I am working on Ruby Koans about_message_passing.rb and got the code working for method_missing as follows:
def method_missing(method_name, *args, &block)
#messages << method_name
#object.__send__(method_name, *args, &block)
end
This code seems to work, but I do not quite understand why the splat in needed in *args and the & is needed with the block.
If I were defining a method, I understand that the * and & are used to denote an array argument and block argument respectively, but what does it mean when they are used with the send method to invoke a method on an object?
I'll take these one at a time. take method_missing out of this completely, since it just makes what's going on confusing. It's actually completely unrelated to that.
The splat * does 2 things. In the arguments of a method definition, it soaks up multiple arguments into an array. When used in method invocation it splats out an array into individual arguments. Using both allows you to forward any number of arguments to another method.
def foo(*args)
bar(*args)
end
def bar(a, b, c)
puts a
puts b
puts c
end
foo(1,2,3) # prints 1, 2 and then 3
Since you are basically forwarding all arguments, this is the same pattern.
The & is for the block argument. There can be exactly one of these per method invocation, it's the block that hangs off the end. It's a special argument, in that it doesn't go in the arguments directly. You can capture the block to a variable by capturing add &someblock as the last argument in a method definition.
Then you can pass a block in a method invocation using the same syntax.
def foo(&block)
bar(&block)
end
def bar
yield
end
foo { puts 'hello' } # prints hello
This allows you pass the hanging block to another method, without invoking it. It's not always required because you usually just use yield to execute whatever block was passed. But if you want to do something besides just execute it, you need to capture a reference to the block itself.
So if you combine these 2 things, you get the ultimate method forwarder. You capture all of any number of arguments, and any block that was hanging off the end, and send those to another method.
# forwards everything to the method `bar`
def foo(*args, &block)
bar(*args, &block)
end
Lastly, send is just a method. It expects a name of a method, followed by any number of arguments (not an array), and can optionally handle a hanging block.
In other words:
foo.send methodName, *args, &block
The splat in the method definition means "take all unmatched arguments and put them in an array" (in ruby 1.8 this was always the last arguments, but in 1.9 splats can occur in the middle).
Using it in a method call is the reverse: it means take this array and use its contents as the arguments
foo(a,b) #call foo with 2 arguments: a and b
foo([a,b]) #call foo with a single array argument
foo(*[a,b]) # call foo with 2 arguments: a and b
& is similar: in a method definition it captures the block and turns it into a proc, but in a method call it turns a proc (or proc like object - anything responding to to_proc will do) into the block for that method
You need both of these for method_missing because (in general) you want to pass along all the arguments and the block from the original method call.
To my knowledge, anytime you pass a block directly, it is with the syntax &block_name.
Also, the method signature for Object#send takes endless arguments, not an array. So by passing the splatted values *args, it is the same as if you had passed the comma-delimited args.
Related
This article touches on the issues but doesn't give a solution.
This started when I wanted to write a method and optionally pass it an argument which could be null or a ???? (proc, lambda, method, block, ???). Lets call it, for now, a block because a block works. The block takes one required argument. An example of the method and a call to it would be:
#!/usr/bin/env ruby
def foo(&proc)
puts "before"
if proc
yield "passed to proc"
end
puts "after"
end
def add_message(s)
puts "from add_message #{s}"
end
foo { |s| add_message(s) }
foo
And the output is:
before
from add_message passed to proc
after
before
after
Great. But, what I'd like to do is be able to call foo like this: foo(&:add_message). But I can't. Changing line 15 above I get:
before
./temp.rb:11:in `add_message': wrong number of arguments (given 0, expected 1) (ArgumentError)
from ./temp.rb:6:in `foo'
from ./temp.rb:15:in `<main>'
And, as the article above mentions, the arity is now -2. So, how do I write a simple method like add_message that I can use with &:add_message. OR!!! as is the case 99.99% of the time, please set me on the proper track on how to do this.
The problem is that Symbol#to_proc does not create a proc that calls add_message method correctly.
# `yield` will pass its arguments to proc
>> :add_message.to_proc.call('passed to proc')
# => ArgumentError
This calls 'passed to proc'.add_message, because our method is defined in Object it works when called on String, however it is missing the required argument.
The solution is to make a proc that can accept the same arguments as add_message method and pass them along to that method. We can use Object#method that returns Method object that implements its own to_proc and has the same arity as the method.
>> method(:add_message).to_proc.arity
=> 1
>> method(:add_message).to_proc.call('passed to proc')
from add_message passed to proc
>> foo(&method(:add_message))
before
from add_message passed to proc
after
From the Ruby docs
Conversion of other objects to procs
Any object that implements the to_proc method can be converted into a proc by the & operator, and therefore can be consumed by iterators.
class Greeter
def initialize(greeting)
#greeting = greeting
end
def to_proc
proc {|name| "#{#greeting}, #{name}!" }
end
end
hi = Greeter.new("Hi")
hey = Greeter.new("Hey")
["Bob", "Jane"].map(&hi) #=> ["Hi, Bob!", "Hi, Jane!"]
["Bob", "Jane"].map(&hey) #=> ["Hey, Bob!", "Hey, Jane!"]
Of the Ruby core classes, this method is implemented by Symbol, Method, and Hash.
So when you pass an argument with a unary ampersand before it, to_proc gets called on it. The &: "syntax" is actually & being called on a symbol literal, i.e. &(:foobar), and Symbol.to_proc has the behavior of converting a symbol into a method call on its first argument, i.e. these two are roughly equivalent (modulo named argument forwarding)
:foobar.to_proc
proc { |x, *args| x.foobar(*args) }
Ruby's Method type also implements to_proc, so if you have a standalone method called foobar (on a module, say, Example), then you can call Example.method(:foobar) and get an &-compatible object. If you have a "top-level" method, then it's probably being defined on the main object and calling method with no explicit receiver will work.
The other type mentioned in that quote is hashes, which can be turned into a function mapping their keys to their values (and returning nil if no matching key exists). And, of course, you can always implement a method called to_proc on your own classes and it'll work just as well as any built-in type.
class Integer
def set
return self + 1
end
end
p [1,2,3,4,5,6].map(&:set)
I think when you can use &: syntax that a method have been defined for a class like above
This question already has answers here:
What does map(&:name) mean in Ruby?
(17 answers)
Closed 6 years ago.
https://github.com/activeadmin/activeadmin/blob/1c85c5654a2ce1d43d4c64d98b928ff133d46406/lib/active_admin.rb#L95
What does the & (prefixed to ActiveAdmin) in this code mean?
def before_load(&block)
ActiveSupport::Notifications.subscribe(
ActiveAdmin::Application::BeforeLoadEvent,
&ActiveAdmin::Event.wrap_block_for_active_support_notifications(block)
)
end
In functions & 'splats' blocks (also calls to_proc on it), similar to * for regular parameters.
That is somewhat equivalent to
def before_load(&block) # this binds provided block into block variable
ActiveSupport::Notifications.subscribe(ActiveAdmin::Application::BeforeLoadEvent){|some_params_maybe|
ActiveAdmin::Event.wrap_block_for_active_support_notifications(block).call(some_params_maybe)
}
end
usually & calls to_proc method of the object, such as gets.split.map(&:to_i) is used to read line of integers, which is the same as map { |e| e.to_i }
In method arguments, it appears in the last arguments, meaning the code block you passed to, check the following code for details.
def g
puts yield "g"
end
def h(block)
puts block.call "h"
end
def f(&block)
puts block.class # => Proc
puts block.call "f" # => hello f
g &block # => hello g passed as code block
h block # => hello h passed as proc
end
f { |x| "hello " + x }
Following article provides a good explanation on the use of '&' in Ruby:
The Implicit Block
Methods in Ruby can take arguments in all sorts of interesting ways. One case that’s especially interesting is when a Ruby method takes a block.
In fact, all Ruby methods can implicitly take a block, without needing to specify this in the parameter list or having to use the block within the method body e.g.:
def hello
end
hello do
puts "hello"
end
This will execute without any trouble but nothing will be printed out as we’re not executing the block that we’re passing in. We can – of course – easily execute the block by yielding to it:
def hello
yield if block_given?
end
hello do
puts "hello"
end
This time we get some output:
hello
We yielded to the block inside the method, but the fact that the method takes a block is still implicit.
It gets even more interesting since Ruby allows to pass any object to a method and have the method attempt to use this object as its block. If we put an ampersand in front of the last parameter to a method, Ruby will try to treat this parameter as the method’s block. If the parameter is already a Proc object, Ruby will simply associate it with the method as its block.
def hello
yield if block_given?
end
blah = -> {puts "lambda"}
hello(&blah)
lambda
If the parameter is not a Proc, Ruby will try to convert it into one (by calling to_proc on it) before associating it with the method as its block.
def hello
yield if block_given?
end
class FooBar
def to_proc
-> {puts 'converted lambda'}
end
end
hello(&FooBar.new)
converted lambda
All of this seems pretty clear, but what if I want to take a block that was associated with a method and pass it to another method? We need a way to refer to our block.
The Explicit Block
When we write our method definition, we can explicitly state that we expect this method to possibly take a block. Confusingly, Ruby uses the ampersand for this as well:
def hello(&block)
yield if block_given?
end
hello do
puts "hello"
end
Defining our method this way, gives us a name by which we can refer to our block within the method body. And since our block is a Proc object, instead of yielding to it, we can call it:
def hello(&block)
block.call if block_given?
end
hello do
puts "hello"
end
I prefer block.call instead of yield, it makes things clearer. Of course, when we define our method we don’t have to use the name ‘block’, we can do:
def hello(&foo)
foo.call if block_given?
end
hello do
puts "hello"
end
Having said that; ‘block’ is a good convention.
Here is an expectation that utilizes a custom RSpec matcher, yield_variables:
specify { expect{ |p| [3,4,5].my_each(&p) }.to yield_variables [3,4,5] }
my yield_variables matcher's matches? method utilizes a custom class called Probe (Probe is a stripped down version of RSpec's yield probe):
...
def matches? block
ap Probe.probe block
# note i am inspecting what is returned by Probe.probe with ap
end
...
# Probe class is what all my questions are about!
class Probe
attr_accessor :yielded_args
def initialize
self.yielded_args = []
end
def self.probe(block)
probe = new
block.call(probe)
probe.yielded_args
end
def to_proc
Proc.new { |*args| yielded_args << args }
end
end
Now my ap inside matches? reports this: [3,4,5] That is what I expect. However, I have no idea how the Probe class works!!
Problem 1) the matches? block
Normally, the argument we pass to matches? is what we expect the subject to return. i.e, I expect [3,4,5] to be passed into block.
Instead, |p| [3,4,5].my_each(&p) is passed into block, as a proc. Why is this?
Problem 2) block.call(probe)
I'm a bit shakey on procs so please explain slowly. But basically, here we take a new instance of my Probe class and 'send' the block to it, as an argument. That's how I'd explain it to the best of my abilities, but I might have it totally wrong so please explain slowly.
Problem 3) How is to_proc called?
How on earth is .to_proc called automatically? I believe it's called automatically by block.call(probe). Is to_proc an automatically called method like initialize? Is it automatically called whenever the class is sent to a proc? (Btw, the phrase the class is sent to a proc doesn't even make 100% sense to me - please explain. The block isn't passed into the class as an argument anymore. Or if the block is passed as an argument the block.call syntax feels really weird and backwards)
Problem 4) to_proc
How does to_proc have access to the expectation's subject i.e. |p| [3,4,5].my_each(&p) ? How is Proc.new 's *args automatically populated with every single possible yield argument, even though I've only passed in |p| ? How does Proc.new loop along with my my_each, incrementally placing all my args in an array? How does Proc.new have any knowledge of the subject |p| [3,4,5].my_each(&p)? How?? Explain please, and thanks.
Block based marchers work a little differently to other matchers. Typically you want to do something that would not be possible if the expression you were interested in was evaluated and the result passed to you.
For example the raises_error matcher wants to execute the block itself to see that the correct exception is raised and the change matcher wants to evaluate some other expression before and after to see if it changes in the specified way. This is why you are passed a block rather than the value.
The block you are passing to expect takes 1 argument and uses this as the block in the call to my_each, so when your Probe.probe method calls the block it has to pass something as the value. You've phrased as "sending the block to the probe instance" but it is the other way around: the block is called using probe as its argument.
The block executes and calls my_each. Inside here p is the instance of Probe. Prefixing an argument with a & tells ruby that this argument should be used as the method's block (the method being my_each). If the argument is not already a proc ruby calls to_proc on it. This is how Probe#to_proc is called
Assuming that my_each behaves in a similar way to normal each it will call its block (ie the return value of to_proc) once for each of the values in the array.
Normally your matcher would then compare the return value from Probe.probe to the actual value.
I need some help understanding what's going on here. It's a block inside of a method. Basically I get everything here except the call in the if statement wasABlock_nowAProc.call. This is not defined here, so what is it calling?
class Array
def eachEven(&wasABlock_nowAProc)
isEven = true # We start with "true" because arrays start with 0, which is even.
self.each do |object|
if isEven
wasABlock_nowAProc.call object
end
isEven = (not isEven) # Toggle from even to odd, or odd to even.
end
end
end
['apple', 'bad apple', 'cherry', 'durian'].eachEven do |fruit|
puts 'Yum! I just love '+fruit+' pies, don\'t you?'
end
# Remember, we are getting the even-numbered elements
# of the array, all of which happen to be odd numbers,
# just because I like to cause problems like that.
[1, 2, 3, 4, 5].eachEven do |oddBall|
puts oddBall.to_s+' is NOT an even number!'
end
def eachEven(&wasABlock_nowAProc) declares that the eachEven method accepts a block, which is the do ... end stuff from your two examples. It is then accessible within the method as a .callable Proc/Lambda object with the name wasABlock_nowAProc.
wasABlock_nowAProc.call object basically invokes the attached block from within the method and passes it one argument, object.
Do a google search for "ruby block to proc" and any of the first results should give you a thorough explanation.
Basically, when you define a method parameter with an & prefix (as in def eachEven(&wasABlock_nowAProc)), it tells Ruby that this method is expecting to receive a Proc object as an argument. In the method body you can then do stuff with Proc, such as use the #call method to run it or pass it on to another method.
Now, it's rare for Ruby programmer to manually create Proc objects. It's much more common to just use a block (less typing, easier to read, etc). If you try to pass a block to method that requires a Proc, well, Ruby handles that just fine. It magically converts the block to a Proc and uses that.
In this particular example, the only reason I can see to define the &wasABlock_nowAProc parameter is to tell Ruby to raise an error if the method is called with a block. You could remove the parameter and replace the #call line with yield to achieve the same functionality.
Every time I've seen empty parameters, it appeared in a method like this:
def method_name(arguments)
#stuff to be executed
end
And then a method is called. Now I've come across this:
x = something()
What am I looking at? I am aware it is a variable, but what is the empty part?
Imagine a situation where you have a variable something and a method something. Whenever you refer something() you are referring to the method.
def something
"Java"
end
something = "Ruby"
a = something #=> value of a is "Ruby"
a = something() #=> value of a is "Java" # got from method
Ruby method parameters are very flexible. According to the method definition, the parameters that are given in the call can be passed directly, defaulted if absent, or compressed to a single Array parameter.
This short program demonstrates. The way parameter checking works is
Parameters supplied in the call are first allocated to all the individual non-defaulted parameters in the method definition, from first to last.
If there are insufficient actual parameters to match all non-defaulted formal parameters, a wrong number of arguments (N for M) (ArgumentError) is raised.
If any actual parameters remain then they are then allocated to all defaulted parameters, from first to last.
If any actual parameters still remain, then they will be bundled into an array and allocated to a splat parameter, if one has been defined.
If any actual parameters still remain, and no splat parameters have been defined, a wrong number of arguments (N for M) (ArgumentError) is raised.
This program demonstrates some of those situations. The commented lines would raise the error described.
def method_name(arguments)
puts "method_name(#{arguments})"
end
def something()
puts 'something()'
end
def something_else(param = 99)
puts "something_else(#{param})"
end
def something_more(param = 99, *rest)
puts "something_else(#{param}, #{rest})"
end
#method_name()
method_name(1)
#something(1)
something()
something_else()
something_else(42)
something_more()
something_more(1)
something_more(1, 2)
output
method_name(1)
something()
something_else(99)
something_else(42)
something_more(99, [])
something_more(1, [])
something_more(1, [2])
In ruby, parentheses are optional, so in your example, calling method_name is the equivalent of calling method_name(), however your method requires an argument. Perhaps this would illustrate it better:
def method_name(arguments={})
#do stuff
end
This method has an optional parameter of a hash. You can call this method with any of: method_name, method_name(), or method_name(argument1: "something")