2 main techniques for creating class methods (without the obvious "def self.method") are:
Defining them in "class << self" block
Defining ClassMethod module and extending it later
I personally prefer second way, seems cleaner. Does anyone has any reason to prefer one technique over the other?
There's also "class_method" method, but I never used it, it has quite complex implementation and seem to do a lot more than previous 2.
self.method is the simplest option when you just need to create one method without dependencies or related logic.
class << self allows you to do far more than define methods on the metaclass. This is useful when you're defining methods which need to work with other parts of the metaclass (eg. aliasing existing method names).
For instance:
class Logger
class << self
attr_reader :payload
def log(message)
#payload = message
end
end
end
The module extension method comes in handy for method reuse and to group multiple coherent methods.
For instance:
module QueryMethods
def find
end
def where
end
end
module FactoryMethods
def build
end
def create
end
end
class BusinessModel
extend QueryMethods
extend FactoryMethods
end
First, the class << foo syntax opens up foo's singleton class (eigenclass). This allows you to specialise the behaviour of methods called on that specific object.
a = 'foo'
class << a
def inspect
'"bar"'
end
end
a.inspect # => "bar"
a = 'foo' # new object, new singleton class
a.inspect # => "foo"
class << self opens up self's singleton class, so that methods can be redefined for the current self object (which inside a class or module body is the class or module itself). Usually, this is used to define class/module ("static") methods
class << self is good at keeping all of your class methods in the same block. If methods are being added in def self.method from then there's no guarantee (other than convention and wishful thinking) that there won't be an extra class method tucked away later in the file.
def self.method is good at explicitly stating that a method is a class method, whereas with class << self you have to go and find the container yourself.
Which of these is more important to you is a subjective decision, and also depends on things like how many other people are working on the code and what their preferences are.
Pros of “class << self” style
Related
I'm near the finish of the Ruby track in Code Academy, and I'm curious about a peculiar thing: I was under the impression that a class is a repository of constants, methods, etc... and that in order to access most of them, you would first need to create an instance of that class or in some cases the methods of themselves can be invoked (as in they are all technically part of the global object). And then I saw something like this:
#Worked
Time.now
I understood as this as the method [now] of instance of class [Time] being invoked. I then tried to invoke the method on its own:
#Failed
now
and that failed, and I assumed that while a method can be created in the general scope [as part of the global object], if it relies on initialized variables of "parent" class, it cannot be called on its own, because it would not know which object to search for those initialized variables. Following that I created a test class:
class Clock
def initialize
#hours = 1
#minutes = 30
end
def showTime
puts "The time is: #{#hours}:#{#minutes}"
end
end
#this worked
watch = Clock.new
watch.showTime
#this failed
showTime
I then just created a basic method (assuming it's in the global level)
def mymethod
puts "The mighty METHOD!"
end
#Works
mymethod
and calling this method the way I did, without referencing the global object worked. So... the questions I have are as follows:
How can [Time.now] be called in this fashion? Shouldn't there be an instance of Time first created?
Why can't I call the method [now] on its own? Am I right that it relies on resources that it cannot find when called this way?
Why could I not call the method showTime on its own? But if I define any method on the "global" level I can access it without referencing the global object
First of all, your intuition is correct.
Every methods must be an instance method of some receiver.
Global methods are defined as private instance methods on Object class and hence seem to be globally available. Why? From any context Object is always in the class hierarchy of self and hence private methods on Object are always callable without receiver.
def fuuuuuuuuuuun
end
Object.private_methods.include?(:fuuuuuuuuuuun)
# => true
Class methods are defined as instance methods on the "singleton class" of their class instance. Every object in Ruby has two classes, a "singleton class" with instance methods just for that one single object and a "normal class" with method for all objects of that class. Classes are no different, they are objects of the Class class and may have singleton methods.
class A
class << self # the singleton class
def example
end
end
end
A.singleton_class.instance_methods.include?(:example)
# => true
Alternative ways of defining class methods are
class A
def self.example
end
end
# or
def A.example
end
Fun fact, you can define singleton methods on any object (not just on class objects) using the same syntax def (receiver).(method name) as follows
str = "hello"
def str.square_size
size * size
end
str.square_size
# => 25
"any other string".square_size
# => raises NoMethodError
Some programming language history — Singleton classes are taken from the Smalltalk language where they are called "metaclasses". Basically all object-oriented features in Ruby (as well as the functional-style enumerators on Enumerable) are taken from the Smalltalk language. Smalltalk was an early class-based object-oriented language created in the 70ies. It was also the language that invented graphical user interfaces like overlapping windows and menus et cetera. If you love Ruby maybe also take a look at Smalltalk, you might fall in love yet again.
This is known as a class method. If CodeAcademy didn't cover it, that's a shame. Here's some examples:
# basic way
class Foo
def self.bar; :ok; end
end
Foo.bar # => :ok
# alternate syntax
class Foo
class << self
def bar; :ok; end
end
end
# alternate syntax, if Foo class already exists
def Foo.bar; :ok; end
# alternate approach if Foo class already exists
Foo.class_exec do
def bar; :ok; end
end
# to define a class method on an anonymous 'class' for a single instance
# you won't need to use this often
Foo.new.singleton_class.class_exec do
def bar; :ok; end
end
# to define a class method on an instance's actual class
Foo.new.class.class_exec do
def bar; :ok; end
end
Another way to get class methods is to extend a module.
module FooMethods
def bar; :ok; end
end
module Foo
extend FooMethods
end
Foo.bar # => :ok
Note that with Modules, the methods are always defined as instance methods. This way they can be either extended into class scope or included into instance scope. Modules can also have class methods, using the exact same syntax / examples as shown above with classes. However there's not such as easy to load a module's class methods via include or extend.
How can [Time.now] be called in this fashion? Shouldn't there be an
instance of Time first created?
The Time.now method is a class method, not an instance method and therefore can be called directly on the Time class rather than an instance of it Time.new
Class methods are defined on the class themselves using the self keyword:
class Time
def self.now
# code
end
end
Time.now # works
Why can't I call the method [now] on its own? Am I right that it
relies on resources that it cannot find when called this way?
When you call a method "on its own" you're actually implicitly calling it on self:
self.now
The above is the same as just doing:
now
Why could I not call the method showTime on its own? But if I define
any method on the "global" level I can access it without referencing
the global object
You defined the showTime method on a specific class so you have to send that method to that class. When you define a method in the "global" scope you're implicitly defining it on self and the subsequent call to mymethod is actually self.mymethod so it will work.
Time.now is a class method.
To define a class method, you need to define the method with self. : def self.method_name
class Clock
#hours = 1
#minutes = 30
def self.showTime
puts "The time is: #{#hours}:#{#minutes}"
end
end
Clock.showTime
#=> The time is: 1:30
If you want to call now on its own, you can do so inside Time class :
class Time
puts now
#=> 2017-01-19 22:17:29 +0100
end
Before voting for closing due to question duplication I want to say that my question is really simple one (not asked in above mentioned questions).
There are two modules, one defines module method using extend self, another defines mixin method.
module A
extend self
def module_a_meth
"Called module_a_meth"
end
end
module B
def module_b_meth
"Called module_b_meth"
end
end
There is a class, where I both include and extend these modules:
class Test
include A
extend A
include B
extend B
end
When we includeing module, its methods become class' instance methods, when extending - class methods.
Question:
it doesn't matter for class, if methods in module defined as module methods or mixin methods, right? I mean, when included - EVERY method (either module methods or mixin methods) become instance methods, and when extended - either become class methods.
If I'm wrong - where is the difference?
obj = Test.new
puts obj.module_a_meth
puts obj.module_b_meth
puts Test.module_a_meth
puts Test.module_b_meth
#=> Called module_a_meth
#=> Called module_b_meth
#=> Called module_a_meth
#=> Called module_b_meth
EDIT
Please start your answer with Yes or No, since my question implies this type of answer :).
Regardless of whether you are using extend or include you are always copying over instance methods. The difference is where those instance methods live.
When you call Class#include you are "copying" all of the instance methods in the module to be instance methods in the class. It's similar to how inheritance work, and if you call Class#ancestors you'll see the module there.
When you call Object#extend you are copying all of the instance methods of the module to the object's singleton class. This is a class reserved just for this object instance that is created at runtime. This is how you get "class methods" (e.g. MyClass.hello_world); by adding them to the class's singleton. You can also do things like extend a particular object instance (e.g. s = String.new; s.extend(SomeModule); s.hello_world)
There are some other differences too. The context binding is different depending on whether you use extend or include. extend doesn't cause the module to show up in the ancestor chain while include does.
When trying to add both "class" and instance methods, one common pattern you'll see is doing things like this which uses the included callback to extend the base class with a ClassMethods module:
module MyModule
def self.included(base)
base.extend ClassMethods
end
module ClassMethods
def hello_world
end
end
end
ActiveSupport::Concerns also abstracts this pattern allowing you to add both instance and "class" methods in one call.
I personally prefer having modules only work with instance methods and using singleton methods (e.g. def self.my_method) to have scoped methods (sort of like how you would use private methods). This allows consumers to use either extend or include however they want and have it work as expected.
I'm not sure if that answers your question or not, but there's some info for you
Let's look at this in steps.
module A
puts "self = #{self}"
extend self
def module_a_meth
"Called module_a_meth"
end
end
class Test
end
Test.include A
#-> self = Test
Test.instance_methods.include?(:module_a_meth)
#=> true
Test.methods.include?(:module_a_meth)
#=> false - no class method
So include includes :module_a_meth as an instance method. As self is Test, the line:
extend self
is equivalent to:
extend Test
which of course makes no reference to the module. Now we extend and obtain the expected result:
Test.extend A
#=> true
Test.methods.include?(:module_a_meth)
#=> true
including and extending B is normal:
module B
def module_b_meth
"Called module_b_meth"
end
end
Test.include B
Test.instance_methods.include?(:module_b_meth)
#=> true
Test.extend B
Test.methods.include?(:module_b_meth)
#=> true
First of all, regarding the actual question: No :).
Class (or any other object) cares how methods are defined in a module you're including. Basically, method's in a module you've described are defined as mixin methods. extend self doesn't redefine methods to be a module methods, but, basically, duplicates them to both contexts.
It's pretty much a question about how does extend work, it's just a tricky case.
First of all, think of extend as an include in object's singleton class context. Those two definitions are equal:
module SomeModule
def hi
'hi'
end
end
class SomeClass
extend SomeModule
end
class SomeClass
class << self
include SomeModule
end
end
Given that, by using extend self in a module you're saying: Take all of the mixin methods I've defined and extend module's singleton class with them. This magic is a result of ruby's nature: an ability to re-open any definition. Here's how a verbose version of extend self would look like:
module Module1
def hi
'hi'
end
end
module Module1
extend Module1 # which is self
#### now "hi" is both here:
# def hi; end
#### and here:
# class << self; def hi; end
end
Module1.hi # => 'hi'
class SomeClass; include Module1; end;
SomeClass.new.hi # => 'hi'
__ EDIT __
Just a quick proof that object cares about how methods in a module are defined:
module SomeModule
def self.hi
'hi'
end
end
object = 'some string'
class << object
include SomeModule
end
object.hi # => NoMethodError: undefined method
I'm going through the Ruby Koans Ruby Koans and I'm at a place in "about_class_methods.rb" where there is a discussion of setting up class methods, and the Koans talk about three ways.
The two major ways to write class methods are:
1:
class Demo (define/open class)
def self.method
end
2:
class << self
def class_methods
end
end
The koans also talk about a third method, I've never seen (that I remember):
def Demo.class_method_third_way
end
Q1 This third way is actually clearer to me than any other. Is there a reason I don't understand about why no one uses it?
Q2 Why am I wrong in thinking the syntax for 2 should be "self << def name end"? That is "Why is the syntax the way it is?" Does the class Object hold a reference to all Classes and this sticks in the method for the self class?
As always, thanks for your help and patience!
In (early) development classes get renamed as insight grows (not Person but Employee, not Job but one or more Roles etc.) This renaming is prone to errors if the class name is hardcoded in the class itself.
In class body, self refers exactly the class object being defined. That's why def self.some_method works the same as def Demo.some_method.
class Demo
puts self.object_id == Demo.object_id
end
#=> true
class << some_obj is the syntax to access the singleton class of some_obj. Refer to the Ruby doc:
The singleton class (also known as the metaclass or eigenclass) of an object is a class that holds methods for only that instance. You can access the singleton class of an object using class << object ... Most frequently you’ll see the singleton class accessed like this:
class C
class << self
# ...
end
# or
class << C
end
end
I can't seem to grasp the exact difference between these two "constructs". To my mind, the following small script should output the same thing three times:
class Example
puts self
class << self
puts self
end
instance_eval do
puts self
end
end
However, the output is:
Example
#<Class:Example>
Example
Here's my rationale:
Example is an instance of Class, so self in the class body refers to that;
class << obj sets self to whatever obj is in the given block, which in my case is the instance of Class that is Example (this is where I'm probably wrong);
instance_eval runs the block in the given instance, so, in my case it's pretty much the same as putting the code in the block directly in the class body.
My current guess is that class << self inserts a ghost class between Example and Class and sets self to that, but the output of #<Class:Example> is not confirming that at all.
So what is wrong with my rationale?
class << obj sets self to whatever obj is in the given block, which in my case is the instance of Class that is Example (this is where I'm probably wrong);
No, class << obj opens up the singleton class of obj. As you correctly pointed out, inside of a class declaration, self refers to the class itself, so, in this case, the "inner" self (i.e. the one being passed to puts) refers to the singleton class of Example.
In my opinion, class << self has been one of the most obnoxious bits of syntax in Ruby. People new to the language have little idea what it means, apart from cargo-cult conventions, and even those intimately familiar with the language have only a hazy understanding of what differentiates it from instance_method, as the two do seem to be remarkably similar.
Here's an example of two different ways of defining a class method:
class Example
class << self
def class_def
:class_def
end
end
instance_eval do
def instance_def
:instance_def
end
end
end
You can check that these work by calling the methods:
puts Example.class_def.inspect
# => :class_def
puts Example.instance_def.inspect
# => :instance_def
The difference is when you're dynamically creating methods using define_method since the binding does appear to be incorrect on the instance_eval version:
class Example
class << self
define_method(:class_def) do
:class_def
end
end
instance_eval do
define_method(:instance_def) do
:instance_def
end
end
end
This results in the instance_def method being defined, but not being bound to the class itself:
puts Example.class_def.inspect
# => :class_def
puts Example.instance_def.inspect
# => NoMethodError: undefined method ‘instance_def’ for Example:Class
The only reliable way to create dynamic methods is with class << self. The method instance_def appears to be created and discarded as it doesn't show up in Example.methods even inside that block.
I'm trying to learn ruby by building a basic Campfire bot to screw around with at work. I've gotten pretty far (it works!) and learned a lot (it works!), but now I'm trying to make it a bit more complex by separating the actions to be performed out into their own classes, so that they can be easier to write / fix when broken. If you're interested in seeing all the (probably crappy) code, it's all up on GitHub. But for the sake of this question, I'll narrow the scope a bit.
Ideally, I would like to be able to create plugins easily, name them the same as the class name, and drop them into an "actions" directory in the root of the project, where they will be instantiated at runtime. I want the plugins themselves to be as simple as possible to write, so I want them all to inherit some basic methods and properties from an action class.
Here is action.rb as it currently exists:
module CampfireBot
class Action
#handlers = {}
def initialize(room)
#room = room
end
class << self
attr_reader :handlers
attr_reader :room
def hear(pattern, &action)
Action.handlers[pattern] = action
end
end
end
end
Where #room is the room object, and #handlers is a hash of patterns and blocks. I kind of don't understand why I have to do that class << self call, but that's the only way I could get the child plugin classes to see that hear method.
I then attempt to create a simple plugin like so (named Foo.rb):
class Foo < CampfireBot::Action
hear /foo/i do
#room.speak "bar"
end
end
I then have my plugins instantiated inside bot.rb like so:
def load_handlers(room)
actions = Dir.entries("#{BOT_ROOT}/actions").delete_if {|action| /^\./.match(action)}
action_classes = []
# load the source
actions.each do |action|
load "#{BOT_ROOT}/actions/#{action}"
action_classes.push(action.chomp(".rb"))
end
# and instantiate
action_classes.each do |action_class|
Kernel.const_get(action_class).new(room)
end
#handlers = Action.handlers
end
The blocks are then called inside room.rb when the pattern is matched by the following:
handlers.each do |pattern, action|
if pattern.match(msg)
action.call($~)
end
end
If I do puts #room inside the initialization of Action, I see the room object printed out in the console. And if I do puts "foo" inside Foo.rb's hear method, I see foo printed out on the console (so, the pattern match is working). But, I can't read that #room object from the parent class (it comes out as a nil object). So obviously I'm missing something about how this is supposed to be working.
Furthermore, if I do something to make the plugin a bit cleaner (for larger functions) and rewrite it like so:
class Foo < CampfireBot::Action
hear /foo/i do
say_bar
end
def say_bar
#room.speak "bar"
end
end
I get NoMethodError: undefined method 'say_bar' for Foo:Class.
The definition of hear can be pulled out of the class << self block and changed to:
def self.hear(pattern, &action)
Action.handlers[pattern] = action
end
to yield the exact same result. That also immediately explains the problem. hear Is a class method. say_bar is an instance method. You can't call an instance method from a class method, because there simply isn't an instance of the class available.
To understand the class << self bit, you'll have to do your own reading and experiments: I won't try to improve on what has already been said. I'll only say that within the class << self .. end block, self refers to the eigenclass or metaclass of the CampfireBot::Action class. This is the instance of the Class class that holds the definition of the CampfireBot::Action class.