I anticipate that I am not trying to do anything practical here, just trying to understand some deeper Ruby concepts.
Supppose I have the following code
class Bookshelf
#book_qty = 100 # class instance var
class << self
attr_accessor :books_qty
end
def initialize
#book = "This book is in every object as an object instance variable"
end
# so far so good, but what happens with...
def self.initialize # what would be this called on ?
puts " and at what step would this be printed, if ever?"
# I thought it would be printed when the class code is parsed first time,
# but no
end
# or also
class << self
def initialize
puts "same here"
end
end
end
I know it might not make sense or might be too intricately related on how Ruby internals work, but, if by chance anyone has been puzzled too by this and knows the answer... please share it :)
There is no purpose to defining initialize for the singleton class (whether you use def self. or class << self). initialize is only called by Class#new and...
Bookshelf.singleton_class.new
# TypeError: can't create instance of singleton class
that's not allowed.
If you want code to be executed the first time a class is parsed, just put it in the class
class Bookshelf
puts "class defined!"
end
In some cases, it does make sense to define a custom constructor, but I wouldn't call the method initialize, since the instance method you override to customise initialisation is also called initialize. That would be a little confusing.
def self.initialize # what would be this called on ?
If you define a method like this, you can invoke it by sending the method directly to the class:
Bookshelf.initialize
Same thing applies for methods defined inside class << self.
As mentioned, it does make sense to define custom constructors for a class. Sometimes just for readability's sake:
class Bookshelf
attr_accessor :book_qty
def self.with_quantity(quantity)
new(quantity)
end
def initialize(quantity)
self.book_qty = quantity
end
end
Now you could instantiate a Bookshelf like this:
bs = Bookshelf.with_quantity 100
bs.quantity # => 100
You actually call .new on the singleton class of Bookshelf. And #initialize is basically just a hook for the instance to tweak its initialisation.
How you could access class instance variables
class Bookshelf
#book_qty = 1000
class << self
attr_accessor :book_qty
end
end
Bookshelf.book_qty # => 1000
Bookshelf.book_qty = 2000
Bookshelf.book_qty # => 2000
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
My goal is:
class Bermuda
class << self
def grass
puts self.superclass.name
end
end
end
# my goal is that this expression
Bermuda.grass
# will output a string of the class name it resides in
=> "Bermuda"
I cannot display the name of the class that holds a singleton method. I have tried a number of different stabs and standard library searches but haven't found an answer.
This is partially pointless because you would not need a class method to display the information that you would need in the first place to call that method. I'm curious if it's possible or I'm completely missing the scope.
Just call name on self
class Bermuda
class << self
def grass
puts self.name
end
end
end
This sort of an implementation isn't recommended since all you have to do to get the class name is call Bermuda.name
Please see the answer given below by #MatthewCliatt for more info.
It's as simple as:
self.class.name
But, the catch is that this isn't for class methods, it's for instance methods.
That means you don't declare it with self. This was your code:
class Bermuda
class << self
def grass
puts self.superclass.name
end
end
end
And that will make the grass method a class method. You would have to call it like Bermuda.grass.
But, if you can call class methods like the one above, you could just as easily write: Bermuda.name.
I'm assuming you can't call class methods, probably because you're working with an instance. So you want to write this method as such:
class Bermuda
def grass
puts self.class.name
end
end
You say you're creating a singleton method, but I don't think your method is a singleton method in the usual sense (i.e. a method on an object that is an instance of a class, but not itself a class).
I believe the class << self notation you use merely results in a class method being defined, identical to:
def self.grass
puts name
end
In irb:
2.3.0 :003 > class Bermuda; def self.grass; puts name; end; end
=> :grass
2.3.0 :004 > Bermuda.grass
Bermuda
I'm trying to create a singleton class that requires some sophisticated initialization. I've boiled my problem down to this test case:
class Dumb
attr_accessor :mything
#my_thing = 1 # this works
self.init_some_stuff # this gives undefined method
class << self
def init_some_stuff
#my_thing = 2
end
def spill_it
puts "My Thing: #{#my_thing}"
end
end
end
I can initialize simple variables, but want to call class methods to do it, and I get "undefined method". Since I intend it to be used as a singleton, a constructor would not get called. What am I missing?
A method is executed whenever it is met.
self.init_some_stuff
is placed before the definition of it. That is the problem. Place it after the definition.
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.
What does class << self do in Ruby?
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"
Now, to answer the question: 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 String
class << self
def value_of obj
obj.to_s
end
end
end
String.value_of 42 # => "42"
This can also be written as a shorthand:
class String
def self.value_of obj
obj.to_s
end
end
Or even shorter:
def String.value_of obj
obj.to_s
end
When inside a function definition, self refers to the object the function is being called with. In this case, class << self opens the singleton class for that object; one use of that is to implement a poor man's state machine:
class StateMachineExample
def process obj
process_hook obj
end
private
def process_state_1 obj
# ...
class << self
alias process_hook process_state_2
end
end
def process_state_2 obj
# ...
class << self
alias process_hook process_state_1
end
end
# Set up initial state
alias process_hook process_state_1
end
So, in the example above, each instance of StateMachineExample has process_hook aliased to process_state_1, but note how in the latter, it can redefine process_hook (for self only, not affecting other StateMachineExample instances) to process_state_2. So, each time a caller calls the process method (which calls the redefinable process_hook), the behaviour changes depending on what state it's in.
I found a super simple explanation about class << self , Eigenclass and different type of methods.
In Ruby, there are three types of methods that can be applied to a class:
Instance methods
Singleton methods
Class methods
Instance methods and class methods are almost similar to their homonymous in other programming languages.
class Foo
def an_instance_method
puts "I am an instance method"
end
def self.a_class_method
puts "I am a class method"
end
end
foo = Foo.new
def foo.a_singleton_method
puts "I am a singletone method"
end
Another way of accessing an Eigenclass(which includes singleton methods) is with the following syntax (class <<):
foo = Foo.new
class << foo
def a_singleton_method
puts "I am a singleton method"
end
end
now you can define a singleton method for self which is the class Foo itself in this context:
class Foo
class << self
def a_singleton_and_class_method
puts "I am a singleton method for self and a class method for Foo"
end
end
end
Usually, instance methods are global methods. That means they are available in all instances of the class on which they were defined. In contrast, a singleton method is implemented on a single object.
Ruby stores methods in classes and all methods must be associated with a class. The object on which a singleton method is defined is not a class (it is an instance of a class). If only classes can store methods, how can an object store a singleton method? When a singleton method is created, Ruby automatically creates an anonymous class to store that method. These anonymous classes are called metaclasses, also known as singleton classes or eigenclasses. The singleton method is associated with the metaclass which, in turn, is associated with the object on which the singleton method was defined.
If multiple singleton methods are defined within a single object, they are all stored in the same metaclass.
class Zen
end
z1 = Zen.new
z2 = Zen.new
class << z1
def say_hello
puts "Hello!"
end
end
z1.say_hello # Output: Hello!
z2.say_hello # Output: NoMethodError: undefined method `say_hello'…
In the above example, class << z1 changes the current self to point to the metaclass of the z1 object; then, it defines the say_hello method within the metaclass.
Classes are also objects (instances of the built-in class called Class). Class methods are nothing more than singleton methods associated with a class object.
class Zabuton
class << self
def stuff
puts "Stuffing zabuton…"
end
end
end
All objects may have metaclasses. That means classes can also have metaclasses. In the above example, class << self modifies self so it points to the metaclass of the Zabuton class. When a method is defined without an explicit receiver (the class/object on which the method will be defined), it is implicitly defined within the current scope, that is, the current value of self. Hence, the stuff method is defined within the metaclass of the Zabuton class. The above example is just another way to define a class method. IMHO, it's better to use the def self.my_new_clas_method syntax to define class methods, as it makes the code easier to understand. The above example was included so we understand what's happening when we come across the class << self syntax.
Additional info can be found at this post about Ruby Classes.
What class << thing does:
class Hi
self #=> Hi
class << self #same as 'class << Hi'
self #=> #<Class:Hi>
self == Hi.singleton_class #=> true
end
end
[it makes self == thing.singleton_class in the context of its block].
What is thing.singleton_class?
hi = String.new
def hi.a
end
hi.class.instance_methods.include? :a #=> false
hi.singleton_class.instance_methods.include? :a #=> true
hi object inherits its #methods from its #singleton_class.instance_methods and then from its #class.instance_methods.
Here we gave hi's singleton class instance method :a. It could have been done with class << hi instead.
hi's #singleton_class has all instance methods hi's #class has, and possibly some more (:a here).
[instance methods of thing's #class and #singleton_class can be applied directly to thing. when ruby sees thing.a, it first looks for :a method definition in thing.singleton_class.instance_methods and then in thing.class.instance_methods]
By the way - they call object's singleton class == metaclass == eigenclass.
А singleton method is a method that is defined only for a single object.
Example:
class SomeClass
class << self
def test
end
end
end
test_obj = SomeClass.new
def test_obj.test_2
end
class << test_obj
def test_3
end
end
puts "Singleton's methods of SomeClass"
puts SomeClass.singleton_methods
puts '------------------------------------------'
puts "Singleton's methods of test_obj"
puts test_obj.singleton_methods
Singleton's methods of SomeClass
test
Singleton's methods of test_obj
test_2
test_3
In fact if you write any C extensions for your Ruby projects there is really only one way to define a Module method.
rb_define_singleton_method
I know this self business just opens up all kinds of other questions so you could do better by searching each part.
Objects first.
foo = Object.new
Can I make a method for foo?
Sure
def foo.hello
'hello'
end
What do I do with it?
foo.hello
==>"hello"
Just another object.
foo.methods
You get all the Object methods plus your new one.
def foo.self
self
end
foo.self
Just the foo Object.
Try to see what happens if you make foo from other Objects like Class and Module. The examples from all the answers are nice to play with but you have to work with different ideas or concepts to really understand what is going on with the way the code is written. So now you have lots of terms to go look at.
Singleton,
Class,
Module,
self,
Object,
and Eigenclass was brought up but Ruby doesn't name Object Models that way. It's more like Metaclass.
Richard or __why shows you the idea here.
http://viewsourcecode.org/why/hacking/seeingMetaclassesClearly.html
And if the blows you away then try looking up Ruby Object Model in search.
Two videos that I know of on YouTube are Dave Thomas and Peter Cooper. They try to explain that concept too. It took Dave a long time to get it so don't worry.
I'm still working on it too. Why else would I be here?
Thanks for your question.
Also take a look at the standard library. It has a Singleton Module just as an FYI.
This is pretty good.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4uiyWA8eFk