I would like to pass a class method as a parameter to have another object call it ie
do_this(Class.method_name)
and then:
def do_this(class_method)
y = class_method(local_var_x)
end
The only way I can see to do it is pass it as a string and use eval, or pass the class and method as a string, then constantize and send. Downside to eval seems to be speed and debugging?
Is there an easier way to do this?
Edit:
Good answers but realized I asked the question slightly wrong, would like to use a parameter not passed with the method.
I'd suggest an approach similar to the second solution you proposed.
do_this(Class.method(:name), x)
and then:
def do_this(method, x)
y = method.call(x)
end
See also the documentation of Object#method.
Consider using a proc object:
def do_this(myproc)
y = myproc.call
end
and then
do_this( Proc.new { klass.method(x) } )
though you should also consider using block, which is much more in the ruby style. That would look like:
def do_this
y = yield
end
and call via:
do_this { klass.method(x) }
Related
Is there a way to create a object that has properties and can be called using only the notation of a function call? Something equivalent to Python's __call__.
For example:
obj = ExampleClass.new()
obj() # call notation
Alternate approaches are welcome, I need a way for the callable "object" to store its own properties.
What I am trying to do is store a callable "object" in a variable. This object has properties that are associated with it, while at the same time, it can be used exactly like a method.
If you're willing to change the desired syntax a little bit...
class Foo
def call
puts 'called'
end
end
f = Foo.new
f.()
# >> called
The exact syntax, as in your question, is not possible in ruby, because parentheses are optional and, therefore, f() is the same as f. Which, in the case of a callable object is ambiguous. Do you want to perform the call or only reference the callable object? Explicit call (with the dot syntax) removes the ambiguity.
You can't make an object callable, as far as I know that's reserved for method calls, but you can do it with a bit of a hack using an alternate notation:
class ExampleClass
def []
:callable
end
end
Where now you can do:
example = ExampleClass.new
example[]
This is similar to how you can call a Proc:
proc = Proc.new { :return_value }
proc[]
# => :return_value
It's not perfect, but it'll work.
Note that normally you can side-step a lot of this mess by architecting your API around these limitations.
One thing that u can do is simple create an class and a function with the same name:
class Thing
end
def Thing()
end
Thing.new
Thing()
I am trying to write this inside my class:
class << self
def steps
#steps.call
end
def transitions
#transitions.call
end
def steps(&steps)
#steps = steps
end
def transitions(&transitions)
#transitions = transitions
end
end
That won't work since in Ruby, I can't do this kind of method overloading. Is there a way around this?
You can kind of do this with method aliasing and mixins, but the way you handle methods with different signatures in Ruby is with optional arguments:
def steps(&block)
block.present? ? #steps = block : #steps.call
end
This sort of delegation is a code smell, though. It usually means there's something awkward about the interface you've designed. In this case, something like this is probably better:
def steps
#steps.call
end
def steps=(&block)
#steps = block
end
This makes it clear to other objects in the system how to use this interface since it follows convention. It also allows for other cases, like passing a block into the steps method for some other use:
def steps(&block)
#steps.call(&block)
end
Ruby does not support method overloading (see "Why doesn't ruby support method overloading?" for the reason). You can, however, do something like:
def run(args*)
puts args
end
args will then be an array of the arguments passed in.
You can also pass in a hash of options to handle arguments, or you can pass in nil when you don't want to supply arguments and handle nil in your method body.
In the following code:
def main
someArray.all? { |item| checkSomething(item) }
end
private
def checkSomething(arg)
...
end
How do I shorten the all? statement in order to ged rid of the redundant item variable?
I'm looking for something like someArray.all?(checkSomething) which gives a "wrong number of arguments" error.
You could have a slightly shorter code if checkSomething was a method on your object class. Don't know what it is, so, I'm guessing, you're working with primitives (numbers, strings, etc.). So something like this should work:
class Object
def check_something
# check self
end
end
some_array.all?(&:check_something)
But this is, of course, a horrible, horrible way of going about it. Saving a few keystrokes at the cost of such global pollution - absolutely not worth it. Moreover, even this trick will not be available as soon as you will need to pass additional parameters to the check method.
Besides, the original code is quite readable too.
You could use Object#method and Method#to_proc (i.e. &method) to get rid of the item variable, although it is slower:
def main(array)
array.all?(&method(:check_something))
end
def check_something(arg)
arg.odd?
end
main [1,3,5] #=> true
main [1,3,6] #=> false
If checkSomething is an item method (i.e. defined in the class of the 'i' object) you could do symbol to proc...
def main
someArray.all?(&:checkSomething)
end
A method only has access to passed arguments, or to selfso to bypass passing arguments you need to make the method an instance method of the object class (so it can use self)
The way you have it... where checkSomething is external to the i class... you can't do that.
Considering you want to keep your object's checkSomething private, I think this would be a good work around :
class Something
def main
someArray.all?(&checkSomething)
end
private
def checkSomething
->(item) do
# Checking part.
end
end
end
For block that executes a method with arguments, Checkout this way...
def main
someArray.all? &checkSomething(arg1, arg2, ...)
end
private
def checkSomething(arg1, arg2, ...)
Proc.new { |item| ..... }
end
could you not use a Ruby's collection method 'any?' instead?
def main
#students is an array of students
students.any?(&:passed)
end
class Student
def passed
#code to check if student passed
end
end
Ref http://ruby-doc.org/core-2.2.2/Enumerable.html#method-i-any-3F
When I invoke a method that doesn't exist, method_missing will tell me the name of the method. When I attempt to access a variable that hasn't been set, the value is simply nil.
I'm attempting to dynamically intercept access to nil instance variables and return a value based on the name of the variable being accessed. The closest equivalent would be PHP's __get. Is there any equivalent functionality in Ruby?
I do not believe this is possible in Ruby. The recommended way would be to use a ''user'' method rather than a ''#user'' instance var in your templates.
This is consistent with the way you deal with Ruby objects externally (''obj.user'' is a method which refers to ''#user'', but is actually not ''#user'' itself). If you need any kind of special logic with an attribute, your best bet is to use a method (or method_missing), regardless if you're accessing it from inside or outside the object.
See my answer to another similar question. But just because you can do it doesn't mean that it's a good idea. Sensible design can generally overcome the need for this kind of thing and allow you to produce more readable and hence maintainable code.
instance_variable_get seems to be the closest equivalent of PHP's __get from what I can see (although I'm not a PHP user).
Looking at the relevant Ruby source code, the only 'missing' method for variables is const_missing for constants, nothing for instance variables.
there isn't an instance_variable_missing (at least that I know of)
But why are you accessing randomly named instance variables anyway?
If your thread all the access to the object state through method calls (as you should anyway) then you wouldn't need this.
If you are looking for a way to define magic stuff without messing up with the method lookup, you may want to use const_missing.
A bit late but, instance_variable_missing is the same as method_missing to a point... Take the following class:
class Test
def method_missing(*args)
puts args.inspect
end
end
t = Test.new
Now let's get some instance variables:
t.pineapples #=> [:pineapples]
t.pineapples = 5 #=> [:pineapples=,5]
Not sure why the method is nil for you...
EDIT:
By the sounds of it you want to accomplish:
t = SomeClass.new
t.property.child = 1
So let's try returning a Test object from our previous example:
class Test
def method_missing(*args)
puts args.inspect
return Test.new
end
end
So what happens when we call:
t = Test.new
t.property.child = 1
#=>[:property]
#=>[:child=,1]
So this goes to show that this is indeed possible to do. OpenStruct uses this same technique to set instance variables dynamically. In the below example, I create EternalStruct which does exactly what you wanted:
require 'ostruct'
class EternalStruct < OpenStruct
def method_missing(*args)
ret = super(*args)
if !ret
newES = EternalStruct.new
self.__send__((args[0].to_s + "=").to_sym, newES)
return newES
end
end
end
Usage of EternalStruct:
t = EternalStruct.new
t.foo.bar.baz = "Store me!"
t.foo.bar.baz #=> "Store me!"
t.foo #=> #<EternalStruct bar=#<EternalStruct baz="Store me!">>
t.a = 1
t.a #=> 1
t.b #=> #<EternalStruct:...>
t.b = {}
t.b #=> {}
def t.c(arg)
puts arg
end
t.c("hi there") #=> "hi there"
for instance in python it is possible to assign a method to a variable:
class MyClass
def myMethod(self):
return "Hi"
x = MyClass()
method = x.myMethod
print method() # prints Hi
I know this should be possible in Ruby, but I don't know what's the syntax.
You need to grab the method by using method with the method’s name as an argument. This will return you an instance of type Method, which can be called with call().
class MyClass
def myMethod
"Hi"
end
end
x = MyClass.new
m = x.method(:myMethod)
# => #<Method: MyClass#myMethod>
puts m.call
# You can also do m[] instead of m.call()
Note that any arguments would need to be added to the call method.
In many practical cases, however, there is no need to have the method itself saved to a variable in Ruby; if you just want to dynamically call a method (i.e. send a message to an object) and there is no need to save the method, you could also use the send (or __send__ method in case of name clashes).
x = MyClass.new
puts x.send :myMethod # also possible with a string: m.send "myMethod"
# "Hi"
Any arguments should follow the method name:
puts x.send(:myMethod, arg1, arg2)
To use it like this is probably more Ruby-like, as the concept of Method classes is not as prominent as it is in Python. In Python, you can always think of a two step mechanism when doing something like a_string.split(); first you grab the method with a_string.split and then you call it (either implicitly with () or explicitly with __call__()). So, cutting that two-step mechanism is rather natural to do.
Ruby is more based on message passing and to actually get a method class in Ruby, you’ll have to do some more work, because in some way, the method object will have to be constructed for you at that point. So, unless you really need some Methods object in Ruby, you should rather stick to the message passing abstraction and simply use send.
I think you are looking for Proc or lambda block
x = Proc.new { return "Hello World" }
puts x.call
x = lambda { return "Hello World" }
puts x.call
I would read this short post - there is a slight but significant difference in the way the methods behave
http://samdanielson.com/2007/3/19/proc-new-vs-lambda-in-ruby