How does ruby call varz method by using varz[:foo]?
class Component
class << self
def varz
#varz ||= Hash.new
end
end
end
Component.varz[:foo] = 'bar'
puts Component.varz # {:foo=>"bar"}
class << self is used to define the class method,that will be called on the class.
where as #varz represents the instance variable. You might wonder, then why this instance object is doing in class method? This is because class itself is instance of Class.
One more thing to note, in ruby method returns it's last statement. So in your case Component.varz returning the instance variable #varz which is of hash type.
Component.varz[:foo] = 'bar'
this add the key-value pair foo and 'bar' to hash.
And finally,
p Component.varz
you are printing the value returened by the varz method.
You cut it in the wrong way. Component.varz is a method call. To the result of it (which is a hash), [:foo] = applies. The [] and []= methods are special in that you don't put a period between the receiver and the method.
Related
class Artist
##song_count = []
attr_accessor :name, :songs
def initialize(name)
#name = name
#songs = []
end
def add_song(song)
#songs << song
end
def print_songs
songs.each {|song| puts song.name}
end
end
So in this example, it uses all two types, #songs and songs.
I'm having a hard time understanding why these are used, instead of using #songs for everything.
And then in this example,
def add_song(song)
self.songs << song
song.artist = self
##song_count +=1
end
Why is self.songs used instead of #songs?
Ok, so I forgot to say one more thing. In the first code snippet above,for method print_songs, why am I able to use songs.each instead of #songs.each? I was expected it to generate an error undefined songs.
Why is self.songs used instead of #songs
Using the method is more flexible. You're abstracting yourself from knowing how exactly it gets/stores data. The less you rely on implementation details, the easier it will be for you to change code later.
One small example, consider this implementation of songs
def songs
#songs ||= []
#songs
end
#songs may or may not have been assigned value prior to invocation of this method. But it doesn't care. It makes sure that #songs does have a sane default value. The concept is called "lazy initialization" and it's very tedious and error-prone to do if you use instance variables directly.
So, when in doubt, always use methods.
Difference between foo and #foo
Instance variables
Instance variables are defined within instance methods, and their names begin with #. Their value is only accessible within the specific object on which it was set. In other words, when we modify the value of an instance variable, the change only applies to that particular instance. Unlike local variables which are only available within the method where they were defined, instance variables are accessible by all methods within the object (instance methods of the class). Instance variables are the most commonly used type of variable in Ruby classes.
class Car
attr_reader :color
def set_color(color_receiverd_as_argument)
#color = color_receiverd_as_argument
end
end
car1 = Car.new
car1.color # Output: => nil
car1.set_color "black"
car1.color # Output: => "black"
car2 = Car.new
car2.set_color "silver"
car2.color # Output: => "silver"
In the example above, notice that:
Trying to access an instance variable before it's initialized will not raise an exception. Its default value is nil.
Changing the value of the color variable in one instance of the Car class does not affect the value of the same variable in the other instances.
Local variables
A local variable within a class is like any other local variable in Ruby. It is only accessible within the exact scope on which it's created. If defined within a method, it is only available inside that method.
class Car
def initialize
wheels = 4
end
def print_wheels
print wheels
end
end
c = Car.new
c.print_wheels # Output: NameError: undefined local variable or method `wheels'…
The self keyword
The self keyword is always available, and it points to the current object. In Ruby, all method calls consist of a message sent to a receiver. In other words, all methods are invoked on an object. The object on which the method is called is the receiver, and the method is the message. If we call "foo".upcase, the "foo" object is the receiver and upcase is the message. If we don't specify an object (a receiver) when calling a method, it is implicitly called on the self object.
Self keyword at class level
When used within a class but outside any instance methods, self refers to the class itself.
class Foo
##self_at_class_level = self
def initialize
puts "self at class level is #{##self_at_class_level}"
end
end
f = Foo.new # Output: self at class level is Foo
Self keyword at instance methods
When inside an instance method, the self keyword refers to that specific instance. In other words, it refers to the object where it was called.
class Meditation
def initialize
puts "self within an instance method is #{self}"
end
end
zazen = Meditation.new # Output: self within an instance method is #<Meditation:0x00000000ab2b38>
Notice that #<Meditation:0x00000000ab2b38> is a string representation of the zazen object, which is an instance of the Meditation class.
I am reading the Module documentation but can't seem to understand their differences and which should be used where.
How is the eval different than exec?
I'm going to answer a bit more than your question by including instance_{eval|exec} in your question.
All variations of {instance|module|class}_{eval|exec} change the current context, i.e. the value for self:
class Array
p self # prints "Array"
43.instance_eval{ p self } # prints "43"
end
Now for the differences. The eval versions accepts a string or a block, while the exec versions only accept a block but allow you to pass parameters to it:
def example(&block)
42.instance_exec("Hello", &block)
end
example{|mess| p mess, self } # Prints "Hello" then "42"
The eval version does not allow to pass parameters. It provides self as the first parameter, although I can't think of a use for this.
Finally, module_{eval|exec} is the same as the corresponding class_{eval|exec}, but they are slightly different from instance_{eval|exec} as they change what is the current opened class (i.e. what will be affected by def) in different ways:
String.instance_eval{ def foo; end }
Integer.class_eval { def bar; end }
String.method_defined?(:foo) # => false
String.singleton_methods.include?(:foo) # => true
Integer.method_defined?(:bar) # => true
So obj.instance_{eval|exec} opens the singleton class of obj, while mod.{class|module}_{eval|exec} opens mod itself.
Of course, instance_{eval|exec} are available on any Ruby object (including modules), while {class|module}_* are only available on Module (and thus Classes)
To answer your last question first, eval (in all its variations) is completely different from exec. exec $command will start a new process to run the command you specify and then exit when that finishes.
class_eval and module_eval have the power to redefine classes and modules -- even those that you yourself did not write. For example, you might use class eval to add a new method that did not exist.
Fixnum.class_eval { def number; self; end }
7.number # returns '7'
class_eval can be used to add instance methods, and instance_eval can be used to add class methods (yes, that part is very confusing). A class method would be something like Thing.foo -- you're literally calling the foo method on the Thing class. An instance method is like the example above, using class_eval I've added a number method to every instance of Fixnum.
Okay, so that's the *_eval class of methods. The exec methods are similar, but they allow you to look inside a class and execute a block of code as though it was defined as a method on that class. Perhaps you have a class that looks like this:
class Foo
##secret = 'secret key'
##protected = 'some secret value'
def protected(key)
if key == ##secret
return ##protected
end
end
end
The class Foo is just a wrapper around some secret value, if you know the correct key. However, you could trick the class into giving you its secrets by executing a block inside the context of the class like so:
Foo.class_exec { ##secret = 'i'm a hacker' }
Foo.protected('i'm a hacker') #returns the value of ##protected because we overwrote ##secret
In general, with a lot of the tools in ruby, you could use any of these to solve a lot of problems. A lot of the time you probably won't even need to unless you want to monkey patch a class some library you use has defined (although that opens up a whole can of worms). Try playing around with them in irb and see which you find easier. I personally don't use the *_exec methods as much as the *_eval methods, but that's a personal preference of mine.
To avoid ambiguity I'm going to call a method that belongs to (owned by) a singleton class a singleton method. The rest are instance methods. Although one might say that a singleton method of an object is an instance method of its singleton class.
tl;dr Use class_eval/module_eval on a class/module to define instance methods, and instance_eval on a class/module to define class methods (or to be more precise, use instance_eval to define singleton methods). Additionally you can use instance_eval to access instance variables.
A terminology is a bit lacking in this case. ruby maintains a stack of class references (cref for short). When you open/reopen a class, the corresponding class reference is pushed to the stack. And the current class refernece affects where def defines methods (to which class/module they're added).
Now, class_eval/module_eval and class_exec/module_exec are aliases.
The *_exec() variants don't accept strings, and allow to pass arguments to the block. Since the *_eval() variants are mainly used I'll focus on them.
class_eval/module_eval changes cref and self to the receiver (Thing in Thing.module_eval(...)):
rb_mod_module_eval() -> specific_eval()
yield_under() (for blocks)
vm_cref_push()
eval_under() (for strings)
vm_cref_push()
instance_eval changes cref to the singleton class of the receiver, and self to the receiver.
Let's see them in action:
class A
p self #=> A
#a = 1
def initialize
#b = 2
end
end
p A.instance_variables #=> [:#a]
p A.new.instance_variables #=> [:#b]
#a on a class level adds an instance variable to the class A as an object. I'm adding it here for completeness. But that's not how you add a class variable.
A.instance_eval do
p self #=> A
p #a #=> 1
def m() puts 'm' end
end
sclass = A.singleton_class
p sclass.instance_methods(false).include? :m #=> true
A.m #=> m
a = A.new
a.instance_eval do
p self #=> #<A:0x00007fc497661be8 #b=2>
p #b #=> 2
def m2() puts 'm2' end
end
sclass = a.singleton_class
p sclass.instance_methods(false).include? :m2 #=> true
a.m2 #=> m2
So, inside instance_eval def adds a singleton method to the receiver (an instance method to the singleton class of the receiver). For a class/module that means a class/module method. For other objects, a method that is available for that particular object.
A.class_eval do
p self #=> A
p #a #=> 1
def m() puts 'm' end
end
p A.instance_methods(false).include? :m #=> true
A.new.m #=> m
And, inside class_eval def adds an instance method to the receiver itself (the class/module). class_eval is only available for classes/modules.
Also, when class_eval is passed a block, constant/class variable lookup is not affected:
module A
C = 1
##c = 1
class B
C = 2
##c = 2
end
A::B.class_eval { p [C, ##c] } #=> [1, 1]
A::B.class_eval 'p [C, ##c]' #=> [2, 2]
end
The naming is confusing. I might guess that instance in instance_eval suggests that receiver is treated as an instance (allows to change things for a particular instance), and class in class_eval as a class (allows to change things for a class of objects).
I'm stuck. I'm trying to dynamically define a class method and I can't wrap my head around the ruby metaclass model. Consider the following class:
class Example
def self.meta; (class << self; self; end); end
def self.class_instance; self; end
end
Example.class_instance.class # => Class
Example.meta.class # => Class
Example.class_instance == Example # => true
Example.class_instance == Example.meta # => false
Obviously both methods return an instance of Class. But these two instances
are not the same. They also have different ancestors:
Example.meta.ancestors # => [Class, Module, Object, Kernel]
Example.class_instance.ancestors # => [Example, Object, Kernel]
What's the point in making a difference between the metaclass and the class instance?
I figured out, that I can send :define_method to the metaclass to dynamically define a method, but if I try to send it to the class instance it won't work. At least I could solve my problem, but I still want to understand why it is working this way.
Update Mar 15, 2010 13:40
Are the following assumptions correct.
If I have an instance method which calls self.instance_eval and defines a method, it will only affect the particular instance of that class.
If I have an instance method which calls self.class.instance_eval (which would be the same as calling class_eval) and defines a method it will affect all instances of that particular class resulting in a new instance method.
If I have a class method which calls instance_eval and defines a method it will result in a new instance method for all instances.
If I have a class method which calls instance_eval on the meta/eigen class and defines a method it will result in a class method.
I think it starts to make sense to me. It would certainly limit your possibilities if self inside an class method would point to the eigen class. If so it would not be possible to define an instance method from inside a class method. Is that correct?
Defining a singleton method dynamically is simple when you use instance_eval:
Example.instance_eval{ def square(n); n*n; end }
Example.square(2) #=> 4
# you can pass instance_eval a string as well.
Example.instance_eval "def multiply(x,y); x*y; end"
Example.multiply(3,9) #=> 27
As for the difference above, you are confusing 2 things:
The meta class defined by you, is what called in Ruby community as singelton class or eigen class. That singleton class is the class that you can add class(singleton) methods to.
As for the class instance you are trying to define using the class_instance method, is nothing but the class itself, to prove it, just try adding an instance method to the class Example and check if the class_instance method defined by you returns the class Example itself by checking the existence of that method:
class Example
def self.meta; (class << self; self; end); end
def self.class_instance; self; end
def hey; puts hey; end
end
Example.class_instance.instance_methods(false) #=> ['hey']
Anyway to sum it for you, when you want to add class methods, just add them to that meta class. As for the class_instance method is useless, just remove it.
Anyway I suggest you read this post to grasp some concepts of Ruby reflection system.
UPDATE
I suggest you read this nice post: Fun with Ruby's instance_eval and class_eval,
Unfortunately class_eval and instance_eval are confusing because they somehow work against their naming!
Use ClassName.instance_eval to define class methods.
Use ClassName.class_eval to define instance methods.
Now answering your assumptions:
If I have an instance method which
calls self.instance_eval and defines a
method, it will only affect the
particular instance of that class.
yes:
class Foo
def assumption1()
self.instance_eval("def test_assumption_1; puts 'works'; end")
end
end
f1 = Foo.new
f1.assumption1
f1.methods(false) #=> ["test_assumption_1"]
f2 = Foo.new.methods(false) #=> []
If I have an instance method which
calls self.class.instance_eval (which
would be the same as calling
class_eval) and defines a method it
will affect all instances of that
particular class resulting in a new
instance method.
no instance_eval in that context will define singleton methods(not instance ones) on the class itself:
class Foo
def assumption2()
self.class.instance_eval("def test_assumption_2; puts 'works'; end")
end
end
f3 = Foo.new
f3.assumption2
f3.methods(false) #=> []
Foo.singleton_methods(false) #=> ["test_assumption_2"]
For that to work replace instance_eval with class_eval above.
If I have a class method which calls
instance_eval and defines a method it
will result in a new instance method
for all instances.
Nope:
class Foo
instance_eval do
def assumption3()
puts 'works'
end
end
end
Foo.instance_methods(false) #=> []
Foo.singleton_methods(false) #=> ["assumption_3"]
That will make singleton methods, not instance methods. For that to work replace instance_eval with class_eval above.
If I have a class method which calls
instance_eval on the meta/eigen class
and defines a method it will result in
a class method.
well no, that will make so sophisticated stuff, as it will add singleton method to the singleton class, I don't think that will have any practical use.
If you define a method on a class, it can be invoked on its objects. It is an instance method.
class Example
end
Example.send :define_method, :foo do
puts "foo"
end
Example.new.foo
#=> "foo"
If you define a method on a metaclass, it can be invoked on the class. This is similar to the concept of a class method or static method in other languages.
class Example
def self.metaclass
class << self
self
end
end
end
Example.metaclass.send :define_method, :bar do
puts "bar"
end
Example.bar
#=> "bar"
The reason that metaclasses exist is because you can do this in Ruby:
str = "hello"
class << str
def output
puts self
end
end
str.output
#=> "hello"
"hi".output
# NoMethodError
As you can see, we defined a method that is only available to one instance of a String. The thing that we defined this method on is called the metaclass. In the method lookup chain, the metaclass is accessed first before searching the object's class.
If we replace the object of type String with an object of type Class, you can imagine why this means we're only defining a method on a specific class, not on all classes.
The differences between the current context and self are subtle, you can read more if you're interested.
I've missed the memo somewhere, and I hope you'll explain this to me.
Why is the eigenclass of an object different from self.class?
class Foo
def initialize(symbol)
eigenclass = class << self
self
end
eigenclass.class_eval do
attr_accessor symbol
end
end
end
My train of logic that equates the eigenclass with class.self is rather simple:
class << self is a way of declaring class methods, rather than instance methods. It's a shortcut to def Foo.bar.
So within the reference to the class object, returning self should be identical to self.class. This is because class << self would set self to Foo.class for definition of class methods/attributes.
Am I just confused? Or, is this a sneaky trick of Ruby meta-programming?
class << self is more than just a way of declaring class methods (though it can be used that way). Probably you've seen some usage like:
class Foo
class << self
def a
print "I could also have been defined as def Foo.a."
end
end
end
This works, and is equivalent to def Foo.a, but the way it works is a little subtle. The secret is that self, in that context, refers to the object Foo, whose class is a unique, anonymous subclass of Class. This subclass is called Foo's eigenclass. So def a creates a new method called a in Foo's eigenclass, accessible by the normal method call syntax: Foo.a.
Now let's look at a different example:
str = "abc"
other_str = "def"
class << str
def frob
return self + "d"
end
end
print str.frob # => "abcd"
print other_str.frob # => raises an exception, 'frob' is not defined on other_str
This example is the same as the last one, though it may be hard to tell at first. frob is defined, not on the String class, but on the eigenclass of str, a unique anonymous subclass of String. So str has a frob method, but instances of String in general do not. We could also have overridden methods of String (very useful in certain tricky testing scenarios).
Now we're equipped to understand your original example. Inside Foo's initialize method, self refers not to the class Foo, but to some particular instance of Foo. Its eigenclass is a subclass of Foo, but it is not Foo; it couldn't be, or else the trick we saw in the second example couldn't work. So to continue your example:
f1 = Foo.new(:weasels)
f2 = Foo.new(:monkeys)
f1.weasels = 4 # Fine
f2.monkeys = 5 # Also ok
print(f1.monkeys) # Doesn't work, f1 doesn't have a 'monkeys' method.
The simplest answer: the eigenclass can't be instantiated.
class F
def eigen
class << self
self
end
end
end
F.new.eigen.new #=> TypeError: can't create instance of virtual class
Yehuda Katz does a pretty good job of explaining the subtleties in "Metaprogramming in Ruby: It's All About the Self"
How is this explained? Can I replace self with some other object?
This syntax is used in ruby to access an object's metaclass, or singleton class. The metaclass is used to store methods for an individual object.
obj = # whatever...
class <<obj
# here, self is defined as obj's metaclass
# so foo will be an instance method of obj's metaclass
# meaning that we can call obj.foo
def foo
# ...
end
end
# this is equivalent to the above
def obj.foo
# ...
end
This is a core part of the language, and isn't defined in any library.
Also see _why's explanation of metaclasses:
http://whytheluckystiff.net/articles/seeingMetaclassesClearly.html
Also regarding "self" and replacing it, I've seen this mentioned a few other places - it's difficult for me to think of a good use-case for that feature, though it would sure confuse me. Perhaps there is one. In any case, it is invalid syntax in Ruby to try to change the value of "self":
>> self = Object.new
SyntaxError: compile error
(irb):1: Can't change the value of self
self = Object.new
^
from (irb):1
from :0
In Ruby, and in all other languages that have this concept of "self" or "this", it's used as a pointer to "here", as in, this current object, or class, or metaclass, or whichever object represents what "here" means. Since Ruby is interpreted line-by-line, "self" means the enclosing object when the compiler encounters that keyword.
class Array
self # Means Array class (which is an object, actually)
def self.class_method
self # still means Array class, since you're in a class method
end
def hello
self # Means the current instance of Array
end
class << self
self # Means the metaclass (or "eigenclass") of the Array
end
end
You use that syntax to add class methods, which you call on the class, instead of on a particular instance of that class.
For example:
class Foo
class << self
def do_foo
# something useful
end
end
end
Now you can call Foo.do_foo even if you don't have an object of type Foo.
This is equivalent:
class Foo
def self.do_foo
# something useful
end
end