = Foo.new # => #<Foo:0x00007fe3ff037038>
OriginalFoo.instance_method(:bar).bind(foo_instance) # => #<Method: OriginalFoo#bar>
foo_instance.bar
# >> in define_method block
# >> in Foo

You're misunderstanding how UnboundMethod#bind works. You call Module#instance_method to get an UnboundMethod (i.e. a method without a self):
OriginalFoo.instance_method(:bar)
# #<UnboundMethod: ... >
Then you call UnboundMethod#bind to attach a self to that method, that returns a Method instance:
m = OriginalFoo.instance_method(:bar).bind(foo_instance)
# => #<Method: ...>
But that won't alter the method in foo_instance, all it does is make self your foo_instance when (or if) you said m.call: um.bind(obj) doesn't do anything to obj, it just gives you um as a Method that has obj as its self.

Related

Ruby refinements subtleties

There is a pretty good documentation of the current implementation of refinements in ruby here:
http://ruby-doc.org//core-2.2.0/doc/syntax/refinements_rdoc.html,
but there are some strange corner cases.
First, include module is orthogonal to using module (one include the instance method of module while the other activates the refinement). But there is a trick to include a refinement module itself, see
Better way to turn a ruby class into a module than using refinements?.
def to_module(klass)
Module.new do
#note that we return the refinement module itself here
return refine(klass) {
yield if block_given?
}
end
end
class Base
def foo
"foo"
end
end
class Receiver
include to_module(Base) {
def foo
"refined " + super
end
}
end
Receiver.new.foo #=> "refined foo"
Strangely this refinement module can't be used with using!
m=to_module(Base) {}
m.class #=> Module
using m
#=>TypeError: wrong argument type Class (expected Module)
So using only work on the enclosing module of the refinement modules.
Secondly I wanted to use the above yield trick to be able to pass a Proc to refine (even through it only accepts a block), without resorting to converting the Proc back to source as in
https://www.new-bamboo.co.uk/blog/2014/02/05/refinements-under-the-knife/.
But using yield as in the include example does not work:
def ref_module1(klass)
Module.new do
refine(klass) {
yield
}
end
end
class Receiver1
using ref_module1(Base) {
def foo
"refined " + super
end
}
def bar
Base.new.foo
end
end
Receiver1.new.bar #=> NoMethodError: super: no superclass method `foo'
We see that Receiver1 still use Bar#foo and not the refined method.
Howewer we can use module_eval instead:
def ref_module2(klass,&b)
Module.new do
refine(klass) {
module_eval(&b)
}
end
end
class Receiver2
using ref_module2(Base) {
def foo
"refined " + super
end
}
def bar
Base.new.foo
end
end
Receiver2.new.bar #=> "refined foo"
I don't quite understand why module_eval works here and not the yield method. Inside the refinement block, the 'default_definee' is the refinement module, so module_eval which puts the 'default_definee' to self='the refinement module' should not affect it. And indeed in the 'include' example at the beginning, I get the same result when I use module_eval or a direct yield.
Can anyone explain this behavior?
Context (or binding) is the reason why module_eval works and yield doesn't in your last set of examples. It actually has nothing to do with refinements, as demonstrated below.
Starting with module_eval:
class Foo
def run(&block)
self.class.module_eval(&block)
end
end
foo = Foo.new
foo.run {
def hello
"hello"
end
}
puts foo.hello # => "hello"
puts hello => # '<main>': undefined method 'hello' for main:Object (NameError)
In Foo#run we call module_eval on Foo. This switches the context (self) to be Foo. The result is much like we had simple defined hello inside of class Foo originally.
Now let's take a look at yield:
class Foo
def run
yield
end
end
foo = Foo.new
foo.run {
def hello
"hello"
end
}
puts hello # => "hello"
puts foo.hello # => '<main>': private method 'hello' called for ...
yield simply invokes the block in its original context, which in this example would be <main>. When the block is invoked, the end result is exactly the same as if the method were defined at the top level normally:
class Foo
def run
yield
end
end
foo = Foo.new
def hello
"hello"
end
puts hello # => "hello"
puts foo.hello # => '<main>': private method 'hello' called for ...
You might notice that foo seems to have the hello method in the yield examples. This is a side effect of defining hello as a method at the top level. It turns out that <main> is just an instance of Object, and defining top level methods is really just defining private methods on Object which nearly everything else ends up inheriting. You can see this by opening up irb and running the following:
self # => main
self.class # => Object
def some_method
end
"string".method(:some_method) # => #<Method: String(Object)#some_method>
Now back to your examples.
Here's what happens in the yield example:
def ref_module1(klass)
Module.new do
refine(klass) {
yield
}
end
end
class Receiver1
# like my yield example, this block is going to
# end up being invoked in its original context
using ref_module1(Base) {
def foo
"I'm defined on Receiver1"
end
}
def bar
# calling foo here will simply call the original
# Base#foo method
Base.new.foo
end
end
# as expected, if we call Receiver1#bar
# we get the original Base#foo method
Receiver1.new.bar # => "foo"
# since the block is executed in its original context
# the method gets defined in Receiver1 -- its original context
Receiver1.new.foo # => "I'm defined on Receiver1"
As for module_eval, it works in your examples because it causes the block to be run in the context of the new module, rather than on the Receiver1 class.

Remove a method only from an instance

Is it possible to remove a method from a single instance?
class Foo
def a_method
"a method was invoked"
end
end
f1 = Foo.new
puts f1.a_method # => a method was invoked
I can remove a_method from the class an from the already created object with this:
class Foo
remove_method(:a_method)
end
If I invoke a_method from the same object:
puts f1.a_method # => undefined method
If I create another object:
f2 = Foo.new
puts f2.a_method # => undefined method
How can I only remove a method from an specific single object?
Yes, it is possible:
f1.instance_eval('undef :a_method')

How do I hide a method from a superclass?

I have a method in a superclass from a third-party gem which I want to hide. I would prefer if it is impossible to call this method at all, so not just override it and leave the body empty.
I believe this may be what you're looking for:
undef_method :foo
This will prevent any calls to the method foo.
In contrast, this will not achieve the same effect:
remove_method :foo
That will remove the method from the child, but will still pass through up the inheritance chain.
Docs: undef_method and remove_method
Use the undef keyword.
class A
def foo
5
end
end
class B < A
undef foo
end
A.new.foo #=> 5
B.new.foo #=> NameError: undefined local variable or method `foo'
That is wrong OOP that you're trying to do there. I suggest you use composition instead of inheritance.
require 'forwardable'
class SomeBaseClass
def foo
puts 'foo'
end
def bar
puts 'bar'
end
def quux
puts 'quux'
end
end
class MyClass
def initialize
#base = SomeBaseClass.new
end
extend Forwardable
def_delegators :#base, :foo, :bar # but not quux
end
mc = MyClass.new
mc.foo
mc.bar
mc.quux
# >> foo
# >> bar
# ~> -:32:in `<main>': undefined method `quux' for #<MyClass:0x007febcc155210> (NoMethodError)

Strange SimpleDelegator behavior

There is my code using SimpleDelegator
require 'delegate'
class Foo < SimpleDelegator
def meth
p 'new_meth'
end
end
class Bar
def meth
p 'old_meth'
end
def bar_meth
meth
end
end
bar = Bar.new
foo = Foo.new(bar)
foo.meth #=> "new_meth"
foo.bar_meth #=> "old_meth"
Why the last line gives "old_meth"???!!! Thanks!
Delegator saying:
This library provides three different ways to delegate method calls to an object. The easiest to use is SimpleDelegator. Pass an object to the constructor and all methods supported by the object will be delegated. This object can be changed later.
Okay,so now look at the output,which is to the right of the symbol # =>.
require 'delegate'
class Foo < SimpleDelegator
def meth
p 'new_meth'
end
end
class Bar
def meth
p 'old_meth'
end
def bar_meth
self.method(:meth)
end
end
bar = Bar.new # => #<Bar:0x8b31728>
foo = Foo.new(bar)
foo.__getobj__ # => #<Bar:0x8b31728>
foo.bar_meth # => #<Method: Bar#meth>
foo.method(:meth) # => #<Method: Foo#meth>
So when I used the line foo.method(:meth), then output(#<Method: Foo#meth>) confirms that whenever you will call foo.meth,then meth method of the Foo class will be called.But the line foo.bar_meth outputs(#<Method: Bar#meth>) simply saying that inside the method bar_meth,if you call meth method then, Bar#meth will be invoked.
SimpleDelegator saying that:
A concrete implementation of Delegator, this class provides the means to delegate all supported method calls to the object passed into the constructor and even to change the object being delegated to at a later time with #setobj.
Yes,in your case foo object has been set to bar object,by using #__setobj__. The output of the line foo.__getobj__ is showing that.

Is 'yield self' the same as instance_eval?

Is there any difference if you define Foo with instance_eval: . . .
class Foo
def initialize(&block)
instance_eval(&block) if block_given?
end
end
. . . or with 'yield self':
class Foo
def initialize
yield self if block_given?
end
end
In either case you can do this:
x = Foo.new { def foo; 'foo'; end }
x.foo
So 'yield self' means that the block after Foo.new is always evaluated in the context of the Foo class.
Is this correct?
Your two pieces of code do very different things. By using instance_eval you're evaluating the block in the context of your object. This means that using def will define methods on that object. It also means that calling a method without a receiver inside the block will call it on your object.
When yielding self you're passing self as an argument to the block, but since your block doesn't take any arguments, it is simply ignored. So in this case yielding self does the same thing as yielding nothing. The def here behaves exactly like a def outside the block would, yielding self does not actually change what you define the method on. What you could do is:
class Foo
def initialize
yield self if block_given?
end
end
x = Foo.new {|obj| def obj.foo() 'foo' end}
x.foo
The difference to instance_eval being that you have to specify the receiver explicitly.
Edit to clarify:
In the version with yield, obj in the block will be the object that is yielded, which in this case is is the newly created Foo instance. While self will have the same value it had outside the block. With the instance_eval version self inside the block will be the newly created Foo instance.
They are different. yield(self) does not change the value of self inside the block, while instance_eval(&block) does.
class Foo
def with_yield
yield(self)
end
def with_instance_eval(&block)
instance_eval(&block)
end
end
f = Foo.new
f.with_yield do |arg|
p self
# => main
p arg
# => #<Foo:0x100124b10>
end
f.with_instance_eval do |arg|
p self
# => #<Foo:0x100124b10>
p arg
# => #<Foo:0x100124b10>
end
You just can drop the self keyword
class Foo
def initialize
yield if block_given?
end
end
Update from comments
Using yield there is a bit new to my taste, specially when used outside irb.
However there is a big and significant difference between instance_eval approach and yield approach, check this snippet:
class Foo
def initialize(&block)
instance_eval(&block) if block_given?
end
end
x = Foo.new { def foo; 'foo'; end }
#=> #<Foo:0xb800f6a0>
x.foo #=> "foo"
z = Foo.new #=> #<Foo:0xb800806c>
z.foo #=>NoMethodError: undefined method `foo' for #<Foo:0xb800806c>
Check this one as well:
class Foo2
def initialize
yield if block_given?
end
end
x = Foo2.new { def foo; 'foo'; end } #=> #<Foo:0xb7ff1bb4>
x.foo #=> private method `foo' called for #<Foo2:0xb8004930> (NoMethodError)
x.send :foo => "foo"
z = Foo.new #=> #<Foo:0xb800806c>
z.send :foo => "foo"
As you can see the difference is that the former one is adding a singleton method foo to the object being initialized, while the later is adding a private method to all instances of Object class.

Resources