I am new to Ruby and I saw methods defined like:
def method_one
puts "method 1"
end
class MyClass
method_one
def method_two
puts "method 2"
end
end
The way method_one is used reminds me of Python decorators.The output of
c = MyClass.new
c.method_two
is
method 1
method 2
I have been trying to search for more information about this syntax/language feature in the Ruby documentation on the web but I don't know what keywords to search for.
What this is thing called?
TL;DR
This code doesn't do what you think it does. Don't do stuff like this.
Ruby's Top-Level Object
Ruby lets you define methods outside a class. These methods exist on a top-level object, which you can (generally) treat as a sort of catch-all namespace. You can see various posts like What is the Ruby Top-Level? for more details, but you shouldn't really need to care.
In your original post, method_one is just a method defined in the top-level. It is therefore available to classes and methods nested within the top-level, such as MyClass.
Methods in Classes
Despite what you think, the following doesn't actually declare a :method_one class or instance method on MyClass:
class MyClass
method_one
def method_two; end
end
Instead, Ruby calls the top-level ::method_one during the definition of the class, but it never becomes a class method (e.g. MyClass::method_one) or an instance method (e.g. MyClass.new.method_one). There might be a few use cases for doing this (e.g. printing debugging information, test injection, etc.) but it's confusing, error-prone, and generally to be avoided unless you have a really strong use case for it.
Better Options
In general, when you see something like this outside an academic lesson, the programmer probably meant to do one of the following:
Extend a class.
Add a singleton method to a class.
Include a module in a class.
Set up a closure during class definition.
The last gets into murky areas of metaprogramming, at which point you should probably be looking at updating your class initializer, or passing Proc or lambda objects around instead. Ruby lets you do all sorts of weird and wonderful things, but that doesn't mean you should.
I think you're a little mislead; the output of:
c = MyClass.new
c.method_two
is
#<MyClass:0x007feda41acf18>
"method 2"
You're not going to see method one until the class is loaded or if you're in IRB you enter the last end statement.
I would suggest looking into ruby's initialize method.
Related
I've been googling around for this and haven't been able to find an answer, which makes me think the answer is no, but I figured I'd ask here in case anyone knows for sure.
Does Ruby have a hook for when methods are defined (ie on a module or class)?
If not, is anyone familiar enough with the implementation of the main object to know how exactly it copies methods to Object when they're defined at the top level?
Really curious about this. Thanks for any info :)
It does. Module#method_added https://ruby-doc.org/core-2.2.2/Module.html#method-i-method_added
module Thing
def self.method_added(method_name)
puts "Thing added #{method_name}"
end
def self.a_class_method; end
def do_something; end
end
class Person
def self.method_added(method_name)
puts "I added #{method_name}"
end
attr_accessor :name
end
Thing
Person.new
# Thing added do_something
# I added name
# I added name=
If not, is anyone familiar enough with the implementation of the main object to know how exactly it copies methods to Object when they're defined at the top level?
It doesn't "copy methods". The language specification simply says that methods defined at the top-level become methods of Object. This is exactly the same mechanism as the one that says that methods defined inside class Foo become methods of class Foo. The language spec says it, therefore the implementors implement it that way. main doesn't need to do anything.
If you want to get real technical, then this is about the default definee, which is the implicit scope in which methods get defined when you don't explicitly specify the definee (as in def foo.bar; end). Usually, the default definee is the self of the closest lexically enclosing class or module definition body, and when there is no lexically enclosing class or module definition, it is Object. But some reflective methods, such as instance_eval or class_eval etc. may or may not change it.
Some open source code I'm integrating in my application has some classes that include code to that effect:
class SomeClass < SomeParentClass
def self.new(options = {})
super().tap { |o|
# do something with `o` according to `options`
}
end
def initialize(options = {})
# initialize some data according to `options`
end
end
As far as I understand, both self.new and initialize do the same thing - the latter one "during construction" and the former one "after construction", and it looks to me like a horrible pattern to use - why split up the object initialization into two parts where one is obviously "The Wrong Think(tm)"?
Ideally, I'd like to see what is inside the super().tap { |o| block, because although this looks like bad practice, just maybe there is some interaction required before or after initialize is called.
Without context, it is possible that you are just looking at something that works but is not considered good practice in Ruby.
However, maybe the approach of separate self.new and initialize methods allows the framework designer to implement a subclass-able part of the framework and still ensure setup required for the framework is completed without slightly awkward documentation that requires a specific use of super(). It would be a slightly easier to document and cleaner-looking API if the end user gets functionality they expect with just the subclass class MyClass < FrameworkClass and without some additional note like:
When you implement the subclass initialize, remember to put super at the start, otherwise the magic won't work
. . . personally I'd find that design questionable, but I think there would at least be a clear motivation.
There might be deeper Ruby language reasons to have code run in a custom self.new block - for instance it may allow constructor to switch or alter the specific object (even returning an object of a different class) before returning it. However, I have very rarely seen such things done in practice, there is nearly always some other way of achieving the goals of such code without customising new.
Examples of custom/different Class.new methods raised in the comments:
Struct.new which can optionally take a class name and return objects of that dynamically created class.
In-table inheritance for ActiveRecord, which allows end user to load an object of unknown class from a table and receive the right object.
The latter one could possibly be avoided with a different ORM design for inheritance (although all such schemes have pros/cons).
The first one (Structs) is core to the language, so has to work like that now (although the designers could have chosen a different method name).
It's impossible to tell why that code is there without seeing the rest of the code.
However, there is something in your question I want to address:
As far as I understand, both self.new and initialize do the same thing - the latter one "during construction" and the former one "after construction"
They do not do the same thing.
Object construction in Ruby is performed in two steps: Class#allocate allocates a new empty object from the object space and sets its internal class pointer to self. Then, you initialize the empty object with some default values. Customarily, this initialization is performed by a method called initialize, but that is just a convention; the method can be called anything you like.
There is an additional helper method called Class#new which does nothing but perform the two steps in sequence, for the programmer's convenience:
class Class
def new(*args, &block)
obj = allocate
obj.send(:initialize, *args, &block)
obj
end
def allocate
obj = __MagicVM__.__allocate_an_empty_object_from_the_object_space__
obj.__set_internal_class_pointer__(self)
obj
end
end
class BasicObject
private def initialize(*) end
end
The constructor new has to be a class method since you start from where there is no instance; you can't be calling that method on a particular instance. On the other hand, an initialization routine initialize is better defined as an instance method because you want to do something specifically with a certain instance. Hence, Ruby is designed to internally call the instance method initialize on a new instance right after its creation by the class method new.
Currently reading a Ruby style guide and I came across an example:
def no_op; end
What is the purpose of empty body methods?
There are a number of reasons you might create an empty method:
Stub a method that you will fill in later.
Stub a method that a descendant class will override.
Ensure a class or object will #respond_to? a method without necessarily doing anything other than returning nil.
Undefine an inherited method's behavior while still allowing it to #respond_to? the message, as opposed to using undef foo on public methods and surprising callers.
There are possibly other reasons, too, but those are the ones that leapt to mind. Your mileage may vary.
There may be several reasons.
One case is when a class is expected to implement a specific interface (virtually speaking, given that in Ruby there are no interfaces), but in that specific class that method would not make sense. In this case, the method is left for consistency.
class Foo
def say
"foo"
end
end
class Bar
def say
"bar"
end
end
class Null
def say
end
end
In other cases, it is left as a temporary placeholder or reminder.
There are also cases where the method is left blank on purpose, as a hook for developers using that library. The method it is called somewhere at runtime, and developers using that library can override the blank method in order to execute some custom callback. This approach was used in the past by some Rails libraries.
Learning ruby and oop in general, I came upon class methods which as far as I understand are like instance methods but are accessed from the class rather than from an object and can have only one running at the same time.
However, I don't understand why you would use a class method versuses a normal method (outside a class) and what is even their use?
For example:
#Why would you use:
class Foo
def self.bar
puts "Class method"
end
end
#Versus simply:
def bar
puts "Normal method"
end
Foo.bar # => Class method
bar # => Normal method
As they both produce the same result?
I'm quite confused about them so please correct if I'm misunderstanding any/everything here.
Your example isn't a good one.
Class methods might deal with managing all instances that exist of a class, and instance methods deal with a single instance at a time.
class Book
def self.all_by_author(author)
# made up database call
database.find_all(:books, where: { author: author }).map do |book_data|
new book_data # Same as: Book.new(book_data)
end
end
def title
#title
end
end
books = Book.all_by_author('Jules Vern')
books[0].title #=> 'Journey to the Center of the Earth'
In this example we have a class named Book. It has a class method all_by_author. It queries some pretend database and returns an array of Book instances. The instance method title fetches the title of a single Book instance.
So the class method managing a collection of instances, and the instance method manages just that instance.
In general, if a method would operate on a group of instances, or is code related to that class but does not directly read or update a single instance, then it probably should be a class method.
This is more an OOP question than a ruby one. Class methods in ruby are used the same as in other OO programming languages. This means:
class methods are run in the context of a class (and have access only to class variables)
instance methods are run in the context of an object (and have access to object's or instance variables)
Here is a better example:
class Foo
def self.bar
puts 'class method'
end
def baz
puts 'instance method'
end
end
Foo.bar # => "class method"
Foo.baz # => NoMethodError: undefined method ‘baz’ for Foo:Class
Foo.new.baz # => instance method
Foo.new.bar # => NoMethodError: undefined method ‘bar
Here you can see that class method is accessed through a class, while instance method is accessed through an instance or object of a class (Foo.new).
Example is copied from here, where you can also find more information on this subject.
Keep in mind: although any code can be put into a class or a instance method, each has it's own use cases and own pros and contras. In OOP we strive for reusable, flexible and readable code, which means that we usually want to put most of the code as structured as instance methods in a sensible domain model.
Just as you said, they are:
"accessed from the class rather than from an object and"
"can have only one running at the same time."
remember, too, that the class is portable
The most important thing is that it keeps your code organized. When you have hundreds of thousands of lines of code, having them all haphazardly throwing stuff around in the same namespace can become a nightmare. Organization is really important, and namespaces are an easy way to get modularity with support from the language.
Somewhat less importantly, class/module methods can share state without leaking it all over the place (e.g. classes can have instance variables), and they can have private support methods to allow for better factoring, while global methods can't effectively be made private.
You have lots of misunderstanding,
In ruby, we can define class and instance method.
Class method is used to do provide processing at class level i.e. data which can only be available at class level or related to all the objects. For example, to count the number of objects belongs to class you need class method. Like
Foo.count
In same way, to process single object you need object method to process a single object like,
obj.save
So, class method is example of singletone design pattern where object can have there own implementation of same method.
I have been a Java programmer for a while and I am trying to switch to ruby for a while. I was just trying to develop a small test program in ruby and my intention is something like following.
I want to create a simple linked list type of an object in ruby; where an instance variable in class points to another instance of same type.
I want to populate and link all nodes; before the constructor is called and only once. Something that we'd usually do in Java Static block.
Initialize method is a constructor signature in ruby. Are there any rules around them? Like in Java you cannot call another constructor from a constructor if its not the first line (or after calling the class code?)
Thanks for the help.
-Priyank
I want to create a simple linked list type of an object in ruby; where an instance variable in class points to another instance of same type.
Just a quick note: the word type is a very dangerous word in Ruby, especially if you come from Java. Due to an historic accident, the word is used both in dynamic typing and in static typing to mean two only superficially related, but very different things.
In dynamic typing, a type is a label that gets attached to a value (not a reference).
Also, in Ruby the concept of type is much broader than in Java. In Java programmer's minds, "type" means the same thing as "class" (although that's not true, since Interfaces and primitives are also types). In Ruby, "type" means "what can I do with it".
Example: in Java, when I say something is of type String, I mean it is a direct instance of the String class. In Ruby, when I say something is of type String, I mean it is either
a direct instance of the String class or
an instance of a subclass of the String class or
an object which responds to the #to_str method or
an object which behaves indistinguishably from a String.
I want to populate and link all nodes; before the constructor is called and only once. Something that we'd usually do in Java Static block.
In Ruby, everything is executable. In particular, there is no such thing as a "class declaration": a class body is just exectuable code, just like any other. If you have a list of method definitions in your class body, those are not declarations that are read by the compiler and then turned into a class object. Those are expressions that get executed by the evaluator one by one.
So, you can put any code you like into a class body, and that code will be evaluated when the class is created. Within the context of a class body, self is bound to the class (remember, classes are just objects like any other).
Initialize method is a constructor signature in ruby. Are there any rules around them? Like in Java you cannot call another constructor from a constructor if its not the first line (or after calling the class code?)
Ruby doesn't have constructors. Constructors are just factory methods (with stupid restrictions); there is no reason to have them in a well-designed language, if you can just use a (more powerful) factory method instead.
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)]
That, by the way, is the reason why to construct an object you call a public class method Foo.new but you implement a private instance method Foo#initialize, which seems to trip up a lot of newcomers.
To answer your question: since an initializer method is just a method like any other, there are absolutely no restrictions as to what you can do whithin an initializer, in particular you can call super whenever, wherever, however and how often you want.
BTW: since initialize and new are just normal methods, there is no reason why they need to be called initialize and new. That's only a convention, although a pretty strong one, since it is embodied in the core library. In your case, you want to write a collection class, and it is quite customary for a collection class to offer an alternative factory method called [], so that I can call List[1, 2, 3] instead of List.new(1, 2, 3).
Just as a side note: one obvious advantage of using normal methods for object construction is that you can construct instances of anonymous classes. This is not possible in Java, for absolutely no sensible reason whatsoever. The only reason why it doesn't work is that the constructor has the same name as the class, and anonymous classes don't have a name, ergo there cannot be a constructor.
Although I am not quite sure why you would need to run anything before object creation. Unless I am missing something, shouldn't a list basically be
class List
def initialize(head=nil, *tail)
#head = head
#tail = List.new(*tail) unless tail.empty?
end
end
for a Lisp-style cons-list or
class List
def initialize(*elems)
elems.map! {|el| Element.new(el)}
elems.zip(elems.drop(1)) {|prv, nxt| prv.instance_variable_set(:#next, nxt)}
#head = elems.first
end
class Element
def initialize(this)
#this = this
end
end
end
for a simple linked list?
You can simply initialize your class variables in the class body, outside of any method declaration. It will behave like a static initializer in Java:
class Klass
##foo = "bar"
def sayFoo
puts ##foo
end
def self.sayFoo
puts ##foo
end
end
The class field ##foo is here initialized to "bar".
In ruby object creation works like this
class Class
def new(*args)
obj= self.allocate # get some memory
obj.send(:initialize) # call the private method initialize
end
end
Object#initialize is just an ordinary private method.
If you wan't something to happen before Object#initialize you have to write your own Class#new. But I see no reason why you would want to do that.
This is basically the same answer paradigmatic gave back in '09.
Here I want to illustrate that the "static initializer" can call other code. I'm simulating a scenario of loading a special user once, upon class initialization.
class Foo
def user
"Thomas"
end
end
class Bar
##my_user = Foo.new.user
def my_statically_defined_user
##my_user
end
end
b = Bar.new
puts b.my_statically_defined_user # ==> Thomas