I want to call the constructors of two modules I have included in a class, but I don't know how to do it.
module GameObject
attr_reader :x, :y
def initialize(x, y)
#x, #y = x, y
end
end
module Attackable
attr_reader :health, :damage
def initialize(health, damage)
#health, #damage = health, damage
end
end
class SuperMario
include GameObject
include Attackable
def initialize(x, y, health, damage)
.. how to call the above constructors?
end
end
How do I call the constructor of Attackable and GameObject?
As the way you can call the module's methods explicitly in the class initializer as follows:
def initialize(x, y, health, damage)
m = GameObject.instance_method( :initialize )
m.bind(self).call( x, y )
m = Attackable.instance_method( :initialize )
m.bind(self).call( health, damage)
end
I imagine you come from the C++ world, where multiple inheritance is allowed... In short, Ruby only offers single inheritance, and doesn't allow to nitpick the parent method that you're calling. This makes what you're trying to achieve unweildy, to put it mildly. Modules aren't going to offer you any good workarounds -- even after accounting for prepend or self.included and the rest of the metaprogramming toolbox -- except in the specific set of cases where they have no name collisions.
What you could do is rename the initialize method so its logic in a function specific to its module, and call that. Aside: it's usually a code smell to define an initialize method in a module to begin with.
I learned something new today:
module B
def cat(a) puts "in B, a = #{a}" end
end
module C
def cat(a) puts "in C, a = #{a}"; super a+1; end
end
class A
include B
include C
def cat(a) puts "in A, a = #{a}"; super a+1; end
end
A.new.cat(2)
# => in A, a = 2
# => in C, a = 3
# => in B, a = 4
Your question is not restricted to initialize, which is why I illustrated this behavior with a generic method. I had expected the includes would just mix-in the other two cat methods, so the result would be the same as:
class D
def cat(a) puts "in 1st, a = #{a}" end
def cat(a) puts "in 2nd, a = #{a}"; super a+1; end
def cat(a) puts "in 3rd, a = #{a}"; super a+1; end
end
D.new.cat(2)
# => in 3rd, a = 2
# => module.rb:24:in `cat': super: no superclass method `cat' for
# #<D:0x007faadb99acb8> (NoMethodError) from module.rb:27:in `<main>'
I was puzzled by #sawa's comment about "super" and found I was wrong. (I hope not everyone reading this will be thinking, "so what else is new?".)
Related
Sandi Metz says in SOLID OOPS concepts from GORUCO that presence of if..else blocks in Ruby can be considered to be a deviation from Open-Close Principle. What all methods can be used to avoid not-urgent if..else conditions? I tried the following code:
class Fun
def park(s=String.new)
puts s
end
def park(i=Fixnum.new)
i=i+2
end
end
and found out that function overloading does not work in Ruby. What are other methods through which the code can be made to obey OCP?
I could have simply gone for:
class Fun
def park(i)
i=i+2 if i.class==1.class
puts i if i.class=="asd".class
end
end
but this is in violation to OCP.
With your current example, and wanting to avoid type detection, I would use Ruby's capability to re-open classes to add functionality you need to Integer and String:
class Integer
def park
puts self + 2
end
end
class String
def park
puts self
end
end
This would work more cleanly when altering your own classes. But maybe it doesn't fit your conceptual model (it depends what Fun represents, and why it can take those two different classes in a single method).
An equivalent but keeping your Fun class might be:
class Fun
def park_fixnum i
puts i + 2
end
def park_string s
puts s
end
def park param
send("park_#{param.class.to_s.downcase}", param)
end
end
As an opinion, I am not sure you will gain much writing Ruby in this way. The principles you are learning may be good ones (I don't know), but applying them forcefully "against the grain" of the language may create less readable code, regardless of whether it meets a well-intentioned design.
So what I would probably do in practice is this:
class Fun
def park param
case param
when Integer
puts param + 2
when String
puts param
end
end
end
This does not meet your principles, but is idiomatic Ruby and slightly easier to read and maintain than an if block (where the conditions could be far more complex so take longer for a human to parse).
You could just create handled classes for Fun like so
class Fun
def park(obj)
#parker ||= Object.const_get("#{obj.class}Park").new(obj)
#parker.park
rescue NameError => e
raise ArgumentError, "expected String or Fixnum but recieved #{obj.class.name}"
end
end
class Park
def initialize(p)
#park = p
end
def park
#park
end
end
class FixnumPark < Park
def park
#park += 2
end
end
class StringPark < Park
end
Then things like this will work
f = Fun.new
f.park("string")
#=> "string"
f.instance_variable_get("#parker")
#=> #<StringPark:0x1e04b48 #park="string">
f = Fun.new
f.park(2)
#=> 4
f.instance_variable_get("#parker")
#=> #<FixnumPark:0x1e04b48 #park=4>
f.park(22)
#=> 6 because the instance is already loaded and 4 + 2 = 6
Fun.new.park(12.3)
#=> ArgumentError: expected String or Fixnum but received Float
You could do something like this:
class Parent
attr_reader :s
def initialize(s='')
#s = s
end
def park
puts s
end
end
class Child1 < Parent
attr_reader :x
def initialize(s, x)
super(s)
#x = x
end
def park
puts x
end
end
class Child2 < Parent
attr_reader :y
def initialize(s, y)
super(s)
#y = y
end
def park
puts y
end
end
objects = [
Parent.new('hello'),
Child1.new('goodbye', 1),
Child2.new('adios', 2),
]
objects.each do |obj|
obj.park
end
--output:--
hello
1
2
Or, maybe I overlooked one of your twists:
class Parent
attr_reader :x
def initialize(s='')
#x = s
end
def park
puts x
end
end
class Child1 < Parent
def initialize(x)
super
end
def park
x + 2
end
end
class Child2 < Parent
def initialize(x)
super
end
def park
x * 2
end
end
objects = [
Parent.new('hello'),
Child1.new(2),
Child2.new(100),
]
results = objects.map do |obj|
obj.park
end
p results
--output:--
hello
[nil, 4, 200]
And another example using blocks, which are like anonymous functions. You can pass in the desired behavior to park() as a function:
class Function
attr_reader :block
def initialize(&park)
#block = park
end
def park
raise "Not implemented"
end
end
class StringFunction < Function
def initialize(&park)
super
end
def park
block.call
end
end
class AdditionFunction < Function
def initialize(&park)
super
end
def park
block.call 1
end
end
class DogFunction < Function
class Dog
def bark
puts 'woof, woof'
end
end
def initialize(&park)
super
end
def park
block.call Dog.new
end
end
objects = [
StringFunction.new {puts 'hello'},
AdditionFunction.new {|i| i+2},
DogFunction.new {|dog| dog.bark},
]
results = objects.map do |obj|
obj.park
end
p results
--output:--
hello
woof, woof
[nil, 3, nil]
Look at the is_a? method
def park(i)
i.is_a?(Fixnum) ? (i + 2) : i
end
But even better not to check a type, but use duck typing:
def park(i)
i.respond_to?(:+) ? (i + 2) : i
end
UPD: After reading comments. Yes, both examples above don't solve the OCP problem. That is how I would do it:
class Fun
# The method doesn't know how to pluck data. But it knows a guy
# who knows the trick
def pluck(i)
return __pluck_string__(i) if i.is_a? String
__pluck_fixnum__(i) if i.is_a? Fixnum
end
private
# Every method is responsible for plucking data in some special way
# Only one cause of possible changes for each of them
def __pluck_string__(i)
puts i
end
def __pluck_fixnum__(i)
i + 2
end
end
I understand or equal to operation in ruby but can you explain what
you have done with:
Object.const_get("#{obj.class}Park").new(obj)
In ruby, something that starts with a capital letter is a constant. Here is a simpler example of how const_get() works:
class Dog
def bark
puts 'woof'
end
end
dog_class = Object.const_get("Dog")
dog_class.new.bark
--output:--
woof
Of course, you can also pass arguments to dog_class.new:
class Dog
attr_reader :name
def initialize(name)
#name = name
end
def bark
puts "#{name} says woof!"
end
end
dog_class = Object.const_get("Dog")
dog_class.new('Ralph').bark
--output:--
Ralph says woof!
And the following line is just a variation of the above:
Object.const_get("#{obj.class}Park").new(obj)
If obj = 'hello', the first portion:
Object.const_get("#{obj.class}Park")
is equivalent to:
Object.const_get("#{String}Park")
And when the String class object is interpolated into a string, it is simply converted to the string "String", giving you:
Object.const_get("StringPark")
And that line retrieves the StringPark class, giving you:
Object.const_get("StringPark")
|
V
StringPark
Then, adding the second portion of the original line gives you:
StringPark.new(obj)
And because obj = 'hello', that is equivalent to:
StringPark.new('hello')
Capice?
It's possible to create a Complex number in Ruby using
c = Complex.new(1,2)
but, it can be shortened to
c = Complex(1,2)
Is it possible to achieve the same functionality without having to define a function outside the class, like in the example below?
class Bits
def initialize(bits)
#bits = bits
end
end
def Bits(list) # I would like to define this function inside the class
Bits.new list
end
b = Bits([0,1])
I think Ruby should allow at least one of the proposed constructors below
class Bits
def initialize(bits)
#bits = bits
end
def self.Bits(list) # version 1
new list
end
def Bits(list) # version 2
new list
end
def Bits.Bits(list) # version 3
new list
end
end
Have this snippet:
def make_light_constructor(klass)
eval("def #{klass}(*args) #{klass}.new(*args) end")
end
Now you can do this:
class Test
make_light_constructor(Test)
def initialize(x,y)
print x + y
end
end
t = Test(5,3)
Yes, I know you're still defining a function outside a class - but it is only one function, and now any class you want can make use of its implementation rather than making one function per class.
c = Complex(1,2)
is actually calling a method on Kernel
Basically you can't - the () operator cannot be overriden in Ruby (Complex class is written in C).
You could achieve something similar using []:
class Bits
def self.[](list)
Bits.new list
end
end
Which would allow something like:
b = Bits[[1,2]]
If you pack your classes into some module you can use 2 methods:
self.included - called when you include Mod
self.extend - called when you extend Mod
I have created very basic method using self.included.
Cons: It is hard to write. You can say it is complex; It may not contain all features.
Pros: It looks exactly like Complex(2,3) (it uses () instead of [] as in https://stackoverflow.com/a/24351316/2597260 answer); You create just initialize, self.included create the rest.
module M1
# some random classes
class A; end
class B
def initialize list
#list = list
end
attr_accessor :list
end
class C
def initialize var1
#var1 = var1
end
attr_accessor :var1
end
Answer = 42
# called on `include module_name`
def self.included mod
# classes are constants (in normal cases)
constants.each do |cons|
class_eval do
# I don't like hard-coded `::M1`
klass = ::M1.const_get cons
if klass.class==Class
define_method cons do |*args, &block|
klass.new *args, &block
end
end
end
end
end
end
include M1
p A()
b = B([1,2,3])
p b.list
c = C 42
p c.var1
puts Answer()
# NoMethodError: undefined method `Answer' for main:Object
# thats good, because Answer is not a class!
Here's another hack that you could (but shouldn't) use, inspired by this blog post:
def method_missing(sym, *args, **kwargs, &blk)
Object.const_get(sym).new(*args, **kwargs, &blk)
end
This simply expects any unknown method name to be the name of a class and calls :new on the class.
With rudimentary error handling:
alias sys_method_missing method_missing
def method_missing(sym, *args, **kwargs, &blk)
cls = Object.const_get(sym) if Object.constants.include? sym
if cls.is_a?(Class) then cls.new(*args, **kwargs, &blk)
else sys_method_missing(sym, *args, **kwargs, &blk) end
end
If an unknown method name is the name of a class, this calls :new on the class. Otherwise, it delegates the call to the original implementation of method_missing().
Usage:
class Foo
end
foo = Foo()
p foo
Result:
#<Foo:0x00007f8fe0877180>
I want to call instance_eval on this class:
class A
attr_reader :att
end
passing this method b:
class B
def b(*args)
att
end
end
but this is happening:
a = A.new
bb = B.new
a.instance_eval(&bb.method(:b)) # NameError: undefined local variable or method `att' for #<B:0x007fb39ad0d568>
When b is a block it works, but b as a method isn't working. How can I make it work?
It's not clear exactly what you goal is. You can easily share methods between classes by defining them in a module and including the module in each class
module ABCommon
def a
'a'
end
end
class A
include ABCommon
end
Anything = Hash
class B < Anything
include ABCommon
def b(*args)
a
end
def run
puts b
end
end
This answer does not use a real method as asked, but I didn't need to return a Proc or change A. This is a DSL, def_b should have a meaningful name to the domain, like configure, and it is more likely to be defined in a module or base class.
class B
class << self
def def_b(&block)
(#b_blocks ||= []) << block
end
def run
return if #b_blocks.nil?
a = A.new
#b_blocks.each { |block| a.instance_eval(&block) }
end
end
def_b do
a
end
end
And it accepts multiple definitions. It could be made accept only a single definition like this:
class B
class << self
def def_b(&block)
raise "b defined twice!" unless #b_block.nil?
#b_block = block
end
def run
A.new.instance_eval(&#b_block) unless #b_block.nil?
end
end
def_b do
a
end
end
Right now I have:
module A
class B
def initialize
#y = 'foo'
end
end
end
module A
class C < B
def initialize
#z = 'buzz'
end
end
end
How can I have it so when I instantiate C #y is still set equal to 'foo'? Do I have to repeat that in the initialize under C? I am a following a bad pattern? Should #y be a class variable or just a constant under the module? Any help would be appreciated!
class A::C < B
def initialize( x, y )
super # With no parens or arguments, this passes along whatever arguments
# were passed to this initialize; your initialize signature must
# therefore match that of the parent class
#z = 'buzz'
end
end
Or, as #EnabrenTane pointed out, you can explicitly pass along whatever arguments you know the super class will be expecting.
For more on inheritance, see the section on Inheritance and Messages in the old-but-free online version of the Pickaxe book.
You need the super keyword. It calls your parents definition of the same method.
I added params just in case. Note, to pass params B#initialize will have to take optional params as well.
module A
class C < B
def initialize(params = nil)
super(params) # calls B#initialize passing params
#z = 'buzz'
end
end
end
I'm not sure of the best idiom for C style call-backs in Ruby - or if there is something even better ( and less like C ). In C, I'd do something like:
void DoStuff( int parameter, CallbackPtr callback )
{
// Do stuff
...
// Notify we're done
callback( status_code )
}
Whats a good Ruby equivalent? Essentially I want to call a passed in class method, when a certain condition is met within "DoStuff"
The ruby equivalent, which isn't idiomatic, would be:
def my_callback(a, b, c, status_code)
puts "did stuff with #{a}, #{b}, #{c} and got #{status_code}"
end
def do_stuff(a, b, c, callback)
sum = a + b + c
callback.call(a, b, c, sum)
end
def main
a = 1
b = 2
c = 3
do_stuff(a, b, c, method(:my_callback))
end
The idiomatic approach would be to pass a block instead of a reference to a method. One advantage a block has over a freestanding method is context - a block is a closure, so it can refer to variables from the scope in which it was declared. This cuts down on the number of parameters do_stuff needs to pass to the callback. For instance:
def do_stuff(a, b, c, &block)
sum = a + b + c
yield sum
end
def main
a = 1
b = 2
c = 3
do_stuff(a, b, c) { |status_code|
puts "did stuff with #{a}, #{b}, #{c} and got #{status_code}"
}
end
This "idiomatic block" is a very core part of everyday Ruby and is covered frequently in books and tutorials. The Ruby information section provides links to useful [online] learning resources.
The idiomatic way is to use a block:
def x(z)
yield z # perhaps used in conjunction with #block_given?
end
x(3) {|y| y*y} # => 9
Or perhaps converted to a Proc; here I show that the "block", converted to a Proc implicitly with &block, is just another "callable" value:
def x(z, &block)
callback = block
callback.call(z)
end
# look familiar?
x(4) {|y| y * y} # => 16
(Only use the above form to save the block-now-Proc for later use or in other special cases as it adds overhead and syntax noise.)
However, a lambda can be use just as easily (but this is not idiomatic):
def x(z,fn)
fn.call(z)
end
# just use a lambda (closure)
x(5, lambda {|y| y * y}) # => 25
While the above approaches can all wrap "calling a method" as they create closures, bound Methods can also be treated as first-class callable objects:
class A
def b(z)
z*z
end
end
callable = A.new.method(:b)
callable.call(6) # => 36
# and since it's just a value...
def x(z,fn)
fn.call(z)
end
x(7, callable) # => 49
In addition, sometimes it's useful to use the #send method (in particular if a method is known by name). Here it saves an intermediate Method object that was created in the last example; Ruby is a message-passing system:
# Using A from previous
def x(z, a):
a.__send__(:b, z)
end
x(8, A.new) # => 64
Happy coding!
Explored the topic a bit more and updated the code.
The following version is an attempt to generalize the technique, although remaining extremely simplified and incomplete.
I largely stole - hem, found inspiration in - the implementation of callbacks of DataMapper, which seems to me quite complete and beatiful.
I strongly suggest to have a look at the code # http://github.com/datamapper/dm-core/blob/master/lib/dm-core/support/hook.rb
Anyway, trying to reproduce the functionality using the Observable module was quite engaging and instructive.
A few notes:
method added seems to be require because the original instance methods are not available at the moment of registering the callbacks
the including class is made both observed and self-observer
the example is limited to the instance methods, does not support blocks, args and so on
code:
require 'observer'
module SuperSimpleCallbacks
include Observable
def self.included(klass)
klass.extend ClassMethods
klass.initialize_included_features
end
# the observed is made also observer
def initialize
add_observer(self)
end
# TODO: dry
def update(method_name, callback_type) # hook for the observer
case callback_type
when :before then self.class.callbacks[:before][method_name.to_sym].each{|callback| send callback}
when :after then self.class.callbacks[:after][method_name.to_sym].each{|callback| send callback}
end
end
module ClassMethods
def initialize_included_features
#callbacks = Hash.new
#callbacks[:before] = Hash.new{|h,k| h[k] = []}
#callbacks[:after] = #callbacks[:before].clone
class << self
attr_accessor :callbacks
end
end
def method_added(method)
redefine_method(method) if is_a_callback?(method)
end
def is_a_callback?(method)
registered_methods.include?(method)
end
def registered_methods
callbacks.values.map(&:keys).flatten.uniq
end
def store_callbacks(type, method_name, *callback_methods)
callbacks[type.to_sym][method_name.to_sym] += callback_methods.flatten.map(&:to_sym)
end
def before(original_method, *callbacks)
store_callbacks(:before, original_method, *callbacks)
end
def after(original_method, *callbacks)
store_callbacks(:after, original_method, *callbacks)
end
def objectify_and_remove_method(method)
if method_defined?(method.to_sym)
original = instance_method(method.to_sym)
remove_method(method.to_sym)
original
else
nil
end
end
def redefine_method(original_method)
original = objectify_and_remove_method(original_method)
mod = Module.new
mod.class_eval do
define_method(original_method.to_sym) do
changed; notify_observers(original_method, :before)
original.bind(self).call if original
changed; notify_observers(original_method, :after)
end
end
include mod
end
end
end
class MyObservedHouse
include SuperSimpleCallbacks
before :party, [:walk_dinosaure, :prepare, :just_idle]
after :party, [:just_idle, :keep_house, :walk_dinosaure]
before :home_office, [:just_idle, :prepare, :just_idle]
after :home_office, [:just_idle, :walk_dinosaure, :just_idle]
before :second_level, [:party]
def home_office
puts "learning and working with ruby...".upcase
end
def party
puts "having party...".upcase
end
def just_idle
puts "...."
end
def prepare
puts "preparing snacks..."
end
def keep_house
puts "house keeping..."
end
def walk_dinosaure
puts "walking the dinosaure..."
end
def second_level
puts "second level..."
end
end
MyObservedHouse.new.tap do |house|
puts "-------------------------"
puts "-- about calling party --"
puts "-------------------------"
house.party
puts "-------------------------------"
puts "-- about calling home_office --"
puts "-------------------------------"
house.home_office
puts "--------------------------------"
puts "-- about calling second_level --"
puts "--------------------------------"
house.second_level
end
# => ...
# -------------------------
# -- about calling party --
# -------------------------
# walking the dinosaure...
# preparing snacks...
# ....
# HAVING PARTY...
# ....
# house keeping...
# walking the dinosaure...
# -------------------------------
# -- about calling home_office --
# -------------------------------
# ....
# preparing snacks...
# ....
# LEARNING AND WORKING WITH RUBY...
# ....
# walking the dinosaure...
# ....
# --------------------------------
# -- about calling second_level --
# --------------------------------
# walking the dinosaure...
# preparing snacks...
# ....
# HAVING PARTY...
# ....
# house keeping...
# walking the dinosaure...
# second level...
This simple presentation of the use of Observable could be useful: http://www.oreillynet.com/ruby/blog/2006/01/ruby_design_patterns_observer.html
So, this may be very "un-ruby", and I am not a "professional" Ruby developer, so if you guys are going to smack be, be gentle please :)
Ruby has a built-int module called Observer. I have not found it easy to use, but to be fair I did not give it much of a chance. In my projects I have resorted to creating my own EventHandler type (yes, I use C# a lot). Here is the basic structure:
class EventHandler
def initialize
#client_map = {}
end
def add_listener(id, func)
(#client_map[id.hash] ||= []) << func
end
def remove_listener(id)
return #client_map.delete(id.hash)
end
def alert_listeners(*args)
#client_map.each_value { |v| v.each { |func| func.call(*args) } }
end
end
So, to use this I expose it as a readonly member of a class:
class Foo
attr_reader :some_value_changed
def initialize
#some_value_changed = EventHandler.new
end
end
Clients of the "Foo" class can subscribe to an event like this:
foo.some_value_changed.add_listener(self, lambda { some_func })
I am sure this is not idiomatic Ruby and I am just shoehorning my C# experience into a new language, but it has worked for me.
If you are willing to use ActiveSupport (from Rails), you have a straightforward implementation
class ObjectWithCallbackHooks
include ActiveSupport::Callbacks
define_callbacks :initialize # Your object supprots an :initialize callback chain
include ObjectWithCallbackHooks::Plugin
def initialize(*)
run_callbacks(:initialize) do # run `before` callbacks for :initialize
puts "- initializing" # then run the content of the block
end # then after_callbacks are ran
end
end
module ObjectWithCallbackHooks::Plugin
include ActiveSupport::Concern
included do
# This plugin injects an "after_initialize" callback
set_callback :initialize, :after, :initialize_some_plugin
end
end
I know this is an old post, but I found it when tried to solve a similar problem.
It's a really elegant solution, and most importantly, it can work with and without a callback.
Let's say we have the Arithmetic class which implements basic operations on them — addition and subtraction.
class Arithmetic
def addition(a, b)
a + b
end
def subtraction(a, b)
a - b
end
end
And we want to add a callback for each operation which will do something with the input data and result.
In the below example we will implement the after_operation method which accepts the Ruby block which will be executed after an operation.
class Arithmetic
def after_operation(&block)
#after_operation_callback = block
end
def addition(a, b)
do_operation('+', a, b)
end
def subtraction(a, b)
do_operation('-', a, b)
end
private
def do_operation(sign, a, b)
result =
case sign
when '+'
a + b
when '-'
a - b
end
if callback = #after_operation_callback
callback.call(sign, a, b, result)
end
result
end
end
Using with callback:
callback = -> (sign, a, b, result) do
puts "#{a} #{sign} #{b} = #{result}"
end
arithmetic = Arithmetic.new
arithmetic.after_operation(&callback)
puts arithmetic.addition(1, 2)
puts arithmetic.subtraction(3, 1)
Output:
1 + 2 = 3
3
3 - 1 = 2
2
I often implement callbacks in Ruby like in the following example. It's very comfortable to use.
class Foo
# Declare a callback.
def initialize
callback( :on_die_cast )
end
# Do some stuff.
# The callback event :on_die_cast is triggered.
# The variable "die" is passed to the callback block.
def run
while( true )
die = 1 + rand( 6 )
on_die_cast( die )
sleep( die )
end
end
# A method to define callback methods.
# When the latter is called with a block, it's saved into a instance variable.
# Else a saved code block is executed.
def callback( *names )
names.each do |name|
eval <<-EOF
##{name} = false
def #{name}( *args, &block )
if( block )
##{name} = block
elsif( ##{name} )
##{name}.call( *args )
end
end
EOF
end
end
end
foo = Foo.new
# What should be done when the callback event is triggered?
foo.on_die_cast do |number|
puts( number )
end
foo.run
I know this is an old post, but others that come across this may find my solution helpful.
http://chrisshepherddev.blogspot.com/2015/02/callbacks-in-pure-ruby-prepend-over.html