How to initialize class in block in Ruby? - ruby

I can't figure out the proper block initialize
class Foo
attr_accessor :bar
end
obj = Foo.new do |a|
a.bar = "baz"
end
puts obj.bar
Expect "baz"
instead get nil
What is the proper incantation for block class initializers in ruby?

Another way to make a block initializer would be writing it yourself one:
class Foo
attr_accessor :bar
def initialize
yield self if block_given?
end
end
And later use it:
foo = Foo.new do |f|
f.bar = true
end
My two cents.

Try again:
class Foo
attr_accessor :bar
end
obj = Foo.new.tap do |a|
a.bar = "baz"
end
puts obj.bar

I don't think new can take a block. Never saw it anywhere anyway. Why do you want to initialize in a block ? You can always do obj = foo.new.tap do |a| ... If you really want a block

actually you have a constructor for these purposes:
class Foo
attr_accessor :bar
def initialize(bar = "baz")
#bar = bar
end
end

Related

Ruby: get a reference in a method context to the object that self is an attribute of

Suppose I have a setup like this:
class Foo
attr_accessor :bar
def initialize
#bar = Bar.new
end
end
class Bar
def bar_method
self.class # => Bar
whatever???.class # => Foo
end
end
foo = Foo.new
foo.bar.bar_method
I know that I can set up the method like this:
def bar_method(selfs_self)
selfs_self.class # => Foo
end
And call the method like this: foo.bar.bar_method(foo) to get what I want. But that seems pretty redundant. Is there any way, inside of bar_method, that I can get a reference to foo, without specifically passing in a reference to it?
No.
Usually this is done by passing a reference to the parent object when initializing child objects, like:
class Foo
attr_accessor :bar
def initialize
#bar = Bar.new(self)
end
end
class Bar
attr_reader :foo
def initialize(foo)
#foo = foo
end
def bar_method
self.class # => Bar
foo.class # => Foo
end
end

using a virtual attribute as a hash

I want to be able to have a virtual attribute on a non-database model that is a hash. I just can't figure out what the syntax is for adding and removing items from this hash:
If I define:
attr_accessor :foo, :bar
then in a method in the model, I can use:
self.foo = "x"
But I can't say:
self.bar["item"] = "value"
Try
self.bar = Hash.new
self.bar["item"] = "value"
class YourModel
def bar
#bar ||= Hash.new
end
def foo
bar["item"] = "value"
end
end
but classic approach would be:
class YourModel
def initialize
#bar = Hash.new
end
def foo
#bar["item"] = "value"
end
end
Just use OpenStruct, Hash with Indifferent Access or Active Model.
When you are calling:
attr_accessor :foo, :bar
on your class, Ruby does something like the following behind the curtains:
def foo
return #foo
end
def foo=(val)
#foo = val
end
def bar
return #bar
end
def bar=(val)
#bar = val
end
The methods #foo and #bar are just returning the instance variables and #foo= and #bar= just set them. So if you want one of them to contain a Hash, you have to assign this Hash somewhere.
My favorite solution would be the following:
class YourModel
# generate the default accessor methods
attr_accessor :foo, :bar
# overwrite #bar so that it always returns a hash
def bar
#bar ||= {}
end
end

understand self for attr_accessor class method

class Test
class << self
attr_accessor :some
def set_some
puts self.inspect
some = 'some_data'
end
def get_some
puts self.inspect
some
end
end
end
Test.set_some => Test
puts Test.get_some.inspect => Test nil
Here above I could find self as Test itself but not returning the some_data as output.
But while I modified in following way it returns expected output
class Test
class << self
attr_accessor :some
def set_some
puts self.inspect
self.some = 'some_data'
end
def get_some
puts self.inspect
self.some
end
end
end
Test.set_some => Test
puts Test.get_some.inspect => Test some_data
What is the differences?
EDIT
Now in the first example if I set as get some method as
Test.some = 'new_data'
puts Test.some.inspect #=> new_data
Test.set_some
puts Test.get_some.inspect => new_data
Now it made me much more confused.
some = :foo makes ruby think it should create a new local variable with name some. If you want to call some=(), you have to use an explicit reciever - as in self.some = :foo. I once lost a bet on that... :-/
It's (local) variable in the first example
In the first example some is a local variable.
In the second one, some is a method of self. Why? Because attr_accessor :some is the same as:
def some= (val)
#some = val
end
def some
return #some
end
So, you have created the getter and setter methods for the instance variable #some (it's an instance variable of the object Test, as every class is also an object of class Class).
in the first method
def set_some
puts self.inspect
some = 'some_data'
end
some is a local variable.. its not the same as #some that is a instance variable (in this case a class instance variable) so the value disappears when the method ends.
if you want to call the setter method some or set #some to something then do this
#some = 'some_data'
or
self.some = 'some_data'
in the second method
def get_some
puts self.inspect
self.some
end
your calling the method some. which returns the instace variable #some.. and since at this point #some has no value.. returns nil..
Example 1 with no method override and no local variable
class Foo
def initialize
#foo = 'foo'
end
def print_foo
print #foo
print self.foo
print foo
end
end
#foo, self.foo, and foo will access instance variable #foo within the instance method:
Foo.new.print_foo #=> foofoofoo
Example 2 with method override
class Foo
def initialize
#foo = 'foo'
end
def foo
return 'bar'
end
def print_foo
print #foo
print self.foo
print foo
end
end
#foo will access the instance variable, but self.foo and foo will call the foo override method:
Foo.new.print_foo #=> foobarbar
Example 3 with method override and local variable
class Foo
def initialize
#foo = 'foo'
end
def foo
return 'bar'
end
def print_foo
foo = 'baz'
print #foo
print self.foo
print foo
end
end
#foo accesses instance variable, self.foo accesses override method, and foo accesses local variable:
Foo.new.print_foo #=> foobarbaz

ruby how to define writer method with "<<"

I have a skeleton class:
class Foo
def bar
# returns some sort of array
end
end
but how can one add the 'writer' method to 'bar' so to enable the Array#push behavior?
Foo.new.bar<<['Smile']
_.bar #=> ['Smile']
EDITED:
I should expand my question further.
There are two classes. Foo, and Bar, much like the ActiveRecord has_many relation where Foo has_many Bars
But I am actually storing the ids of Bar inside a method of Foo. I name that method bar_ids
so #foo = Foo.new(:bar_ids => [1,2,3])
As you can imagine, if I ever want to look up what Bars belong to #foo, I have to actually do something like Bar.where(:id => #foo.bar_ids)
So I decided to make another method just named bar to do just that
class Foo
#...
def bar
Bar.where(:id => bar_ids)
end
end
That worked out. now I can do #foo.bar #=> all the bars belonging to #foo
Now I also want to have that kind of push method like ActiveRecord associations, just to cut out the "id" typing when associating another bar object to a foo object
Currently, this works:
#foo.bar_ids << Bar.new.id
#foo.save
But I want:
#foo.bar << Bar.new #where the new bar's id will get pushed in the bar_ids method of #foo
#foo.save
Thanks for all of your help, I really appreciate your thoughts on this!
class Foo
attr_reader :bar
def initialize
#bar = Array.new
def #bar.<< arg
self.push arg.id
end
end
end
class Bar
attr_accessor :id
def initialize id
self.id = id
end
end
f = Foo.new
bars = (1..5).map{|i| Bar.new i}
f.bar << bars[2]
f.bar << bars[4]
p f.bar #=> [3, 5]
Return an object that has the << method defined.
Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're wanting, why not just make the bar method a getter for an internal array member?
class Foo
attr_reader :bar
def initialize
#bar = []
end
end
f = Foo.new
f.bar << 'abc'
# f.bar => ['abc']

Is 'yield self' the same as instance_eval?

Is there any difference if you define Foo with instance_eval: . . .
class Foo
def initialize(&block)
instance_eval(&block) if block_given?
end
end
. . . or with 'yield self':
class Foo
def initialize
yield self if block_given?
end
end
In either case you can do this:
x = Foo.new { def foo; 'foo'; end }
x.foo
So 'yield self' means that the block after Foo.new is always evaluated in the context of the Foo class.
Is this correct?
Your two pieces of code do very different things. By using instance_eval you're evaluating the block in the context of your object. This means that using def will define methods on that object. It also means that calling a method without a receiver inside the block will call it on your object.
When yielding self you're passing self as an argument to the block, but since your block doesn't take any arguments, it is simply ignored. So in this case yielding self does the same thing as yielding nothing. The def here behaves exactly like a def outside the block would, yielding self does not actually change what you define the method on. What you could do is:
class Foo
def initialize
yield self if block_given?
end
end
x = Foo.new {|obj| def obj.foo() 'foo' end}
x.foo
The difference to instance_eval being that you have to specify the receiver explicitly.
Edit to clarify:
In the version with yield, obj in the block will be the object that is yielded, which in this case is is the newly created Foo instance. While self will have the same value it had outside the block. With the instance_eval version self inside the block will be the newly created Foo instance.
They are different. yield(self) does not change the value of self inside the block, while instance_eval(&block) does.
class Foo
def with_yield
yield(self)
end
def with_instance_eval(&block)
instance_eval(&block)
end
end
f = Foo.new
f.with_yield do |arg|
p self
# => main
p arg
# => #<Foo:0x100124b10>
end
f.with_instance_eval do |arg|
p self
# => #<Foo:0x100124b10>
p arg
# => #<Foo:0x100124b10>
end
You just can drop the self keyword
class Foo
def initialize
yield if block_given?
end
end
Update from comments
Using yield there is a bit new to my taste, specially when used outside irb.
However there is a big and significant difference between instance_eval approach and yield approach, check this snippet:
class Foo
def initialize(&block)
instance_eval(&block) if block_given?
end
end
x = Foo.new { def foo; 'foo'; end }
#=> #<Foo:0xb800f6a0>
x.foo #=> "foo"
z = Foo.new #=> #<Foo:0xb800806c>
z.foo #=>NoMethodError: undefined method `foo' for #<Foo:0xb800806c>
Check this one as well:
class Foo2
def initialize
yield if block_given?
end
end
x = Foo2.new { def foo; 'foo'; end } #=> #<Foo:0xb7ff1bb4>
x.foo #=> private method `foo' called for #<Foo2:0xb8004930> (NoMethodError)
x.send :foo => "foo"
z = Foo.new #=> #<Foo:0xb800806c>
z.send :foo => "foo"
As you can see the difference is that the former one is adding a singleton method foo to the object being initialized, while the later is adding a private method to all instances of Object class.

Resources