When passing a block to instance_eval, it is meant to be executed within the context of that instance. self, when referenced either explicitly or implicitly within that block, should refer to the instance that instance_eval has been called on. This seems to work fine in all cases, except when passing a method object that has been converted to a proc. In this case, self refers to the instance that the method is defined on, rather than the instance where the block is evaluated. Here's a code example to demonstrate what I mean:
class A
def test(&b)
instance_eval(&b)
end
end
class B
def test_a(a)
a.test { puts self }
end
def test_b_helper(*args)
puts self
end
def test_b(a)
m = method(:test_b_helper).to_proc
a.test(&m)
end
end
a = A.new
b = B.new
b.test_a(a) #<A:0x007ff66b086c68>
b.test_b(a) #<B:0x007fa3e1886bc0>
The expected behaviour is for both tests to return the same output. In this case, self should refer to an instance of A, not B.
I have looked in the docs and done some searches, but I have not been able to find information on this peculiarity. I am hoping that there are some experienced Rubyists who can help clear up this difference in behaviour.
Just to clarify, I am using Ruby 1.9.2.
The difference is, that Blocks and Procs are closures, Method objects are not.
Excerpt from D. Flanagan, Y. Matsumoto. The Ruby Programming Language, O'Reilly 2008, p. 204:
One important difference between Method objects and Proc objects is
that Method objects are not closures. Ruby’s methods are intended to
be completely self-contained, and they never have access to local
variables outside of their own scope. The only binding retained by a
Method object, therefore, is the value of self — the object on which the
method is to be invoked.
When you now cast the Method object to_proc, you bind the value of self to the calling instance of B, hence you get the result you described above. Actually, self is already fixed when you create the Method object.
This gets particularly clear when you consider the following code:
class A
def foo
puts 'bar'
end
end
class B; end
class C < A; end
foo = A.instance_method(:foo)
# => #<UnboundMethod: A#foo>
a = A.new
foo.bind(a).call
# bar
b = B.new
foo.bind(b).call
# TypeError: bind argument must be an instance of A
c = C.new
foo.bind(c).call
# bar
Simply put: self is always fixed on Method and UnboundMethod objects.
Related
Here, I create a local variable in class scope:
class MyClass
x = 1
puts x
end
It prints 1 even if I don't create any instances of MyClass.
I want to use x in some method:
class MyClass
x = 1
def method
puts x
end
end
m = MyClass.new
m.method
And I can't. Why? I get that class definition creates a scope, but why is it not accessible in the method? Isn't scope of the method inside the scope of the class?
I can imagine that this is related to creation of a class. Since any class is an object of Class, maybe the scope of MyClass is the scope of some Class method, and the way of coupling methods of MyClass to that instance makes their scope completely different.
It also seems to me that I can't just create a scope with {} (like in C) or something like do..end. Am I correct?
Scope of a method is not inside the class. Each method has its own entirely new scope.
New scopes are created whenever you use the class, module, and def keywords. Using brackets, as in C, does not create a new scope, and in fact you cannot arbitrarily group lines of code using brackets. The brackets (or do...end) around a Ruby block create a block-level scope, where variables previously created in the surrounding scope are available, but variables created within the block scope do not escape into the surrounding scope afterward.
Instance methods share the scope of their instance variables with other instances methods. An instance variable defined in the scope of a class definition is available in class-level singleton methods, but not in instance methods of the class.
Illustration:
class Foo
x = 1 # available only here
#y = 2 # class-wide value
def self.class_x
#x # never set; nil value
end
def self.class_y
#y # class-wide value
end
def initialize(z)
x = 3 # available only here
#z = z # value for this instance only
end
def instance_x
#x # never set; nil
end
def instance_y
#y # never set; nil
end
def instance_z
#z # value for this instance only
end
end
Foo.class_x # => nil
Foo.class_y # => 2
Foo.new(0).instance_x # => nil
Foo.new(0).instance_y # => nil
foo3 = Foo.new(3)
foo4 = Foo.new(4)
foo3.instance_z # => 3
foo4.instance_z # => 4
You can access class-level instance variables from within instances using the class-level getter. Continuing the example above:
class Foo
def get_class_y
self.class.class_y
end
end
foo = Foo.new(0)
foo.get_class_y # => 2
There exists in Ruby the notion of a "class variable," which uses the ## sigil. In practice, there is almost never a reasonable use case for this language construct. Typically the goal can be better achieved using a class-level instance variable, as shown here.
Here, I create a local variable in class scope:
class MyClass
x = 1
puts x
end
It prints 1 even if I don't create any instances of MyClass.
Correct. The class definition body is executed when it is read. It's just code like any other code, there is nothing special about class definition bodies.
Ask yourself: how would methods like attr_reader/attr_writer/attr_accessor, alias_method, public/protected/private work otherwise? Heck, how would def work otherwise if it didn't get executed when the class is defined? (After all, def is just an expression like any other expression!)
That's why you can do stuff like this:
class FileReader
if operating_system == :windows
def blah; end
else
def blubb; end
end
end
I want to use x in some method:
class MyClass
x = 1
def method
puts x
end
end
m = MyClass.new
m.method
And I can't. Why? I get that class definition creates a scope, but why is it not accessible in the method? Isn't scope of the method inside the scope of the class?
No, it is not. There are 4 scopes in Ruby: script scope, module/class definition scope, method definition scope, and block/lambda scope. Only blocks/lambdas nest, all the others create new scopes.
I can imagine that this is related to creation of a class. Since any class is an object of Class, maybe the scope of MyClass is the scope of some Class method, and the way of coupling methods of MyClass to that instance makes their scope completely different.
Honestly, I don't fully understand what you are saying, but no, class definition scope is not method definition scope, class definition scope is class definition scope, and method definition scope is method definition scope.
It also seems to me that I can't just create a scope with {} (like in C) or something like do..end. Am I correct?
Like I said above: there are 4 scopes in Ruby. There is nothing like block scope in C. (The Ruby concept of "block" is something completely different than the C concept of "block.") The closest thing you can get is a JavaScript-inspired immediately-invoked lambda-literal, something like this:
foo = 1
-> {
bar = 2
foo + bar
}.()
# => 3
bar
# NameError
In general, that is not necessary in Ruby. In well-factored code, methods will be so small, that keeping track of local variables and their scopes and lifetimes is really not a big deal.
So just creating a class without any instances will lead to something
actually executing in runtime (even allocating may be)? That is very
not like C++. –
Check out this code:
Dog = Class.new do
attr_accessor :name
def initialize(name)
#name = name
end
end
If you execute that code, there won't be any output, but something still happened. For instance, a global variable named Dog was created, and it has a value. Here's the proof:
Dog = Class.new do
attr_accessor :name
def initialize(name)
#name = name
end
end
dog = Dog.new("Ralph")
puts dog.name
--output:--
Ralph
The assignment to the Dog constant above is equivalent to writing:
class Dog
...
...
end
And, in fact, ruby steps through each line inside the class definition and executes each line--unless the line of code is inside a def. The def is created but the code inside a def doesn't execute until the def is called.
A very common line you will see inside a class definition is:
attr_accessor :name
...which can be rewritten as:
attr_accessor(:name)
...which makes it obvious that it's a method call. Ruby executes that line--and calls the method--when you run a file containing the class definition. The attr_accessor method then dynamically creates and inserts a getter and a setter method into the class. At runtime. Yeah, this ain't C++ land anymore--welcome to NeverNever Land.
I get that class definition creates a scope, but why is it not
accessible in the method?
Because that is the way Matz decided things should be: a def creates a new scope, blocking visibility of variables outside the def. However, there are ways to open up the scope gates, so to speak: blocks can see the variables defined in the surrounding scope. Check out define_method():
class MyClass
x = 1
define_method(:do_stuff) do
puts x
end
end
m = MyClass.new
m.do_stuff
--output:--
1
The block is everything between do...end. In ruby, a block is a closure, which means that when a block is created, it captures the variables in the surrounding scope, and carries those variables with it until the the block is executed. A block is like an anonymous function, which gets passed to a method as an argument.
Note that if you use the Class.new trick, you can open two scope gates:
x = 1
MyClass = Class.new do
define_method(:do_stuff) do
puts x
end
end
m = MyClass.new
m.do_stuff
--output:--
1
Generally, ruby allows a programmer to do whatever they want, rules be damned.
Just want to enquire what the right practice is.
My preference is to use procs, simply because I think that defining methods inside of methhods is a bit untidy and should be done only when necessary. To get around it, I simply use procs.
What is the right / better way to do it and why? (apart from the proc's ability to access the main method's variables defined before itself)
def meth( params_prime )
calculations = do_something_with_whatever
def sub_meth( params_sub )
do_something_with_params_sub
end
sub_meth_params(calculations) # is this better?
proc1 = proc{ |params_sub| do_something_with_params_sub }
proc1.call(calculations) # or is this?
end
It is not clear what your specific use-case is, but I would definitely go for procs or lambdas. There is less overhead when defining a proc or lambda dynamically, they are passable, so if needed you could return them and they could be used outside the function.
Using "def" exposes the method as an instance method outside of the current method scope (so in the containing class, which could be Object in your case). This may or may not be with you want. If you want to use an anonymous function only available in the local scope, use a lambda.
Also Proc vs Lambda: I generally prefer to use lambdas since they behave a little more "predictable", meaning: as you would expect (check passed variables, and return just returns from the lambda, proc returns from the called scope). But from your example it is hard to deduce what would apply. I think the key-difference is: lambas are ment to be passed around, and thus behave a little more sanely. If this is not your use-case, use Proc :) (a write-up of the difference).
If you want to use sub_func to encapsulate it from call from other methods you can use a class to group function and sub_func together and make sub_func private. Otherwise if you want to pass this function as a parameter further you can declare it as lamda.
def func params_prime
sub_func = ->(params_sub){do_something_with_params}
sub_func.call(params_prime)
end
Defining methods inside methods is a feature of Ruby that may have its use. But something is telling me that you are asking a very advanced question while you are still a beginner level Rubyist. Do you know what default definee is? If not, check this article by Yugui.
Procs are very important in Ruby, but newbies tend to use them instead of defining methods in appropriate objects, which is the exact smell I'm getting from your question. The normal way of doing things in OO languages of Ruby family is to define methods on objects:
class Foo
def bar *params
# do something with params
end
end
Since you do not understand the meaning of defining methods inside methods, refrain from doing it for the next 6 months. Once you understand objects, you can start experimenting with this very advanced feature again.
APPENDIX:
Since you demonstrated intrest, let me show you that using def in def at the top level is a frownable-upon thing to do. Normally, when you define a method on some class without further adornment, it becomes a public instance method of that class:
class X
def foo; "foo" end
end
X.instance_methods.include? :foo
#=> true
When you use def in a def, the definee for the inner def is going to be X:
class X
def bar
def baz
"baz"
end
"bar"
end
end
When you execute the above code, instance method #bar becomes defined on X:
X.instance_methods.include? :bar
#=> true
But #baz not yet:
X.instance_methods.include? :baz
#=> false
Only after you call #bar at least once does the method become defined on X:
X.new.bar
#=> "bar"
X.instance_methods.include? :baz
#=> true
And now I would like to ask you to appreciate how terrible thing just happened: An instance just modified its mother class. That's a violation. A violation of such a basic principle of OO design, that I'm not even sure it has a name. This technique is great for obfuscated coding competitions, but in production, it's taboo. Ruby gives you the freedom to break that taboo, gives you the rope to hang yourself on, but you don't do it under any kind of normal circumstances.
So what can be worse than a def inside a def in a class definition? The answer is, a def inside a def at the top level. Let me show you why. Normally, when you define methods with def at the top level, the default definee is Object, but the top level defnitions become private instance methods of object. This is to prevent the unintended consequence of top level defs, because almost all Ruby objects inherit from Object. For example, if you define:
class Object
def foo; "foo" end
end
Now all your objects will respond to foo:
foo #=> "foo"
1.foo #=> "foo"
[].foo #=> "foo
When we define methods at the top level, we usually just intend to use the method at the top level, and don't want every single object to inherit it. For that reason, top level defs become private:
hello #=> NameError: undefined local variable or method `hello' for main:Object
1.hello #=> NoMethodError: undifined method 'hello' for 1:Fixnum
Now we use def at the top level:
def hello; "hello" end
We can see that method #hello is has not become an instance methods of Object:
Object.instance_methods.include? :hello
#=> false
Mysteriously, it became its private method:
Object.private_instance_methods.include? :hello
#=> true
This way, we avoid the unintended consequence of defining #hello method for every single object. But the inheritance is there. The error message has changed:
1.hello #=> NoMethodError: private method 'hello' called for 1:Fixnum
And we can forcibly call the method via #send:
1.send :hello
#=> "hello"
Mysteriously, at the top level, we are allowed to call this private method without #send:
hello
#=> "hello"
And now, what happens when you do def in def at the top level:
def bar
def baz; "baz" end
"bar"
end
You define a private instance method Object#bar in an expected way. But when you call it, alas, the top level magic no longer works and a public method Object#baz gets defined:
bar #=> "bar"
This way, not just the top level, but every single Ruby object got polluted with your #baz method:
1.baz #=> "baz"
Class.baz #=> "baz"
This is why I told you to refrain from using this idiom until you progress from the level of unconscious incompetence to the level of conscious incompetence. I recommend you to read more about top level methods in Ruby.
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 reading the Metaprogramming section of Programming Ruby 1.9 and I'm having trouble understanding what's going on internally between class_eval/class_exec vs. instance_eval/instance_exec.
So first of all, my understanding is that def adds a method to the method table of self (the class object):
class A
puts self # => A
def foo; 42; end # added to the method table of self, so becomes an instance method
end
A.new.foo # => 42
And if we use class_eval, we get the same behavior:
A.class_eval do
puts self # => A
def bar; 42; end # same as above
end
A.new.bar # => 42
But somehow in the instance_eval case, things are different:
A.instance_eval do
puts self # => A
def baz; 42; end # added to the method table of an anonymous
# singleton class of self, so becomes a class method
end
puts A.baz # => 42
s = 'string'
s.instance_eval do ... end # same behavior, so now def creates an instance method
So I understand the functional difference between class_eval and instance_eval.
But the contexts inside the class_eval and instance_eval blocks look exactly the same to me -- in particular, self points to the same object, and the local_variables are the same. So what's going on inside the blocks (internally) that's making def act different?
Is there some piece of documentation I could read? The RDoc for instance_eval and class_eval doesn't help. Looking at the source, instance_eval seems to set up a singleton class object whereas class_eval doesn't -- but is this difference visible outside the C code, on the Ruby level?
I think your confusion comes from the fact that def does not depend on the current self, you might think about it as being a "current class" that has it's own rules.
Following your examples:
class A
# defs here go to A
puts self # => A
class << self
#defs here go to A's eigenclass
end
end
A.class_eval do
#defs here go to A
end
A.instance_eval do
#defs here go to A's eigenclass
end
s = "Hello World"
class << s
#defs here go to s's eigenclass
end
Here's the portion of the chapter that talks about the issue and it's pretty clear about the behaviour
class_eval and instance_eval both set
self for the duration of the block.
However, they differ in the way they
set up the environment for method
definition. class_eval sets things up
as if you were in the body of a class
definition, so method definitions will
define instance methods In contrast,
calling instance_eval on a class acts
as if you were working inside the
singleton class of self. Therefore,
any methods you define will become
class methods.
The only thing I think is worth adding is that you can call instance_eval in any object, not just classes, and the behaviour doesn't change but has different consequences.
Some relevant reading:
Ruby: instance_eval and class_eval method definitions
Chapter 4 of this most excelent series
Just to add to #krusty.ar's answer: def and define_method add methods to the current method definition context (I believe that's what it's called, I'm not sure), not to the current self.
It's just that inside of a module, class or singleton class body, those two happen to be the same.
But, for example, in a script body (aka top-level), self is the main object, but the current method definition context is Object.
Foo = Class.new
Foo.instance_eval do
def instance_bar
"instance_bar"
end
end
puts Foo.instance_bar #=> "instance_bar"
puts Foo.new.instance_bar #=> undefined method ‘instance_bar’
My understanding is that calling instance_eval on an object is supposed to allow you to define an instance variable or method for that object.
But in the example above, when you call it on class Foo to define the instance_bar method, instance_bar becomes a class method that can be invoked with "Foo.instance_bar". It is clear that this code has not created an instance method because Foo.new.instance_bar results in "undefined method ‘instance_bar’".
Why does instance_eval define a class method rather than an instance method in this context?
x.instance_eval changes your context so self evaluates to x.
This allows you to do many things, including defining instance variables and instance methods but only for x.
x = Object.new
y = Object.new
# define instance variables for x and y
x.instance_eval { #var = 1 }
y.instance_eval { #var = 2 }
# define an instance method for all Objects
class Object
def var
#var
end
end
x.var #=> 1
y.var #=> 2
Ruby lets you define instance methods for an object in a couple places. Normally,
one defines them in a class, and those instance methods are shared among all instances
of that class (like def var above).
However, we can also define an instance method for just a single object:
# here's one way to do it
def x.foo
"foo!"
end
# here's another
x.instance_eval do
# remember, in here self is x, so bar is attached to x.
def bar
"bar!"
end
end
Even though x and y have the same class, they don't share these methods, since they were only defined for x.
x.foo #=> "foo!"
x.bar #=> "bar!"
y.foo #=> raises NoMethodError
y.bar #=> raises NoMethodError
Now in ruby, everything's an object, even classes. Class methods are just instance methods
for that class object.
# we have two ways of creating a class:
class A
end
# the former is just syntatic sugar for the latter
B = Class.new
# we have do ways of defining class methods:
# the first two are the same as for any other object
def A.baz
"baz!"
end
A.instance_eval do
def frog
"frog!"
end
end
# the others are in the class context, which is slightly different
class A
def self.marco
"polo!"
end
# since A == self in here, this is the same as the last one.
def A.red_light
"green light!"
end
# unlike instance_eval, class context is special in that methods that
# aren't attached to a specific object are taken as instance methods for instances
# of the class
def example
"I'm an instance of A, not A itself"
end
end
# class_eval opens up the class context in the same way
A.class_eval do
def self.telegram
"not a land shark"
end
end
Note again, that all these methods are A-specific, B doesn't get access to any of them:
A.baz #=> "baz!"
B.telegram #=> raises NoMethodError
The important thing to take away from here is that
class methods are just instance methods of an object of class Class
The purpose of 'instance_eval' is to extend objects, but the purpose of 'class_eval' is to extend classes. And because classes are also objects, you can apply instance_eval on classes.
I guess that extending of classes is just more understandable in classic OOP. Dynamic languages allow us to easily specify behaviour of particular objects. Fact that each object can have own behaviour adds a lot of flexibility designing an application. Not only data can vary for objects of the same class. Two humans differ not only because they were born in different years, not only because they have different parents but they can think different and thus behave different.
Ability to change the behaviour of each object is fundamental. It exists in many languages.
Thinking about instance_eval think about objects first. Then you'll realize that classes are also objects - objects which additional purpose to create new objects, to hold description of common behaviour (methods). You can not only use definition of a class, but can also assign class to a variable, pass class as an argument, call method on a class, program a class!
I would recommend articles written by Yehuda Katz and Yugui to dive deeper into it:
http://yehudakatz.com/2009/11/15/metaprogramming-in-ruby-its-all-about-the-self/
http://yugui.jp/articles/846