I have a class and a module which have the same names:
module Pushover
def configure
..
end
end
module MyModule
class Pushover
def blah
Pushover.configure
end
end
end
This doesn't work because the Pushover.configure call directs to the containing class. Now, an obvious fix would be to rename the class. However, the Module is from a gem and the class conforms to a naming convention required in a DSL. So ideally they should both stay the same. I could also create a second helper class and call via that, but that all seems a little hacky. My preferred solution would be to directly reference the module method.
All the existing questions around this area seem to be disambiguating in the opposite direction - i.e. they want to get the class reference not the module.
Is there any way for me to inform Ruby that I mean the module rather than the class when I specify Pushover?
If you don't want to look up the constant relative to the current scope, just use an absolute path:
::Pushover.configure
Related
I would like to namespace my Ruby classes by putting them in a module. Indeed, this is a good idea if I decide to publish my Ruby gem so that the class names do not clash with existing classes in another gem. I know I can do the following for a class A::B:
module A
class B
end
end
However, the above is quite cumbersome in that I need to put all my class definitions into a single Ruby source file in order to scope them under the module. I would rather keep my class definitions in separate source files, much like a Java project, so how can I add classes to a module when they are all defined in separate files?
The accepted practice in this case is to wrap every file in module block
# a/b.rb
module A
class B
end
end
# a/c.rb
module A
class C
end
end
Btw. because of the way constant are resolved, it is advisable to use the long form I quoted above instead class A::B
(http://blog.honeybadger.io/avoid-these-traps-when-nesting-ruby-modules/).
I have a Ruby module in a file called my_module.rb:
module My_module
def my_module_method
puts 'inside my method'
end
end
In a file my_class.rb in the same folder, I have a class contained within the module.
module My_module
class My_class
def my_object_method
My_module.my_module_method
end
end
end
My_module::My_class.new.my_object_method => 'undefined method 'my_module_method''
I was not expecting this error. I assumed that Ruby would run into the line 'My_module.my_module_method' and search for a module called 'My_module' and a method within it called 'my_module_method.' This is what Java does, for example. However, Ruby does not do this. In order to get my_object_method to work, I have to write in my_class.rb:
require 'my_module.rb'
Why doesn't Ruby search for My_module when I call my_object_method? It seems obvious what it should search for and therefore redundant to require the programmer to explicitly write 'yes, Ruby, please allow me to make calls to module-wide methods.' What am I missing?
Ruby doesn't automatically load files. If you need a code from some file, you have to load it (by calling require) explicitly.
Thus, when you run "ruby my_class.rb" it loads only this file and you have to define dependencies between files by yourself.
You seem to have a misunderstanding of how to define a class method. In order to make your method call work, you could define it as def self.my_method_name.
In both classes and modules, methods work the same when you define them as class methods using self. or alternatively the class << self syntax. However instance methods (methods without the self.) work differently in these 2 cases. In classes, as you seem to understand, they're accessible once you instantiate the class using .new. In modules, they're only accessible if you include or extend.
See also:
difference between class method , instance method , instance variable , class variable?
http://www.rortuts.com/ruby/ruby-include-vs-extend/
Oh any by the way. Ruby doesn't enforce any convention where you have 1 file per class (named identically). You need to manually require files wherever you need them. Although there are some frameworks such as Rails which auto-require files, and enforce naming conventions.
I'm reading my ruby book. Looking at the code below,
module Destroy
def destroy(anyObject)
#anyObject = anyObject
puts "I will destroy the object: #{anyObject}"
end
end
class User
include Destroy
attr_accessor :name, :email
def initialize(name,email)
#name = name
#email = email
end
end
my_info = User.new("Bob","Bob#example.com")
puts "So your name is: #{my_info.name} and you have email #{my_info.email}"
user = User.new("john","john#example.com")
user.destroy("blah")
I could've just created another method inside my class. Why would I want to do this? Why would I want to use a module? It's not like embedding this into other classes is any easier than just using normal inheritance.
You can think of a module and the methods and constants inside of it as more of providing utility functions and actions that you can include to other objects as you see fit. For example, if you wanted to use destroy function in the objects Foo and Bar you would do similarly:
class Foo
include Destroy
# other code below
end
class Bar
include Destroy
# other code below
end
Now any Foo or Bar object has access to all the methods or constants inside of destroy.
Modules define a namespace, a sandbox in which your methods and constants can play without having to worry about being stepped on by other methods and constants. The ruby docs goes into more depth about this and includes a good example practical of when you would want to use it as seen below:
module Debug
def whoAmI?
"#{self.type.name} (\##{self.id}): #{self.to_s}"
end
end
class Phonograph
include Debug
# ...
end
class EightTrack
include Debug
# ...
end
ph = Phonograph.new("West End Blues")
et = EightTrack.new("Surrealistic Pillow")
ph.whoAmI? » "Phonograph (#537766170): West End Blues"
et.whoAmI? » "EightTrack (#537765860): Surrealistic Pillow"
In this example, every class that includes Debug has access to the method whoAmI? and other methods and constants that Debug includes without having to redefine it for every class.
Some programming languages such as C++, Perl, and Python allow one class to inherit from multiple other classes; that is called multiple inheritance. Ruby does not support multiple inheritance. That means each class can only inherit from one other class. However, there are cases where a class would benefit by acquiring methods defined within multiple other classes. That is made possible by using a construct called module.
A module is somewhat similar to a class, except it does not support inheritance, nor instantiating. It is mostly used as a container for storing multiple methods. One way to use a module is to employ an include or extend statement within a class. That way, the class gains access to all methods and objects defined within the module. It is said that the module is mixed in the class. So, a mixin is just a module included in a class. A single module can be mixed in multiple classes, and a single class can mix in multiple modules; thus, any limitations imposed by Ruby's single inheritance model are eliminated by the mixin feature.
Modules can also be used for namespacing. That is explained in this post at the Practicing Ruby website.
You are writing a module in the same file as the class, but not necessarily inside the class, but anyway.
For me there are 3 reasons to use a module(more details here):
Modules provide a namespace and prevent name clashes.
Modules implement the mixin facility.
When you have a very complex and dense class, you can split it into
modules and include them into the main class.
Your example is fairly simple, it would indeed make more sense to write the method in the class itself, but try to imagine a complex scenario.
I'm new to ruby metaprogramming, and I see people metaprogramming code in different places, like class Object, class Module, module Kernel and "nothing" (ie, out of a class/module definition block).
E.g.: I'm creating a c_attr_accessor method to access class variables, and I'm not sure where I must put the code, since it works in any of those cases.
How to decide what place is more appropriate to put a new global code?
Each of these examples fall into different cases.
If you are writing methods that apply to all objects, then you open the Object class so all objects can access it. If you are writing methods that apply to all modules, then you open Module. Whenever you open a class to add methods, the methods should apply to all instances of the class and nothing else.
Extending the Kernel module is different: people do this to add methods that should be available to every scope, but not really as methods to be explicitly called on an object, by making them private.
When you are outside of any class or module statement, you are in the scope of the main object, and methods you define default to being private methods of Object. This is fine for small or simple programs, but you will eventually want to use proper modules as namespaces to organize your methods.
As a final note on the subject, you always need to be sure that you really want methods you add to built-in classes and modules to be available to everything in your application, including external inclusions because they all share the built-ins.
Now to apply this to answer your question. Because you are defining a method that creates accessors for class variables, you should put it in the class Class as it applies to all classes and nothing else. Finally, you will likely only use it in class definitions (within a class statement), so we should make it private:
class Class
private
def c_attr_accessor(name)
# ...
end
end
class User
c_attr_accessor :class_variable_name
# ...
end
If you don't really need it in every class (maybe just a few), then create a "mixin module" to extend every class that needs this feature:
module ClassVariableAccessor
private
def c_attr_accessor(name)
# ...
end
end
class User
extend ClassVariableAccessor
c_attr_accessor :class_variable_name
# ...
end
Note that you are using Object#extend to add c_attr_accessor only to the object User (remember that classes are objects; you will hear that a lot if you are new to Ruby metaprogramming).
There is another way to implement the last example, which works by explicitly extending its base class through the Module#included(base_class) "hook method" called whenever the module included, and the base class is passed to base_class:
module ClassVariableAccessor
def included(base_class)
base_class.extend ClassMethods
end
module ClassMethods
def c_attr_accessor(name)
# ...
end
end
end
class User
include ClassVariableAccessor
c_attr_accessor :class_variable_name
# ...
end
I recommend this last solution because it is the most general and uses a simple interface that should not need to be updated. I hope this is not too much!
Have you tried looking up where the normal attribute accessors are defined? I'd either define it in the same class/module, or create my own module in which all my new methods go.
I'm developing two Ruby gems, one is a framework, the other is an application.
My main app's class inherits from a framework's class.
The class defined in the framework have some file loading methods that rely on _____FILE_____ so subclasses can load resources relative to their path.
What I want is for the subclasses to be able to use those methods defined in the parent without (basically) touching them. Is it possible?
The problem is with _____FILE_____, it doesn't change if the code is called from a subclass, so the loading resource methods are "stuck" in the frameworks directory, instead of trying to load from the app dirs.
I know I can redefine those methods in the subclass, but I wanted to take advantage of them being already defined in the parent.
I want the subclasses to refer to their own directory (where the subclass file is) using a method defined in the parent, that's the problem.
Or do I have to set the app directory by hand?
I'll try to make that clearer:
Is it possible to write a method like this:
# /home/usr/framework/parent.rb
class Parent
def show_my_path
puts File.dirname(__FILE__)
end
end
# /home/usr/app/app.rb
# require Parent
class App < Parent
end
App.new.show_my_path
# Can we have here /home/usr/app
# instead of /home/usr/framework ?
# What's the right way to do this?
As We know that __FILE__ will have current file name whatever it is. so you can try this -
# /home/usr/framework/parent.rb
class Parent
def show_my_path(filename)
puts File.dirname(filename)
end
end
# /home/usr/app/app.rb
# require Parent
class App < Parent
end
App.new.show_my_path(__FILE__)
What say?
__FILE__ is transform during the code read. So it can't be change. Even in a proc.
You can try to extract information with caller method maybe.