In Ruby, it's possible to rewrite 1.+(1) as 1 + 1. However, it's not possible to do this for other methods, such as 1.to_s, and rewrite them as 1to_s or 1 to_s. Why is this?
In other words, why is it possible to call 1+1 but not for other methods? Is this, among other methods, a nicety that's allowed by the interpreter?
Note that this works for other math operators/methods such as / and **.
a + b is just syntactic sugar for the method call a.+(b) (and the same is true for the other operators). This transformation is done during parsing. You can see it here, in ruby's bison grammar. In particular, the rule for a + b uses call_bin_op to construct the abstract syntax tree node to return, which is a macro that forwards to call_bin_op_gen, which calls NEW_CALL, which builds an AST node representing a method call.
As you state: "In Ruby, everything is an object", therefore all the things you can do end up being method calls. There is some syntactic sugar involved in making 1+1 call the #+() method of the Fixnum object 1 (you actually cannot define this yourselves as pointed out by #Ismail Badawi, it is part of the ruby language definition).
However as to_s already is a method call there is not much you can do about it. You may call it as 1.to_s(), but it is only possible to omit the . if there is no ambiguity involved and there is bound to be some in your example.
Related
I'm analyzing a block of code written in ruby.
I don't know the language and I need to understand an operation.
def restore
m = ObjectName.where(prop: User.where(email: 'admin#email.com').first.element_id).last
m.todo!
m.waiting!
...
end
what "m.todo!" and "m.waiting!" are doing?
I cannot understand if it is assigning a "true" value or a value that is the opposite of the current one like: m.todo = !m.todo
Thank you very much
! and ? are valid parts of a method name in Ruby. They don't have any special meaning, though ! is conventionally used for mutative or destructive actions, and ? is conventionally used for predicate methods.
In this example, there are two methods named todo! and waiting! being called - nothing fancier. If I had to guess, those are methods which simply perform a combined "update a state variable and save" operation (hence, mutative).
In Ruby, foo.bar is the syntax for a message send. It will first evaluate the expression foo (which is either dereferencing a local variable or a receiverless message send to the implicit receiver self) and then send the message bar to the resulting object.
Once you know what message send in Ruby looks like, it is easy to see what m.todo! does: It will first evaluate the expression m (which is either dereferencing a local variable or a receiverless message send to the implicit receiver self) and then send the message todo! to the resulting object.
Method names ending in ! are typically used to mark the "more surprising" of a pair of methods. So, if you have two Methods, both of which do similar things, then the one with the bang at the end is the "more surprising" one. A good example are Process::exit and Process::exit!. Both exit the currently running Ruby process, but the "normal" version (i.e. the one without the bang) runs the exit handlers normally, whereas the "surprising" Version exits immediately without running the exit handlers.
Note: there seems to be a lot of misunderstanding About the naming convention for bang methods. So, let me be clear:
Bang methods have absolutely nothing to do with mutation or destruction. It is simply about surprise. See the Process::exit! example above which has nothing to do with mutation.
Bang methods are always paired with a non-bang method. They mark the "more surprising" variant of a pair of methods. If there is no pair of methods, there is no bang. See, for example Array#collect!, which does have a bang because it is the more surprising variant of Array#collect, since it mutates its receiver; however, Array#append does not have a bang even though it also mutates its receiver because there is no corresponding "less surprising" method.
what "m.todo!" and "m.waiting!" are doing? I cannot understand if it is assigning a "true" value or a value that is the opposite of the current one like: m.todo = !m.todo
They do whatever the author of those methods wants. You will have to look that up in the documentation. Those are not methods of the Ruby core or standard library.
I'm wondering why calls to operator methods don't require a dot? Or rather, why can't normal methods be called without a dot?
Example
class Foo
def +(object)
puts "this will work"
end
def plus(object)
puts "this won't"
end
end
f = Foo.new
f + "anything" # "this will work"
f plus "anything" # NoMethodError: undefined method `plus' for main:Object
The answer to this question, as to pretty much every language design question is: "Just because". Language design is a series of mostly subjective trade-offs. And for most of those subjective trade-offs, the only correct answer to the question why something is the way it is, is simply "because Matz said so".
There are certainly other choices:
Lisp doesn't have operators at all. +, -, ::, >, = and so on are simply normal legal function names (variable names, actually), just like foo or bar?
(plus 1 2)
(+ 1 2)
Smalltalk almost doesn't have operators. The only special casing Smalltalk has is that methods which consist only of operator characters do not have to end with a colon. In particular, since there are no operators, all method calls have the same precedence and are evaluated strictly left-to-right: 2 + 3 * 4 is 20, not 14.
1 plus: 2
1 + 2
Scala almost doesn't have operators. Just like Lisp and Smalltalk, *, -, #::: and so on are simply legal method names. (Actually, they are also legal class, trait, type and field names.) Any method can be called either with or without a dot. If you use the form without the dot and the method takes only a single argument, then you can leave off the brackets as well. Scala does have precedence, though, although it is not user-definable; it is simply determined by the first character of the name. As an added twist, operator method names that end with a colon are inverted or right-associative, i.e. a :: b is equivalent to b.::(a) and not a.::(b).
1.plus(2)
1 plus(2)
1 plus 2
1.+(2)
1 +(2)
1 + 2
In Haskell, any function whose name consists of operator symbols is considered an operator. Any function can be treated as an operator by enclosing it in backticks and any operator can be treated as a function by enclosing it in brackets. In addition, the programmer can freely define associativity, fixity and precedence for user-defined operators.
plus 1 2
1 `plus` 2
(+) 1 2
1 + 2
There is no particular reason why Ruby couldn't support user-defined operators in a style similar to Scala. There is a reason why Ruby can't support arbitrary methods in operator position, simply because
foo plus bar
is already legal, and thus this would be a backwards-incompatible change.
Another thing to consider is that Ruby wasn't actually fully designed in advance. It was designed through its implementation. Which means that in a lot of places, the implementation is leaking through. For example, there is absolutely no logical reason why
puts(!true)
is legal but
puts(not true)
isn't. The only reason why this is so, is because Matz used an LALR(1) parser to parse a non-LALR(1) language. If he had designed the language first, he would have never picked an LALR(1) parser in the first place, and the expression would be legal.
The Refinement feature currently being discussed on ruby-core is another example. The way it is currently specified, will make it impossible to optimize method calls and inline methods, even if the program in question doesn't actually use Refinements at all. With just a simple tweak, it can be just as expressive and powerful, and ensure that the pessimization cost is only incurred for scopes that actually use Refinements. Apparently, the sole reason why it was specified this way, is that a) it was easier to prototype this way, and b) YARV doesn't have an optimizer, so nobody even bothered to think about the implications (well, nobody except Charles Oliver Nutter).
So, for basically any question you have about Ruby's design, the answer will almost always be either "because Matz said so" or "because in 1993 it was easier to implement that way".
The implementation doesn't have the additional complexity that would be needed to allow generic definition of new operators.
Instead, Ruby has a Yacc parser that uses a statically defined grammar. You get the built-in operators and that's it. Symbols occur in a fixed set of sentences in the grammar. As you have noted, the operators can be overloaded, which is more than most languages offer.
Certainly it's not because Matz was lazy.
Ruby actually has a fiendishly complex grammar that is roughly at the limit of what can be accomplished in Yacc. To get more complex would require using a less portable compiler generator or it would have required writing the parser by hand in C, and doing that would have limited future implementation portability in its own way as well as not providing the world with the Yacc input. That would be a problem because Ruby's Yacc source code is the only Ruby grammar documentation and is therefore "the standard".
Because Ruby has "syntax sugar" that allows for a variety of convenient syntax for preset situations. For example:
class Foo
def bar=( o ); end
end
# This is actually calling the bar= method with a parameter, not assigning a value
Foo.new.bar = 42
Here's a list of the operator expressions that may be implemented as methods in Ruby.
Because Ruby's syntax was designed to look roughly like popular OO languages, and those use the dot operator to call methods. The language it borrowed its object model from, Smalltalk, didn't use dots for messages, and in fact had a fairly "weird" syntax that many people found off-putting. Ruby has been called "Smalltalk with an Algol syntax," where Algol is the language that gave us the conventions you're talking about here. (Of course, there are actually more differences than just the Algol syntax.)
Missing braces was some "advantage" for ruby 1.8, but with ruby 1.9 you can't even write method_0 method_1 some param it will be rejected, so the language goes rather to the strict version instead of freeforms.
Instead of supporting method overloading Ruby overwrites existing methods. Can anyone explain why the language was designed this way?
"Overloading" is a term that simply doesn't even make sense in Ruby. It is basically a synonym for "static argument-based dispatch", but Ruby doesn't have static dispatch at all. So, the reason why Ruby doesn't support static dispatch based on the arguments, is because it doesn't support static dispatch, period. It doesn't support static dispatch of any kind, whether argument-based or otherwise.
Now, if you are not actually specifically asking about overloading, but maybe about dynamic argument-based dispatch, then the answer is: because Matz didn't implement it. Because nobody else bothered to propose it. Because nobody else bothered to implement it.
In general, dynamic argument-based dispatch in a language with optional arguments and variable-length argument lists, is very hard to get right, and even harder to keep it understandable. Even in languages with static argument-based dispatch and without optional arguments (like Java, for example), it is sometimes almost impossible to tell for a mere mortal, which overload is going to be picked.
In C#, you can actually encode any 3-SAT problem into overload resolution, which means that overload resolution in C# is NP-hard.
Now try that with dynamic dispatch, where you have the additional time dimension to keep in your head.
There are languages which dynamically dispatch based on all arguments of a procedure, as opposed to object-oriented languages, which only dispatch on the "hidden" zeroth self argument. Common Lisp, for example, dispatches on the dynamic types and even the dynamic values of all arguments. Clojure dispatches on an arbitrary function of all arguments (which BTW is extremely cool and extremely powerful).
But I don't know of any OO language with dynamic argument-based dispatch. Martin Odersky said that he might consider adding argument-based dispatch to Scala, but only if he can remove overloading at the same time and be backwards-compatible both with existing Scala code that uses overloading and compatible with Java (he especially mentioned Swing and AWT which play some extremely complex tricks exercising pretty much every nasty dark corner case of Java's rather complex overloading rules). I've had some ideas myself about adding argument-based dispatch to Ruby, but I never could figure out how to do it in a backwards-compatible manner.
Method overloading can be achieved by declaring two methods with the same name and different signatures. These different signatures can be either,
Arguments with different data types, eg: method(int a, int b) vs method(String a, String b)
Variable number of arguments, eg: method(a) vs method(a, b)
We cannot achieve method overloading using the first way because there is no data type declaration in ruby(dynamic typed language). So the only way to define the above method is def(a,b)
With the second option, it might look like we can achieve method overloading, but we can't. Let say I have two methods with different number of arguments,
def method(a); end;
def method(a, b = true); end; # second argument has a default value
method(10)
# Now the method call can match the first one as well as the second one,
# so here is the problem.
So ruby needs to maintain one method in the method look up chain with a unique name.
I presume you are looking for the ability to do this:
def my_method(arg1)
..
end
def my_method(arg1, arg2)
..
end
Ruby supports this in a different way:
def my_method(*args)
if args.length == 1
#method 1
else
#method 2
end
end
A common pattern is also to pass in options as a hash:
def my_method(options)
if options[:arg1] and options[:arg2]
#method 2
elsif options[:arg1]
#method 1
end
end
my_method arg1: 'hello', arg2: 'world'
Method overloading makes sense in a language with static typing, where you can distinguish between different types of arguments
f(1)
f('foo')
f(true)
as well as between different number of arguments
f(1)
f(1, 'foo')
f(1, 'foo', true)
The first distinction does not exist in ruby. Ruby uses dynamic typing or "duck typing". The second distinction can be handled by default arguments or by working with arguments:
def f(n, s = 'foo', flux_compensator = true)
...
end
def f(*args)
case args.size
when
...
when 2
...
when 3
...
end
end
This doesn't answer the question of why ruby doesn't have method overloading, but third-party libraries can provide it.
The contracts.ruby library allows overloading. Example adapted from the tutorial:
class Factorial
include Contracts
Contract 1 => 1
def fact(x)
x
end
Contract Num => Num
def fact(x)
x * fact(x - 1)
end
end
# try it out
Factorial.new.fact(5) # => 120
Note that this is actually more powerful than Java's overloading, because you can specify values to match (e.g. 1), not merely types.
You will see decreased performance using this though; you will have to run benchmarks to decide how much you can tolerate.
I often do the following structure :
def method(param)
case param
when String
method_for_String(param)
when Type1
method_for_Type1(param)
...
else
#default implementation
end
end
This allow the user of the object to use the clean and clear method_name : method
But if he want to optimise execution, he can directly call the correct method.
Also, it makes your test clearers and betters.
there are already great answers on why side of the question. however, if anyone looking for other solutions checkout functional-ruby gem which is inspired by Elixir pattern matching features.
class Foo
include Functional::PatternMatching
## Constructor Over loading
defn(:initialize) { #name = 'baz' }
defn(:initialize, _) {|name| #name = name.to_s }
## Method Overloading
defn(:greet, :male) {
puts "Hello, sir!"
}
defn(:greet, :female) {
puts "Hello, ma'am!"
}
end
foo = Foo.new or Foo.new('Bar')
foo.greet(:male) => "Hello, sir!"
foo.greet(:female) => "Hello, ma'am!"
I came across this nice interview with Yukihiro Matsumoto (aka. "Matz"), the creator of Ruby. Incidentally, he explains his reasoning and intention there. It is a good complement to #nkm's excellent exemplification of the problem. I have highlighted the parts that answer your question on why Ruby was designed that way:
Orthogonal versus Harmonious
Bill Venners: Dave Thomas also claimed that if I ask you to add a
feature that is orthogonal, you won't do it. What you want is
something that's harmonious. What does that mean?
Yukihiro Matsumoto: I believe consistency and orthogonality are tools
of design, not the primary goal in design.
Bill Venners: What does orthogonality mean in this context?
Yukihiro Matsumoto: An example of orthogonality is allowing any
combination of small features or syntax. For example, C++ supports
both default parameter values for functions and overloading of
function names based on parameters. Both are good features to have in
a language, but because they are orthogonal, you can apply both at the
same time. The compiler knows how to apply both at the same time. If
it's ambiguous, the compiler will flag an error. But if I look at the
code, I need to apply the rule with my brain too. I need to guess how
the compiler works. If I'm right, and I'm smart enough, it's no
problem. But if I'm not smart enough, and I'm really not, it causes
confusion. The result will be unexpected for an ordinary person. This
is an example of how orthogonality is bad.
Source: "The Philosophy of Ruby", A Conversation with Yukihiro Matsumoto, Part I
by Bill Venners, September 29, 2003 at: https://www.artima.com/intv/ruby.html
Statically typed languages support method overloading, which involves their binding at compile time. Ruby, on the other hand, is a dynamically typed language and cannot support static binding at all. In languages with optional arguments and variable-length argument lists, it is also difficult to determine which method will be invoked during dynamic argument-based dispatch. Additionally, Ruby is implemented in C, which itself does not support method overloading.
What does block in Ruby mean? It looks similar with Smalltalk, but you can't send messages to it.
For example, in smalltalk:
[:x | x + 3] value: 3
returns 6. But in ruby:
{|x| x + 3}.call 3
will cause SyntaxError.
Well, you can pass messages to lambda in ruby, though:
irb(main):025:0> ->(x){x+3}.call 3
=> 6
So in Ruby, block is not a block, but lambda is a block? Is this true? I mean, are there any differences between ruby lambda and smalltalk block? If this is true, then what is a ruby block?
Update:
From the comment and answer below, together with some googling, I guess I
have more understanding of Ruby block. In Ruby, usually a piece of code evaluates an value, and every value is an object. But, block doesn't evaluate an value. So it's not an object. Instead it can act as part of an object. For example, in {|x| x + 3} can act as a part of the object proc {|x| x + 3 }.
But it did confuse me. In smalltalk, almost every expression can be divided into objects (binding to variables are exceptions). It seems in Ruby, there are more exceptions.
First and the most important thing that Ruby block isn't: an object. It is a syntactic construct, and also obviously has an equivalent implementation - but it is not an object, and thus can't receive messages. Which makes your example of
{|x| x + 3}.call 3
ungrammatical. Lambdas, procs - those are objects that wrap a block, and have a call method which executes the block.
Thus, a block is simply a piece of code which can be passed to a method, outside the argument list - no more, no less. If you pass it to Proc.new constructor, for example, it will wrap it and give you an object you can handle:
Proc.new {|x| x + 3}.call 3
A precision:
I would even say that in smalltalk even binding is made up with object.
Think of the MethodContext.
What you are actually doing is to store the object in the MethodContext.
So
a := Object new
Can be rewrite in:
thisContext at: 1 put: Object new.
But obviously you wont write it this way since you need to know were are the temps variable.
A block in Smalltalk is an anonymous object. Syntactically, it is delimited by a [ ... ] pair.
When evaluated, it will return the last expression evaluated within itself, and there are lots of methods in its protocol.
Here are the Class comments for Blocks from a Smalltalk (in this instance, Dolphin Smalltalk 6.03 Community Edition)
"Blocks encapsulate a sequence of statements to be performed at a later time. Blocks may capture (or "close over") runtime state, such as the values of temporary variables, from the enclosing lexical scope at the point where they are created. When evaluated a block executes as if in the lexical scope in which it was defined, except that blocks may have arguments that are bound at the time of evaluation. Blocks may be passed as arguments with messages to other objects and evaluated by those objects when appropriate, and thus form a very powerful and generic "pluggability" mechanism that is a core feature which provides much of the power of Smalltalk".
By contrast, a block in Ruby is simply a parameter string. It's syntactically delimited by a { ... } pair, but it has no methods of its own.
I have a couple questions about Ruby's methods, procedures, and blocks that strike me as rather odd. They're not so much about syntax or function as the logic behind the decisions made.
Question 1:
Why is it that blocks can be passed to methods (e.g. each) but they cannot be assigned to a variable?
I know you can pass them around in procedures, i.e. p = Proc.new {...} (accessed with &p), but it doesn't make much sense to make the programmer go through these means.
Question 2:
Why is there a differentiation between methods and procedures?
For instance, I can accomplish the task of defining a function and calling that function in the following two ways:
def square(x)
x**2
end
square(3)
=> 9
or
square = lambda {|x| x**2}
square.call(3)
=> 9
Why the differentiation? In Python for example both defining a function in the standard way and by square = lambda x: x**2 accomplish the same task of creating the function and assigning it to square.
Question 1: Blocks are not objects, they are syntactic structures; this is why they cannot be assigned to a variable. This is a privilege reserved for objects.
Question 2: Methods are not objects, so they cannot receive messages. Inversely, procs and lambdas are objects, so they cannot be invoked like methods, but must receive a message that tells them to return a value on the basis of the parameters passed with the message.
Procs and Lambdas are objects, so they can receive the call message and be assigned to names. To summarize, it is being an object that makes procs and lambdas behave in ways you find odd. Methods and blocks are not objects and don't share that behavior.
To some extent at least, methods are objects:
class ABC
def some_method
end
end
ABC.instance_method(:some_method) #=> #<UnboundMethod: ABC#some_method>
Further to that, there is a built-in class: Method, as documented here.
See also this: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Ruby_Programming/Syntax/Method_Calls
Haphazardly <bseg>, it does rather seem to bear out the everything-is-an-object thing. In this particular case, it just appears to take a little more digging to see.
(I really must make an effort to understand this better: I'm starting to think it's fundamental to getting a deeper understanding.)
Methods are methods — that is, they're actions that an object can take in response to messages. They are not functions.
Blocks are closures — they're functions that close over the enclosing scope. They don't conceptually "belong to" a given object.
In some languages, methods are merely functions that are members of an object, but Ruby does not view them this way. Separating a method from its owning object is more akin to surgery than simple assignment. Ruby takes its object-orientation model from Smalltalk, the granddaddy of modern OO.