This question already has answers here:
Is Ruby pass by reference or by value?
(14 answers)
Closed 9 years ago.
I'm not sure what happens when you pass an object to a module method. Does the object gets passed by reference or by copy? Like in this example:
module SampleModule
def self.testing(o)
o.test
end
end
class SampleClass
def initialize(a)
#a = a
end
def test
#a = #a + 1
end
end
sample_object = SampleClass.new(2)
3.times do
SampleModule.testing(sample_object)
end
p sample_object # => #<SampleClass:somehexvalue #a=5>
seems to be pass-by reference. Really unclear about this.
All variables in Ruby are references to objects. You cannot "pass by value" versus "pass by reference" in the same way as you have that choice in C, C++ or Perl. Ruby in fact forces pass by value, there are no options to do otherwise. However, the values that are sent are always references to objects. It's a bit like using C or C++ where all member variables are pointers, or using Perl where you must work with references at all times, even when working with simple scalars.
I think that it is this separation of variable from object data that is confusing you.
A few points:
Variable allocation never over-writes other variables that may point to the same object. This is pretty much the definition of pass-by-value. However this isn't meeting your expectations that object contents are also protected.
Instance variables, and items in containers (e.g. in Arrays and Strings) are separate variables, and if you send a container you can alter its content directly, because you sent the reference to the container, and that includes the same variables for its contents. I think this is what you mean by "seems to be pass-by reference"
Some classes - including those representing numbers, and Symbol - are immutable i.e. there are no change-in-place methods for the number 4. But conceptually you are still passing a reference to the singular object 4 into a routine (under the hood, for efficiency Ruby will have the value 4 encoded simply in the variable's memory allocation, but that is an implementation detail - the value is also the "pointer" in this case).
The simplest way to get close to the "pass by value" semantics you seem to be looking for with SampleModule is to clone the parameters at the start of the routine. Note this does not actually cause Ruby to change calling semantics, just that in this case from the outside of the method you get the safe assumption (whatever happens to the param inside the method stays inside the method) that you seem to want:
module SampleModule
def self.testing(o)
o = o.clone
o.test
end
end
Technically this should be a deep clone to be generic, but that wouldn't be required to make your example work close to a pass-by-value. You could call SampleModule.testing( any_var_or_expression ) and know that whatever any_var_or_expression is in the rest of your code, the associated object will not have been changed.
If you really want to be anal on vocabulary, Ruby passes references to (mutable) objects by value:
def pass_it(obj)
obj = 'by reference'
end
def mutate_it(obj)
obj << ' mutated'
end
str = 'by value'
pass_it(str)
mutate_it(str)
puts str # by value mutated
You can work around issues that may arise from this by using dup or clone (note that both do shallow copies) and freeze.
Everything in Ruby is passed by reference:
class Test
attr_reader :a
def initialize(a)
#a = a
end
end
s = "foo"
o = Test.new(s)
o.a << "bar"
o.a #=> "foobar"
s #=> "foobar"
o.a.equal? s #=> true
In your code, the fact that you are passing an object to a module method doesn't change anything; sample_object is already a reference to the new object SampleClass.new(2)
Related
def foo(a)
# some computation
bar(a, b)
end
def bar(a,b)
# some computation
baz(a, b, c)
end
def baz(a, b ,c)
print a
end
How to avoid passing same parameter (a) to all methods? One way is to make parameter a as an instance variable. What is the right way to do this?
There is no single solution which works in every case, and often, passing the parameters explicitly is simply the best choice, especially when it comes to debugging.
You can use instance variables, but I would not introduce a new instance variable for the sole reason not to avoid passing it down the call chain. It should have its own value in addition.
One approach which I can see often in projects, is to us a single parameter hash, where the new parameters are added:
def foo(a)
....
bar({a:a, b:b})
end
def bar(par)
....
par[:c] = c
end
def baz(par)
par[:a]+par[:b]+par[:c]
end
This is not without drawbacks either. If you, for instance, forget to "add" a necessary parameter, this will either yield wrong results or throw an exception (depending on how to used them), while forgetting them explicitly via the parameter list, would be found at compile time already.
I would make the decisiion depending on the length of the parameter lists involved. If the number of parameters to a methods is larger than 5, I would start thinking, whether a different design might be more appropriate.
Answering the question stated: yes, ruby is a stateful OO language, having mutable everything. So in ruby one might introduce instance variables:
class MyClass
def foo(a)
#a = a
# some computation
bar(b)
end
def bar(b)
#b = b
# some computation
baz(c)
end
def baz(c)
print [#a, #b, c].inspect
end
end
In the real life, the best practice would be to avoid using instance variables wherever possible, and pass everything across methods. That might save you days of debugging in the future.
It just seems pretty logical to have it when there's even a downcase!. Has anyone else run into this use case in Ruby?
For the curious, I'm trying to do this:
def some_method(foo)
foo.downcase!.split!(" ")
## do some stuff with foo later. ##
end
some_method("A String like any other")
Instead of this:
def some_method(foo)
foo = foo.downcase.split(" ")
## do some stuff with foo later. ##
end
some_method("A String like any other")
Which isn't a really big deal...but ! just seems cooler.
Why is there no .split! in Ruby?
It just seems pretty logical to have it when there's even a downcase!.
It may be logical, but it is impossible: objects cannot change their class or their identity in Ruby. You may be thinking of Smalltalk's become: which doesn't and cannot exist in Ruby. become: changes the identity of an object and thus can also change its class.
I don't see this "use case" as very important.
The only thing a "bang method" is doing is saving you the trouble of assigning a variable.
The reason "bang methods" are the exception instead of the rule is they can produce confusing results if you don't understand them.
i.e. if you write
a = "string"
def my_upcase(string)
string.upcase!
end
b = my_upcase(a)
then both a and b will have transformed value even if you didn't intend to change a. Removing the exclamation point fixes this example, but if you're using mutable objects such as hashes and arrays you'll have to look out for this in other situations as well.
a = [1,2,3]
def get_last_element(array)
array.pop
end
b = get_last_element(a)
Since Array#pop has side effects, a is now 1,2. It has the last element removed, which might not have been what you intended. You could replace .pop here with [-1] or .last to get rid of the side effect
The exclamation point in a method name is essentially warning you that there are side effects. This is important in the concept of functional programming, which prescribes side effect free code. Ruby is very much a functional programming language by design (although it's very object oriented as well).
If your "use case" boils down to avoiding assigning a variable, that seems like a really minor discomfort.
For a more technical reason, though, see Jorg Mittag's answer. It's impossible to write a method which changes the class of self
this
def some_method(foo)
foo = foo.downcase.split(" ")
end
some_method("A String like any other")
is the same as this
def some_method(foo)
foo.downcase.split
end
some_method("A String like any other")
Actually, both of your methods return the same result. We can look at a few examples of methods that modify the caller.
array.map! return a modified original array
string.upcase! return a modified original string
However,
split modifies the class of the caller, changing a string to an array.
Notice how the above examples only modify the content of the object, instead of changing its class.
This is most likely why there isn't a split! method, although it's pretty easy to define one yourself.
#split creates an array out of a string, you can't permanently mutate(!) the string into being an array. Because the method is creating a new form from the source information(string), the only thing you need to do to make it permanent, is to bind it to a variable.
This question already has answers here:
Closed 11 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
Ruby functions vs methods
Im just reading some ruby documentation and t seems to use the term function and method in an interchangeable way, i jut wanted to know if there is any distinction?
the docs im looking at refer to this as a function:
def saysomething()
puts "Hello"
end
saysomething
and this a method:
def multiply(val1, val2 )
result = val1 * val2
puts result
end
this may be a something semantic but i wanted to check
jt
In Ruby, there are not two separate concepts of methods and functions. Some people still use both terms, but in my opinion, using "function" when talking about Ruby is incorrect. There do not exist executable pieces of code that are not defined on objects, because there is nothing in Ruby that is not an object.
As Dan pointed out, there's a way to call methods that makes them look like functions, but the underlying thing is still a method. You can actually see this for yourself in IRB with the method method.
> def zomg; puts "hi"; end
#=> nil
> method(:zomg)
#=> #<Method: Object#zomg>
> Object.private_instance_methods.sort
#=> [..., :zomg]
# the rest of the list omitted for brevity
So you can see, the method zomg is an instance method on Object, and is included in Object's list of private instance methods.
I recently discovered Ruby's blocks and yielding features, and I was wondering: where does this fit in terms of computer science theory? Is it a functional programming technique, or something more specific?
Ruby's yield is not an iterator like in C# and Python. yield itself is actually a really simple concept once you understand how blocks work in Ruby.
Yes, blocks are a functional programming feature, even though Ruby is not properly a functional language. In fact, Ruby uses the method lambda to create block objects, which is borrowed from Lisp's syntax for creating anonymous functions — which is what blocks are. From a computer science standpoint, Ruby's blocks (and Lisp's lambda functions) are closures. In Ruby, methods usually take only one block. (You can pass more, but it's awkward.)
The yield keyword in Ruby is just a way of calling a block that's been given to a method. These two examples are equivalent:
def with_log
output = yield # We're calling our block here with yield
puts "Returned value is #{output}"
end
def with_log(&stuff_to_do) # the & tells Ruby to convert into
# an object without calling lambda
output = stuff_to_do.call # We're explicitly calling the block here
puts "Returned value is #{output}"
end
In the first case, we're just assuming there's a block and say to call it. In the other, Ruby wraps the block in an object and passes it as an argument. The first is more efficient and readable, but they're effectively the same. You'd call either one like this:
with_log do
a = 5
other_num = gets.to_i
#my_var = a + other_num
end
And it would print the value that wound up getting assigned to #my_var. (OK, so that's a completely stupid function, but I think you get the idea.)
Blocks are used for a lot of things in Ruby. Almost every place you'd use a loop in a language like Java, it's replaced in Ruby with methods that take blocks. For example,
[1,2,3].each {|value| print value} # prints "123"
[1,2,3].map {|value| 2**value} # returns [2, 4, 8]
[1,2,3].reject {|value| value % 2 == 0} # returns [1, 3]
As Andrew noted, it's also commonly used for opening files and many other places. Basically anytime you have a standard function that could use some custom logic (like sorting an array or processing a file), you'll use a block. There are other uses too, but this answer is already so long I'm afraid it will cause heart attacks in readers with weaker constitutions. Hopefully this clears up the confusion on this topic.
There's more to yield and blocks than mere looping.
The series Enumerating enumerable has a series of things you can do with enumerations, such as asking if a statement is true for any member of a group, or if it's true for all the members, or searching for any or all members meeting a certain condition.
Blocks are also useful for variable scope. Rather than merely being convenient, it can help with good design. For example, the code
File.open("filename", "w") do |f|
f.puts "text"
end
ensures that the file stream is closed when you're finished with it, even if an exception occurs, and that the variable is out of scope once you're finished with it.
A casual google didn't come up with a good blog post about blocks and yields in ruby. I don't know why.
Response to comment:
I suspect it gets closed because of the block ending, not because the variable goes out of scope.
My understanding is that nothing special happens when the last variable pointing to an object goes out of scope, apart from that object being eligible for garbage collection. I don't know how to confirm this, though.
I can show that the file object gets closed before it gets garbage collected, which usually doesn't happen immediately. In the following example, you can see that a file object is closed in the second puts statement, but it hasn't been garbage collected.
g = nil
File.open("/dev/null") do |f|
puts f.inspect # #<File:/dev/null>
puts f.object_id # Some number like 70233884832420
g = f
end
puts g.inspect # #<File:/dev/null (closed)>
puts g.object_id # The exact same number as the one printed out above,
# indicating that g points to the exact same object that f pointed to
I think the yield statement originated from the CLU language. I always wonder if the character from Tron was named after CLU too....
I think 'coroutine' is the keyword you're looking for.
E.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yield
Yield in computing and information science:
in computer science, a point of return (and re-entry) of a coroutine
In Ruby some methods have a question mark (?) that ask a question like include? that ask if the object in question is included, this then returns a true/false.
But why do some methods have exclamation marks (!) where others don't?
What does it mean?
In general, methods that end in ! indicate that the method will modify the object it's called on. Ruby calls these as "dangerous methods" because they change state that someone else might have a reference to. Here's a simple example for strings:
foo = "A STRING" # a string called foo
foo.downcase! # modifies foo itself
puts foo # prints modified foo
This will output:
a string
In the standard libraries, there are a lot of places you'll see pairs of similarly named methods, one with the ! and one without. The ones without are called "safe methods", and they return a copy of the original with changes applied to the copy, with the callee unchanged. Here's the same example without the !:
foo = "A STRING" # a string called foo
bar = foo.downcase # doesn't modify foo; returns a modified string
puts foo # prints unchanged foo
puts bar # prints newly created bar
This outputs:
A STRING
a string
Keep in mind this is just a convention, but a lot of Ruby classes follow it. It also helps you keep track of what's getting modified in your code.
The exclamation point means many things, and sometimes you can't tell a lot from it other than "this is dangerous, be careful".
As others have said, in standard methods it's often used to indicate a method that causes an object to mutate itself, but not always. Note that many standard methods change their receiver and don't have an exclamation point (pop, shift, clear), and some methods with exclamation points don't change their receiver (exit!). See this article for example.
Other libraries may use it differently. In Rails an exclamation point often means that the method will throw an exception on failure rather than failing silently.
It's a naming convention but many people use it in subtly different ways. In your own code a good rule of thumbs is to use it whenever a method is doing something "dangerous", especially when two methods with the same name exist and one of them is more "dangerous" than the other. "Dangerous" can mean nearly anything though.
This naming convention is lifted from Scheme.
1.3.5 Naming conventions
By convention, the names of procedures
that always return a boolean value
usually end in ``?''. Such procedures
are called predicates.
By convention, the names of procedures
that store values into previously
allocated locations (see section 3.4)
usually end in ``!''. Such procedures
are called mutation procedures. By
convention, the value returned by a
mutation procedure is unspecified.
! typically means that the method acts upon the object instead of returning a result. From the book Programming Ruby:
Methods that are "dangerous," or modify the receiver, might be named with a trailing "!".
It is most accurate to say that methods with a Bang! are the more dangerous or surprising version. There are many methods that mutate without a Bang such as .destroy and in general methods only have bangs where a safer alternative exists in the core lib.
For instance, on Array we have .compact and .compact!, both methods mutate the array, but .compact! returns nil instead of self if there are no nil's in the array, which is more surprising than just returning self.
The only non-mutating method I've found with a bang is Kernel's .exit! which is more surprising than .exit because you cannot catch SystemExit while the process is closing.
Rails and ActiveRecord continues this trend in that it uses bang for more 'surprising' effects like .create! which raises errors on failure.
From themomorohoax.com:
A bang can used in the below ways, in order of my personal preference.
An active record method raises an error if the method does not do
what it says it will.
An active record method saves the record or a method saves an
object (e.g. strip!)
A method does something “extra”, like posts to someplace, or does
some action.
The point is: only use a bang when you’ve really thought about whether
it’s necessary, to save other developers the annoyance of having to
check why you are using a bang.
The bang provides two cues to other developers.
that it’s not necessary to save the object after calling the
method.
when you call the method, the db is going to be changed.
Simple explanation:
foo = "BEST DAY EVER" #assign a string to variable foo.
=> foo.downcase #call method downcase, this is without any exclamation.
"best day ever" #returns the result in downcase, but no change in value of foo.
=> foo #call the variable foo now.
"BEST DAY EVER" #variable is unchanged.
=> foo.downcase! #call destructive version.
=> foo #call the variable foo now.
"best day ever" #variable has been mutated in place.
But if you ever called a method downcase! in the explanation above, foo would change to downcase permanently. downcase! would not return a new string object but replace the string in place, totally changing the foo to downcase.
I suggest you don't use downcase! unless it is totally necessary.
!
I like to think of this as an explosive change that destroys all that has gone before it. Bang or exclamation mark means that you are making a permanent saved change in your code.
If you use for example Ruby's method for global substitutiongsub!the substitution you make is permanent.
Another way you can imagine it, is opening a text file and doing find and replace, followed by saving. ! does the same in your code.
Another useful reminder if you come from the bash world is sed -i has this similar effect of making permanent saved change.
Bottom line: ! methods just change the value of the object they are called upon, whereas a method without ! returns a manipulated value without writing over the object the method was called upon.
Only use ! if you do not plan on needing the original value stored at the variable you called the method on.
I prefer to do something like:
foo = "word"
bar = foo.capitalize
puts bar
OR
foo = "word"
puts foo.capitalize
Instead of
foo = "word"
foo.capitalize!
puts foo
Just in case I would like to access the original value again.
Called "Destructive Methods" They tend to change the original copy of the object you are referring to.
numbers=[1,0,10,5,8]
numbers.collect{|n| puts n*2} # would multiply each number by two
numbers #returns the same original copy
numbers.collect!{|n| puts n*2} # would multiply each number by two and destructs the original copy from the array
numbers # returns [nil,nil,nil,nil,nil]
My answer explains the significance of Ruby methods with exclamation marks/shebangs in the context of Ruby on Rails (RoR) model validations.
Essentially, whenever developers define Model validations (explained here), their ultimate goal is to decline a database record change & raise/throw the relevant exception(s) in case invalid data has been submitted to update the record in question.
RoR ActiveRecord gem defines various model manipulation methods (Ruby on Rails guides.). Among the methods, the valid? method is the only one that triggers validation without database action/modification. The rest of the methods attempt to change the database.
These methods trigger callbacks whenever they run. Some of the methods in the list feature a sister method with a shebang. What is the difference between the two? It has to do with the form of callback returned whenever a record validation fails.
Methods without the exclamation/shebang merely return a boolean false in the event of record validation failure while the methods with a shebang raise/throw an exception which can then be handled appropriately in code.
Just as a heads-up, since I experienced this myself.
In Ruby, ! mutates the object and returns it. Otherwise it will return nil.
So, if you are doing some kind of operations on an array for example, and call the method .compact! and there is nothig to compact, it will return nil.
Example:
arr = [1, 2, 3, nil]
arr.compact!
=> [1, 2, 3]
Run again arr.compact!
=> nil
It is better to explicitly return again the array arr if you need to use it down the line, otherwise you will get the nil value.
Example:
arr = [1, 2, 3]
arr.compact! => nil
arr # to get the value of the array