I have a class "C". I'd like C to run a method A that takes in a block. I'd then like the block to have the context of the class provided.
C.a do
b # runs main.b instead of C.b
end
Currently, the method b is running in the context of main. I'd like for it to run in the context of the class C
How can this be done?
class C
class << self
def a(&block)
block.bind self # NOPE!
block.binding = self # NOPE!
yield # NOPE!
end
def b
end
end
end
PS. This is the same pattern as Rails routes.
You need to eval the block in the context of the Class:
class C
class << self
def a(&block)
self.instance_eval(&block)
end
def b
puts "hello"
end
end
end
C.a do
b
end
=> "hello"
Related
I have 2 modules and 1 class:
module B
def hi
say 'hi'
end
end
module C
def say(message)
puts "#{message} from ???"
end
end
class A
include B
include C
end
A.new.hi
#=> hi from ???"
How i can get message as hi from B?
You could use caller_locations to determine the calling method's name, and use that information to retrieve the method's owner:
module C
def say(message)
method_name = caller_locations(1, 1)[0].base_label
method_owner = method(method_name).owner
puts "#{message} from #{method_owner}"
end
end
But this is very brittle. It would be much easier to simply pass the calling module, e.g.:
module B
def hi
say 'hi', B
end
end
module C
def say(message, mod)
puts "#{message} from #{mod}"
end
end
You can use Kenel#__method__ with Method#owner:
module C
def say(message)
puts "#{message} from #{method(__method__).owner }"
end
end
class A
include C
end
A.new.say('hello')
#=> hello from C
Kenel#__method__:
Returns the name at the definition of the current method as a Symbol.
If called outside of a method, it returns nil.
Method#owner:
Returns the class or module that defines the method.
I'm trying to create a method that passes the caller as the default last argument. According to this, I only need:
class A
def initialize(object = self)
# work with object
end
end
so that in:
class B
def initialize
A.new # self is a B instance here
end
end
self will be B rather than A;
However, this doesn't seem to work. Here's some test code:
class A
def self.test test, t=self
puts t
end
end
class B
def test test,t=self
puts t
end
end
class T
def a
A.test 'hey'
end
def b
B.new.test 'hey'
end
def self.a
A.test 'hey'
end
def self.b
B.new.test'hey'
end
end
and I get:
T.new.a # => A
T.new.b # => #<B:0x000000015fef00>
T.a # => A
T.b # => #<B:0x000000015fed98>
whereas I expect it to be T or #<T:0x000000015fdf08>. Is there a way to set the default last argument to the caller?
EDIT:
class Registry
class << self
def add(component, base=self)
self.send(component).update( base.to_s.split('::').last => base)
end
end
end
The idea is pretty simple, you would use it like this
class Asset_Manager
Registry.add :utilities
end
and you access it like:
include Registry.utilities 'Debugger'
I'm trying to de-couple classes by having a middle-man management type class that takes care of inter-class communications, auto-loading of missing classes and erroring when it doesn't exist, it works but I just want to be able to use the above rather than:
class Asset_Manager
Registry.add :utilities, self
end
It just feels cleaner, that and I wanted to know if such a thing was possible.
You can't escape the explicit self. But you can hide it with some ruby magic.
class Registry
def self.add(group, klass)
puts "registering #{klass} in #{group}"
end
end
module Registrable
def self.included(base)
base.extend(ClassMethods)
end
module ClassMethods
def register_in(group)
Registry.add(group, self)
end
end
end
class AssetManager
include Registrable
register_in :utilities
end
# >> registering AssetManager in utilities
In short, you can't.
Ruby resolves the default arguments in the context of the receiver. That is, the object before the . in a method call. What you called the receiver should be the caller, actually.
class A
def test1(value = a)
puts a
end
def test2(value = b)
puts b
end
def a
"a"
end
end
a = A.new
a.test1 #=> a
def a.b; "b" end
a.test2 #=> b
If I were you, I would use the extended (or included) hook, where both the extending class and the extended module can be accessed. You can program what ever logic you want based on the information.
module Registry
module Utilities
def self.extended(cls)
#puts cls
::Registry.send(component).update( cls.to_s.split('::').last => cls)
end
end
end
class Asset_Manager
extend Registry::Utilities
end
For example, how could I implement the following:
class A
def initialize
b = B.new
end
end
class B
def initialize
puts #how can I find out who instantiated me
end
end
class A
def initialize
B.new(self)
end
end
class B
def initialize initializer
puts initializer
end
end
A.new # => #<A:0x007fee78368dc8>
I want to call instance_eval on this class:
class A
attr_reader :att
end
passing this method b:
class B
def b(*args)
att
end
end
but this is happening:
a = A.new
bb = B.new
a.instance_eval(&bb.method(:b)) # NameError: undefined local variable or method `att' for #<B:0x007fb39ad0d568>
When b is a block it works, but b as a method isn't working. How can I make it work?
It's not clear exactly what you goal is. You can easily share methods between classes by defining them in a module and including the module in each class
module ABCommon
def a
'a'
end
end
class A
include ABCommon
end
Anything = Hash
class B < Anything
include ABCommon
def b(*args)
a
end
def run
puts b
end
end
This answer does not use a real method as asked, but I didn't need to return a Proc or change A. This is a DSL, def_b should have a meaningful name to the domain, like configure, and it is more likely to be defined in a module or base class.
class B
class << self
def def_b(&block)
(#b_blocks ||= []) << block
end
def run
return if #b_blocks.nil?
a = A.new
#b_blocks.each { |block| a.instance_eval(&block) }
end
end
def_b do
a
end
end
And it accepts multiple definitions. It could be made accept only a single definition like this:
class B
class << self
def def_b(&block)
raise "b defined twice!" unless #b_block.nil?
#b_block = block
end
def run
A.new.instance_eval(&#b_block) unless #b_block.nil?
end
end
def_b do
a
end
end
Just for fun, again, but is it possible to take a block that contains method definitions and add those to an object, somehow? The following doesn't work (I never expected it to), but just so you get the idea of what I'm playing around with.
I do know that I can reopen a class with class << existing_object and add methods that way, but is there a way for code to pass that information in a block?
I guess I'm trying to borrow a little Java thinking here.
def new(cls)
obj = cls.new
class << obj
yield
end
obj
end
class Cat
def meow
puts "Meow"
end
end
cat = new(Cat) {
def purr
puts "Prrrr..."
end
}
cat.meow
# => Meow
# Not working
cat.purr
# => Prrrr...
EDIT | Here's the working version of the above, based on edgerunner's answer:
def new(cls, &block)
obj = cls.new
obj.instance_eval(&block)
obj
end
class Cat
def meow
puts "Meow"
end
end
cat = new(Cat) {
def purr
puts "Prrrr..."
end
}
cat.meow
# => Meow
cat.purr
# => Prrrr...
You can use class_eval(also aliased as module_eval) or instance_eval to evaluate a block in the context of a class/module or an object instance respectively.
class Cat
def meow
puts "Meow"
end
end
Cat.module_eval do
def purr
puts "Purr"
end
end
kitty = Cat.new
kitty.meow #=> Meow
kitty.purr #=> Purr
kitty.instance_eval do
def purr
puts "Purrrrrrrrrr!"
end
end
kitty.purr #=> Purrrrrrrrrr!
Yes
I suspect you thought of this and were looking for some other way, but just in case...
class A
def initialize
yield self
end
end
o = A.new do |o|
class << o
def purr
puts 'purr...'
end
end
end
o.purr
=> purr...
For the record, this isn't the usual way to dynamically add a method. Typically, a dynamic method starts life as a block itself, see, for example, *Module#define_method*.