Is there a way to create a object that has properties and can be called using only the notation of a function call? Something equivalent to Python's __call__.
For example:
obj = ExampleClass.new()
obj() # call notation
Alternate approaches are welcome, I need a way for the callable "object" to store its own properties.
What I am trying to do is store a callable "object" in a variable. This object has properties that are associated with it, while at the same time, it can be used exactly like a method.
If you're willing to change the desired syntax a little bit...
class Foo
def call
puts 'called'
end
end
f = Foo.new
f.()
# >> called
The exact syntax, as in your question, is not possible in ruby, because parentheses are optional and, therefore, f() is the same as f. Which, in the case of a callable object is ambiguous. Do you want to perform the call or only reference the callable object? Explicit call (with the dot syntax) removes the ambiguity.
You can't make an object callable, as far as I know that's reserved for method calls, but you can do it with a bit of a hack using an alternate notation:
class ExampleClass
def []
:callable
end
end
Where now you can do:
example = ExampleClass.new
example[]
This is similar to how you can call a Proc:
proc = Proc.new { :return_value }
proc[]
# => :return_value
It's not perfect, but it'll work.
Note that normally you can side-step a lot of this mess by architecting your API around these limitations.
One thing that u can do is simple create an class and a function with the same name:
class Thing
end
def Thing()
end
Thing.new
Thing()
Related
Presenting the Idiom
I found an interesting but unexplained alternative to an accepted answer. The code clearly works in the REPL. For example:
module Foo
class Bar
def baz
end
end
end
Foo.constants.map(&Foo.method(:const_get)).grep(Class)
=> [Foo::Bar]
However, I don't fully understand the idiom in use here. In particular, I don't understand the use of &Foo, which seems to be some sort of closure, or how this specific invocation of #grep operates on the result.
Parsing the Idiom
So far, I've been able to parse bits and pieces of this, but I'm not really seeing how it all fits together. Here's what I think I understand about the sample code.
Foo.constants returns an array of module constants as symbols.
method(:const_get) uses Object#method to perform a method lookup and return a closure.
Foo.method(:const_get).call :Bar is a closure that returns a qualified path to a constant within the class.
&Foo seems to be some sort of special lambda. The docs say:
The & argument preserves the tricks if a Proc object is given by & argument.
I'm not sure I fully understand what that means in this specific context, either. Why a Proc? What "tricks," and why are they necessary here?
grep(Class) is operating on the value of the #map method, but its features are not obvious.
Why is this #map construct returning a greppable Array instead of an Enumerator?
Foo.constants.map(&Foo.method(:const_get)).class
=> Array
How does grepping for a class named Class actually work, and why is that particular construction necessary here?
[Foo::Bar].grep Class
=> [Foo::Bar]
The Question, Restated
I'd really like to understand this idiom in its entirety. Can anyone fill in the gaps here, and explain how the pieces all fit together?
&Foo.method(:const_get) is the method const_get of the Foo object. Here's another example:
m = 1.method(:+)
#=> #<Method: Fixnum#+>
m.call(1)
#=> 2
(1..3).map(&m)
#=> [2, 3, 4]
So in the end this is just a pointfree way of saying Foo.constants.map { |c| Foo.const_get(c) }. grep uses === to select elements, so it would only get constants that refer to classes, not other values. This can be verified by adding another constant to Foo, e.g. Baz = 1, which will not get grepped.
If you have further questions please add them as comments and I'll try to clarify them.
Your parse of the idiom is pretty spot on, but I'll go through it and try to clear up any questions you mentioned.
1. Foo.constants
As you mentioned, this returns an array of module constant names as symbols.
2. Array#map
You obviously know what this does, but I want to include it for completeness. Map takes a block and calls that block with each element as an argument. It returns an Array of the results of these block calls.
3. Object#method
Also as you mentioned, this does a method lookup. This is important because a method without parentheses in Ruby is a method call of that method without any arguments.
4. &
This operator is for converting things to blocks. We need this because blocks are not first-class objects in Ruby. Because of this second-class status, we have no way to create blocks which stand alone, but we can convert Procs into blocks (but only when we are passing them to a function)! The & operator is our way of doing this conversion. Whenever we want to pass a Proc object as if it were a block, we can prepend it with the & operator and pass it as the last argument to our function. But & can actually convert more than just Proc objects, it can convert anything that has a to_proc method!
In our case, we have a Method object, which does have a to_proc method. The difference between a Proc object and a Method object lies in their context. A Method object is bound to a class instance and has access to the variables which belong to that class. A Proc is bound to the context in which it is created; that is, it has access to the scope in which it was created. Method#to_proc bundles up the context of the method so that the resulting Proc has access to the same variables. You can find more about the & operator here.
5. grep(Class)
The way Enumerable#grep works is that it runs argument === x for all x in the enumerable. The ordering of the arguments to === is very important in this case, since it's calling Class.=== rather than Foo::Bar.===. We can see the difference between these two by running:
irb(main):043:0> Class === Foo::Bar
=> true
irb(main):044:0> Foo::Bar === Class
=> false
Module#=== (Class inherits its === method from Method) returns True when the argument is an instance of Module or one of its descendants (like Class!), which will filter out constants which are not of type Module or Class.
You can find the documentation for Module#=== here.
The first thing to know is that:
& calls to_proc on the object succeeding it and uses the proc produced as the methods' block.
Now you have to drill down to how exactly the to_proc method is implemented in a specific class.
1. Symbol
class Symbol
def to_proc
Proc.new do |obj, *args|
obj.send self, *args
end
end
end
Or something like this. From the above code you clearly see that the proc produced calls the method (with name == the symbol) on the object and passes the arguments to the method. For a quick example:
[1,2,3].reduce(&:+)
#=> 6
which does exactly that. It executes like this:
Calls :+.to_proc and gets a proc object back => #<Proc:0x007fea74028238>
It takes the proc and passes it as the block to the reduce method, thus instead of calling [1,2,3].reduce { |el1, el2| el1 + el2 } it calls
[1,2,3].reduce { |el1, el2| el1.send(:+, el2) }.
2. Method
class Method
def to_proc
Proc.new do |*args|
self.call(*args)
end
end
end
Which as you can see it has a different implementation of Symbol#to_proc. To illustrate this consider again the reduce example, but now let as see how it uses a method instead:
def add(x, y); x + y end
my_proc = method(:add)
[1,2,3].reduce(&my_proc)
#=> 6
In the above example is calling [1,2,3].reduce { |el1, el2| my_proc(el1, el2) }.
Now on why the map method returns an Array instead of an Enumerator is because you are passing it a block, try this instead:
[1,2,3].map.class
#=> Enumerator
Last but not least the grep on an Array is selecting the elements that are === to its argument. Hope this clarifies your concerns.
Your sequence is equivalent to:
c_names = Foo.constants #=> ["Bar"]
cs = c_names.map { |c_name| Foo.__send__(:const_get, c_name) } #=> [Foo::Bar]
cs.select{ |c| Class === c } #=> [Foo::Bar]
You can consider Object#method as (roughly):
class Object
def method(m)
lambda{ |*args| self.__send__(m, *args) }
end
end
grep is described here http://ruby-doc.org/core-1.9.3/Enumerable.html#method-i-grep
=== for Class (which is subclass of Module) is described here http://ruby-doc.org/core-1.9.3/Module.html#method-i-3D-3D-3D
UPDATE: And you need to grep because there can be other constants:
module Foo
PI = 3.14
...
end
and you probably don't need them.
When I invoke a method that doesn't exist, method_missing will tell me the name of the method. When I attempt to access a variable that hasn't been set, the value is simply nil.
I'm attempting to dynamically intercept access to nil instance variables and return a value based on the name of the variable being accessed. The closest equivalent would be PHP's __get. Is there any equivalent functionality in Ruby?
I do not believe this is possible in Ruby. The recommended way would be to use a ''user'' method rather than a ''#user'' instance var in your templates.
This is consistent with the way you deal with Ruby objects externally (''obj.user'' is a method which refers to ''#user'', but is actually not ''#user'' itself). If you need any kind of special logic with an attribute, your best bet is to use a method (or method_missing), regardless if you're accessing it from inside or outside the object.
See my answer to another similar question. But just because you can do it doesn't mean that it's a good idea. Sensible design can generally overcome the need for this kind of thing and allow you to produce more readable and hence maintainable code.
instance_variable_get seems to be the closest equivalent of PHP's __get from what I can see (although I'm not a PHP user).
Looking at the relevant Ruby source code, the only 'missing' method for variables is const_missing for constants, nothing for instance variables.
there isn't an instance_variable_missing (at least that I know of)
But why are you accessing randomly named instance variables anyway?
If your thread all the access to the object state through method calls (as you should anyway) then you wouldn't need this.
If you are looking for a way to define magic stuff without messing up with the method lookup, you may want to use const_missing.
A bit late but, instance_variable_missing is the same as method_missing to a point... Take the following class:
class Test
def method_missing(*args)
puts args.inspect
end
end
t = Test.new
Now let's get some instance variables:
t.pineapples #=> [:pineapples]
t.pineapples = 5 #=> [:pineapples=,5]
Not sure why the method is nil for you...
EDIT:
By the sounds of it you want to accomplish:
t = SomeClass.new
t.property.child = 1
So let's try returning a Test object from our previous example:
class Test
def method_missing(*args)
puts args.inspect
return Test.new
end
end
So what happens when we call:
t = Test.new
t.property.child = 1
#=>[:property]
#=>[:child=,1]
So this goes to show that this is indeed possible to do. OpenStruct uses this same technique to set instance variables dynamically. In the below example, I create EternalStruct which does exactly what you wanted:
require 'ostruct'
class EternalStruct < OpenStruct
def method_missing(*args)
ret = super(*args)
if !ret
newES = EternalStruct.new
self.__send__((args[0].to_s + "=").to_sym, newES)
return newES
end
end
end
Usage of EternalStruct:
t = EternalStruct.new
t.foo.bar.baz = "Store me!"
t.foo.bar.baz #=> "Store me!"
t.foo #=> #<EternalStruct bar=#<EternalStruct baz="Store me!">>
t.a = 1
t.a #=> 1
t.b #=> #<EternalStruct:...>
t.b = {}
t.b #=> {}
def t.c(arg)
puts arg
end
t.c("hi there") #=> "hi there"
Let there be class Example defined as:
class Example
def initialize(test='hey')
self.class.send(:define_method, :say_hello, lambda { test })
end
end
On calling Example.new; Example.new I get a warning: method redefined; discarding old say_hello. This, I conclude, must be because it defines a method in the actual class (which makes sense, from the syntax). And that, of course, would prove disastrous should there be multiple instances of Example with different values in their methods.
Is there a way to create methods just for the instance of a class from inside that instance?
You need to grab a reference to the instance's singleton class, the class that holds all the instance specific stuff, and define the method on it. In ruby 1.8, it looks a little messy. (if you find a cleaner solution let me know!)
Ruby 1.8
class Example
def initialize(test='hey')
singleton = class << self; self end
singleton.send :define_method, :say_hello, lambda { test }
end
end
Ruby 1.9 however, provides a much easier way in.
Ruby 1.9
class Example
def initialize(test='hey')
define_singleton_method :say_hello, lambda { test }
end
end
First off, a small style tip:
self.class.send(:define_method, :say_hello, lambda { test })
You can make this look a little bit nicer by using the new proc literal in Ruby 1.9:
self.class.send(:define_method, :say_hello, -> { test })
But you don't need that. Ruby has something called blocks, which are basically a piece of code that you can pass as an argument to a method. In fact, you already used blocks, since lambda is just a method which takes a block as an argument and returns a Proc. However, define_method already takes a block anyway, there is no need to pass a block to lambda which converts it to a Proc which it passes to define_method which then converts it back into a block:
self.class.send(:define_method, :say_hello) { test }
As you already noticed, you are defining the method on the wrong class. You are defining it on the Example class, since inside an instance method like initialize, self is the current object (i.e. ex1 or ex2 in #mikej's example), which means that self.class is ex1's class, which is Example. So, you are overwriting the same method over and over again.
This leads to the following unwanted behavior:
ex1 = Example.new('ex1')
ex2 = Example.new('ex2') # warning: method redefined; discarding old say_hello
ex1.say_hello # => ex2 # Huh?!?
Instead, if you want a singleton method, you need to define it on the singleton class:
(class << self; self end).send(:define_method, :say_hello) { test }
This works as intended:
ex1 = Example.new('ex1')
ex2 = Example.new('ex2')
ex1.say_hello # => ex1
ex2.say_hello # => ex2
In Ruby 1.9, there's a method that does that:
define_singleton_method(:say_hello) { test }
Now, this works the way you want it to, but there's a higher-level problem here: this is not Ruby code. It is Ruby syntax, but it's not Ruby code, it's Scheme.
Now, Scheme is a brilliant language and writing Scheme code in Ruby syntax is certainly not a bad thing to do. It beats the hell out of writing Java or PHP code in Ruby syntax, or, as was the case in a StackOverflow question yesterday, Fortran-57 code in Ruby syntax. But it's not as good as writing Ruby code in Ruby syntax.
Scheme is a functional language. Functional languages use functions (more precisely, function closures) for encapsulation and state. But Ruby is not a functional language, it is an object-oriented language and OO languages use objects for encapsulation and state.
So, function closures become objects and captured variables become instance variables.
We can also come at this from a completely different angle: what you are doing is that you are defining a singleton method, which is a method whose purpose it is to define behavior which is specific to one object. But you are defining that singleton method for every instance of the class, and you are defining the same singleton method for every instance of the class. We already have a mechanism for defining behavior for every instance of a class: instance methods.
Both of these arguments come from completely opposite directions, but they arrive at the same destination:
class Example
def initialize(test='hey')
#test = test
end
def say_hello
#test
end
end
I know it was asked two years back, but I would like to add one more answer. .instance_eval will help to add methods to instance object
string = "String"
string.instance_eval do
def new_method
self.reverse
end
end
Define instance method from outside:
example = Example.new
def example.say_hello
puts 'hello'
end
From inside:
class Example
def initialize(word='hey')
#word = word
def self.say_hello
puts "example: #{#word}"
end
end
end
Tested on ruby 2.5
for instance in python it is possible to assign a method to a variable:
class MyClass
def myMethod(self):
return "Hi"
x = MyClass()
method = x.myMethod
print method() # prints Hi
I know this should be possible in Ruby, but I don't know what's the syntax.
You need to grab the method by using method with the method’s name as an argument. This will return you an instance of type Method, which can be called with call().
class MyClass
def myMethod
"Hi"
end
end
x = MyClass.new
m = x.method(:myMethod)
# => #<Method: MyClass#myMethod>
puts m.call
# You can also do m[] instead of m.call()
Note that any arguments would need to be added to the call method.
In many practical cases, however, there is no need to have the method itself saved to a variable in Ruby; if you just want to dynamically call a method (i.e. send a message to an object) and there is no need to save the method, you could also use the send (or __send__ method in case of name clashes).
x = MyClass.new
puts x.send :myMethod # also possible with a string: m.send "myMethod"
# "Hi"
Any arguments should follow the method name:
puts x.send(:myMethod, arg1, arg2)
To use it like this is probably more Ruby-like, as the concept of Method classes is not as prominent as it is in Python. In Python, you can always think of a two step mechanism when doing something like a_string.split(); first you grab the method with a_string.split and then you call it (either implicitly with () or explicitly with __call__()). So, cutting that two-step mechanism is rather natural to do.
Ruby is more based on message passing and to actually get a method class in Ruby, you’ll have to do some more work, because in some way, the method object will have to be constructed for you at that point. So, unless you really need some Methods object in Ruby, you should rather stick to the message passing abstraction and simply use send.
I think you are looking for Proc or lambda block
x = Proc.new { return "Hello World" }
puts x.call
x = lambda { return "Hello World" }
puts x.call
I would read this short post - there is a slight but significant difference in the way the methods behave
http://samdanielson.com/2007/3/19/proc-new-vs-lambda-in-ruby
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