I am going through a ruby tutorial and trying to use understand how Virtual Attributes. This is the example shown in the tutorial.
class Spaceship
def destination
#autopilot.destination
end
def destination=(new_destination)
#autopilot.destination = new_destination
end
end
ship = Spaceship.new
ship.destination = "Earth"
puts ship.destination
As per tutorial, this code should ideally return Earth, but I am encountering the below error.
class.rb:7:in `destination=': undefined method `destination=' for nil:NilClass (NoMethodError) from class.rb:12:in `<main>'
I am sorry but unable to identify the missing part.
You need to assign your #autopilot variable something.
Something like this should work:
class Spaceship
def initialize
#autopilot = Struct.new(:destination).new(nil)
end
def destination
#autopilot.destination
end
def destination=(new_destination)
#autopilot.destination = new_destination
end
end
But if you want to add a virtual attribute, then keep the value as a simple instance variable, like so:
class Spaceship
def destination
#destination
end
def destination=(new_destination)
#destination = new_destination
end
end
As humza has pointed out, the code as written will not work.
I suspect the author meant to write something like the following, and wants to make the point that although destination looks like an attribute (and we may send the message destination to an object and get the expected response), there is no corresponding instance variable #destination. We may think of destination as being a virtual attribute.
class Spaceship
def destination
dosomething
end
def destination=(new_destination)
#autopilot = new_destination
end
def dosomething
#autopilot
end
end
ship = Spaceship.new
ship.destination ="Earth"
puts ship.destination
Objects may behave as if the class Spaceship was written as shown in the next example, that is the interface of both classes is the same (and in this case we do have an instance variable #destination).
class Spaceship
def destination
#destination
end
def destination=(new_destination)
#destination = new_destination
end
end
ship = Spaceship.new
ship.destination ="Earth"
puts ship.destination
A message that is send to an object of the Class Spaceship does not need to know (and does not know) about the internal implementation.
Virtual Attributes are treated well here, and a better example is given, where a method durationInMinutes is defined without any corresponding instance variable #durationInMinutes. The explanation given is very concise, and I'll quote it in full:
Here we've used attribute methods to create a virtual instance variable. To the outside world, durationInMinutes seems to be an attribute like any other. Internally, though, there is no corresponding instance variable.
The author(s) continue:
This is more than a curiosity. In his landmark book Object-Oriented Software Construction , Bertrand Meyer calls this the Uniform Access Principle. By hiding the difference between instance variables and calculated values, you are shielding the rest of the world from the implementation of your class. You're free to change how things work in the future without impacting the millions of lines of code that use your class. This is a big win.
Related
I need to make the following code functional by building a "Car" class. I feel I must be overlooking something simple. any help would be appreciated. The # indicates the expected output
# Make the following code functional by building a Car class
c = Car.new("blue")
puts c.color # blue
puts c.repaint_count # 0
c.paint("red")
c.paint("green")
puts c.repaint_count # 2
puts c.color # green
here is what I have done:
class Car
##repaint_count = 0
def initialize(color)
#color = color
end
def self.paint(color)
#color = color
##repaint_color += 1
end
def self.color
#color
end
end
I guess I am being thrown by the c.color / c.paint: should I be defining these methods and setting them equal to class or something else ? I think I am missing something about classes and inheritance.
I guess I am being thrown by the c.color / c.paint: should I be
defining these methods and setting them equal to class or something
else ? I think I am missing something about classes and inheritance.
I think in fact you are over-complicating it by worrying about these things at this stage. The question is not about inheritance. Although in some ways it is poorly specified in that it is possible to mis-interpret the question text and assign some properties to the class other than the instance.
So first things, you have got that the question expects you to implement a Car class, and that there is internal state to track for the current color and the number of times it has changed. You have partly mis-understood the repaint count and made it a class variable. It needs to be an instance variable - it is intended to be the number of times a specific car has been re-painted, not the number of times any car has been re-painted. Although the example numbers would be the same, the difference is that the question asks for c.repaint_count not Car.repaint_count, and c is an instance of Car, hence you want to store the count as an instance variable - set it to 0 in the constructor.
Similar confusion in your accessor code. Ruby's use of self is a little confusing - it changes meaning on context in the code. If you changed your def self.paint to just def paint and similarly for color then with the change from last paragraph, you are pretty much done.
One last thing, you need to implement repaint_count accessor similar to how you have done with color (and again, without the self. which would make it a class method)
You seem to be confusing classes and instances. c is an instance of Car, and is not the class Car itself. Unless you want to count the total repaint_count throughout the Car class, you should not use a class variable ##repaint_count, but should use an instance variable. Your paint method is a class method, and is not well defined. In addition the definition body looks like you randomly put something.
class Car
attr_reader :color, :repaint_count
def initialize color
#color = color
#repaint_count = 0
end
def paint color
#color = color
#repaint_count += 1
end
end
Well, this looks like a homework question, which I'm not going to write for you. However I'll give you some pointers.
You create/ open up a class like this.
class Foo
end
When you open up a class like this you can set it up to accept arguments immediately, like so:
class Foo
attr_accessor :bar, :bar_counter
def initialize(arg_1)
#bar = arg_1
#bar_counter = 0
end
# And add methods with any name like so.
def increase_bar
#bar_counter += 1
end
def change_bar(arg)
#bar = arg
end
end
This will explain the differences between attr_accessor, attr_reader, attr_writer https://stackoverflow.com/a/4371458/2167965
People have various opinions on Codecademy, but in my opinion it's perfect for teaching basic syntax like this. There's also Ruby Koans, and Ruby Test First.
My recommendations would be to start with codecademy to learn the syntax, and move to Test First to flesh out those concepts.
I am writing a class in Ruby where I have instance variables (i.e. #person_summary_info, #name, #dob, #favorite_food) for the class.
To parse a piece of text, I have a public method that I call from outside the class (let's call it interpret).
This method calls some private class methods such as get_name that use #person_summary_info to extract the respective piece of information (in this case, the name of the person). Should those private methods:
a) use the instance #person_summary_info, or get that information through a parameter passed to them (i.e. get_name vs get_name(person_summary_info))
b) modify the instance variable directly and return nothing, or modify nothing outside the scope of the function, and return the result (i.e. inside get_name, set #name = 'John', or return 'John')?
What is the best practice here?
Thanks!
I have included my best representation of your question in code at the bottom of my answer, but I'd like to present my solution as I understand your dilemma first...
Do this if your name attribute is meant to be publicly accessible:
class Person
attr_accessor :name
def initialize(name)
#name = name
end
def interpret(text_to_parse)
# I have no idea what you are parsing in real life
self.name = text_to_parse.split.last
end
end
person = Person.new("Frederick")
puts person.name
# => "Frederick"
person.interpret("Please, call me Fred")
puts person.name
# => "Fred"
Do this if your name attribute should not be (easily) publicly accessible: (For what it's worth, pretty much anything can be accessed one way or another in Ruby. One of the many things that make it awesome!)
class Person
def initialize(name)
#name = name
end
def interpret(text_to_parse)
# I have no idea what you are parsing in real life
#name = text_to_parse.split.last
end
end
person = Person.new("Frederick")
puts person.instance_variable_get("#name")
# => "Frederick"
person.interpret("Please, call me Fred")
puts person.instance_variable_get("#name")
# => "Fred"
And, as mentioned above, here's my best translation of your question into code:
class Person
def initialize
#person_summary_info = { name: "foo" }
#name = "bar"
#dob = "baz"
#favorite_food = "beer"
end
def interpret(text_to_parse)
# Some kind of parsing?
get_name_1
# OR
get_name_2(#person_summary_info)
# OR
get_name_3
# OR
#name = get_name_4
end
private
def get_name_1
#person_summary_info[:name]
end
def get_name_2(person_summary_info)
person_summary_info[:name]
end
def get_name_3
#name = 'John'
end
def get_name_4
'John'
end
end
Hopefully, you can see why there's some confusion in the comments about what you are asking exactly. If nothing else, maybe seeing this will help you to form your question more clearly so we can help!
Finally, you should avoid writing your own getters/setters in Ruby unless you need to hook in some custom code to the getting/setting processes -- use the class-level attr_reader/attr_writer/attr_accessor macros to create them for you.
If interpret() is not meant to change the state of a particular instance of Person, then consider naming the method something like get_name_from_string(string) and possibly making it static, since it doesnt do anything to the state of the instance.
If you want interpret() to change the state of a particular instance of Person, then consider changing the name of the method, prefixing it with set and include the attribute name being set (set_name_from_string()). If several attributes are being set, then perhaps set_from_string() and include a code comment stating what instance variables are being modified. Internally the method could call get/set_name() as described below.
Typically, getter/setter methods are public and should be quite simple, doing what their name suggests:
- getName() returns the instance variable #name
- setName(name) sets or overwrites the instance variable #name with the value passed in and returns nothing
In Java, this is a type of POJO, specifically Java Beans (excluding the part about needing to be serializable) Its very common programming practice in several different languages to have public setter/getter methods for the instance variables and to also have a default constructor (one that takes no arguments) and another constructor allowing you to set the instance variables upon instantiation of the Object.
using #instance directly from another class is a good way how to get into troubles. Each class should have it's own variables and anything you would like to process or return back should be assigned/returned directly.. that means that way
#instance = my_class.get_name(person_summary_info)
and not
my_class.get_name
Just try to imagine how to test that code using #instance variables and chance to reuse that piece of code..
just my 2c
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.
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
I'm really new to Ruby. And by new - less than 16 hours, but my boss gave me some Ruby code to add to. However, I found it was one giant file and not modular at all, so I decided to clean it up. Now that I've broken it up into several files/classes (generally speaking, 1 class per file,) I'm having problems piecing it together for it to work again. Originally everything was part of the same class, so the calls worked, but it looked ugly and it took an entire work day just to figure it out. I want to avoid that for the future as this code will grow much larger before it is done.
My main issue looks like the following (simplified, obviously):
class TestDevice
def initialize
#loghash = { }
....
end
end
class Log
def self.msg(identifier, level, section, message)
...
#loghash[identifier] = { level => { section => message }}
...
end
end
device = TestDevice.new
After that, it calls out to other class methods, and those class methods reference back to the class Log for their logging needs. Of course, Log needs to access "device.loghash" somehow to log the information in that hash. But I can't figure out how to make that happen outside of passing the contents of "loghash" to every method, so that they, in turn, can pass it, and then return the value back to the origination point and then logging it at the end, but that seems really clumsy and awkward.
I'm hoping I am really just missing something.
To create accessors for instance variables the simple way, use attr_accessor.
class TestDevice
attr_accessor :loghash
def initialize
#loghash = { }
....
end
end
You can also manually define an accessor.
class TestDevice
def loghash
#loghash
end
def loghash=(val)
#loghash = val
end
end
This is effectively what attr_accessor does behind the scenes.
how about passing the device object as a parameter to the msg function? (I'm assuming that there can be many devices in your program, otherwise you can use singleton pattern).
class TestDevice
attr_accessor :loghash
def initialize
#loghash = { }
....
end
end
class Log
def self.msg(device, identifier, level, section, message)
...
device.loghash[identifier] = { level => { section => message }}
...
end
end
So you need to learn the rules of ruby scoping.
Ruby variables have different scope, depending on their prefix:
$global_variables start with a $, and are available to everyone.
#instance_variables start with a single #, and are stored with the current value of self. If two
scopes share the same value of self (they're both instance methods, for example),
then both share the same instance variables
##class_variable start with ##, and are stored with the class. They're
shared between all instances of a class - and all instances of subclasses
of that class.
Constants start with a capital letter, and may be all caps. Like class
variables, they're stored with the current self.class, but they also
trickle up the hierarchy - so if you have a class defined in a module,
the instances of the class can access the module's constants as well.
Constants defined outside of a class have global scope.
Note that a constant variable means that which object is bound to the constant
won't change, not that the object itself won't change internal state.
local_variables start with a lowercase letter
You can read more about scope here.
Local variables scoping rules are mainly standard - they're available in
all subscopes of the one in which they are defined except when we move into
a module, class, or method definition. So if we look at your code from your
answer
class TestDevice
attr_accessor :loghash
def initialize
#loghash = { }
end
end
device = TestDevice.new
class Somethingelse
def self.something
device.loghash='something here' # doesn't work
end
end
The scope of the device local variable defined at the toplevel does not include the Somethingelse.something
method definition. So the device local variable used in the Somethingelse.something method definition is a different (empty) variable. If you want the scoping to work that way, you should use a constant or a global variable.
class TestDevice
attr_accessor :loghash
def initialize
#loghash = { }
end
end
DEVICE = TestDevice.new
$has_logged = false
class Somethingelse
def self.something
DEVICE.loghash='something here'
$has_logged = true
end
end
p DEVICE.loghash # prints `{}`
p $has_logged # prints `false`
Somethingelse.something
p DEVICE.loghash # prints `"something here"`
p $has_logged # prints `true`