I'm reading 'metaprogramming in ruby'
its such an EXCELLENT book. Seriously, it talks about stuff that I never hear mentioned elsewhere.
I have a few specific questions however about objects (I'm in the first few chapters)
I understand that the RubyGems gem installs the method 'gem' to the module Kernel so that it shows up on every object. Is there a reason they didnt put it into the Object class?
He talks about how when ruby looks for the method it always goes right then up. What exactly does 'up' mean? I see it in the diagram, its just that I dont really understand the purpose of 'up'. he doesnt explain that part much.
What is the point of the Object class? How come those methods cant be just placed into Class? If every object belongs to a class (even if its Class), then what is the point of object, basicobject, and kernel?
String, Array, blah blah are obviously an instance of Class. Class is also an instance of itself. So if Class is an instance of Class.... how does it also inherit from Object? Where in the code does it relates to BOTH Class and Object?
I know kernel contains methods such as puts that can be used everywhere, and this relates to question 1, but why cant they just condense it and put it all into Object... where it would seem everything inherits from object anyway
Both would work, but typically methods on Object should only be methods that deal with a particular object. Puting things in the Kernel module are less about about object and more global.
I assume it means "up the inheritance chain". So it looks for the method on the child class, then on that classes parent class until it finds one or runs out of parent classes.
Object is the base class of all objects, naturally (For ruby 1.8 at least). The crazy part is that a class is actually an instance of the Class class. (you follow that?) So adding instance methods to Class would add methods to class objects, but not instances of those classes.
Nearly everything in ruby is an object. Class.superclass is actually Module (which is like a class you can't instantiate) and Module.superclass returns Object. So Class < Module < Object is the inheritance chain if the Class class. (For ruby 1.8 at least)
More convention than anything. Since Object can get rather HUGE, it's customary to put things into modules and then combine those modules later. If the method doesn't deal with an instance of an object directly as self then the method doesn't belong directly in Object. More global non-object instance methods like gem go in the Kernel module to signify that they are simply methods available everywhere.
Some more about class objects and inheritance...
class Foo < Bar
def hi
puts 'Hi!'
end
end
What this does is really quite awesome. It defines a class object, of course. Now this class object is configured to have a name Foo, a parent class Bar and a method hi. This info is sort of like this class object's meta data.
Now the class object Foo itself is an instance of Class. But Foo defines a class that inherits from Bar. The Class class defines a data structure to store this meta data about a class.
You can think of the Class class sorta kinda being defined like this:
class Class < Module
# fictional method called on class creation
def set_meta_data(name, superclass, methods)
#name = name
#superclass = superclass
#methods = methods
end
# fictional way in which an instance might be created
def new
instance = Object.new
instance.superclass = #superclass
instance.addMethods(#methods)
instance
end
end
So a class object itself would inherit from Class but it would create objects that do not.
Thinking of classes as objects can be a bit mind bending in this way, but this also why ruby is awesome.
For 1 and 5, pseudo-keyword commands tend to go into Kernel rather than Object.
For 2, it makes sense for sub-classes to be "down" relative to their parent class (sub literally meaning "beneath"). Therefore if you're heading for a parent class and its ancestors, you have to go "up".
For 3, an object object is not an instance of Class, it is an instance of Object.
For 4, what's wrong with something being an instance of Class and inheriting from Object? All classes inherit from Object.
Related
I understand that all classes in ruby are instances of metaclass Class. And that "regular" objects are instances of these classes (the instances of metaclass Class).
But I keep wondering, I mean classes are root of objects, classes are themselves instances of Class (called metaclass because its instances are classes). I saw in some blogs some overriding of method new, of class Class.
So Class behaves as a class, but its instances are classes. So it seems we have a circle, it looks likes class Class is an instance of itself.
I'm clearly missing a point here. What is the origin of class Class?
Here's an example that's confusing me:
class Class
def new
#something
end
end
But keyword class implies an instance of class Class. So how do this work?
how do this work
Easy: it doesn't. Not in Ruby, anyway.
Just like in most other languages, there are some core entities that are simply assumed to exist. They fall from the sky, materialize out of thin air, magically appear.
In Ruby, some of those magic things are:
Object doesn't have a superclass, but you cannot define a class with no superclass, the implicit direct superclass is always Object. [Note: there may be implementation-defined superclasses of Object, but eventually, there will be one which doesn't have a superclass.]
Object is an instance of Class, which is a subclass of Object (which means that indirectly Object is an instance of Object itself)
Class is a subclass of Module, which is an instance of Class
Class is an instance of Class
None of these things can be explained in Ruby.
BasicObject, Object, Module and Class all need to spring into existence at the same time because they have circular dependencies.
Just because this relationship cannot be expressed in Ruby code, doesn't mean the Ruby Language Specification can't say it has to be so. It's up to the implementor to figure out a way to do this. After all, the Ruby implementation has a level of access to the objects that you as a programmer don't have.
For example, the Ruby implementation could first create BasicObject, setting both its superclass pointer and its class pointer to null.
Then, it creates Object, setting its superclass pointer to BasicObject and its class pointer to null.
Next, it creates Module, setting its superclass pointer to Object and its class pointer to null.
Lastly, it creates Class, setting its superclass pointer to Module and its class pointer to null.
Now, we can overwrite BasicObject's, Object's, Module's, and Class's class pointer to point to Class, and we're done.
This is easy to do from outside the system, it just looks weird from the inside.
Once they do exist, however, it is perfectly possible to implement most of their behavior in plain Ruby. You only need very barebones versions of those classes, thanks to Ruby's open classes, you can add any missing functionality at a later time.
In your example, the class Class is not creating a new class named Class, it is reopening the existing class Class, which was given to us by the runtime environment.
So, it is perfectly possible to explain the default behavior of Class#new in plain Ruby:
class Class
def new(*args, &block)
obj = allocate # another magic thing that cannot be explained in Ruby
obj.initialize(*args, &block)
return obj
end
end
[Note: actually, initialize is private, so you need to use obj.send(:initialize, *args, &block) to circumvent the access restriction.]
BTW: Class#allocate is another one of those magic things. It allocates a new empty object in Ruby's object space, which is something that cannot be done in Ruby. So, Class#allocate is something that has to be provided by the runtime system as well.
There is a meta-circularity given by the "twist" link. It is the built-in superclass link from the root's eigenclass to the Class class. This can be expressed by
BasicObject.singleton_class.superclass == Class
A clue to understanding the .class map is seeing this map as derived from the eigenclass and superclass links: for an object x, x.class is the first class in the superclass chain of x's eigenclass. This can be expressed by
x.class == x.eigenclass.superclass(n)
where eigenclass is a "conceptual alias" of singleton_class
(resistant to issues with immediate values), y.superclass(i) means i-th superclass of y and n is smallest such that x.eigenclass.superclass(n) is a class. Equivalently, eigenclasses in the superclass chain of x.eigenclass are skipped (see rb_class_real which also reveals that in MRI, even superclass links are implemented indirectly – they arise by skipping "iclasses").
This results in that the class of every class (as well as of every eigenclass) is constantly the Class class.
A picture is provided by this diagram.
The metaclass confusion has 2 main sources:
Smalltalk. The Smalltalk-80 object model contains conceptual inconsistencies that are rectified by the Ruby object model. In addition, Smalltalk literature uses dialectics in terminology, which unfortunately has not been sufficiently remedied in the Ruby literature.
The definition of metaclass. At present, the definition states that metaclasses are classes of classes. However, for so called "implicit metaclasses" (the case of Ruby and Smalltalk-80) a much more fitting definition would be that of meta-objects of classes.
Yes, Class is an instance of itself. It's a subclass of Module, which is also an instance of class, and Module is a subclass of Object, which is also an instance of Class. It is indeed quite circular — but this is part of the core language, not something in a library. The Ruby runtime itself doesn't have the same limits thast you or I do when we're writing Ruby code.
I've never heard the word "metaclass" used to talk about Class, though. It isn't used much in Ruby at all, but when it is, it's usually a synonym for what's officially called a "singleton class of an object," which is an even more confusing topic than Object-Module-Class triangle.
Though it is a little out of date, this article by _why may help in understanding the behavior. You can find an even deeper dive into the subject in Paolo Perrotta's Metaprogramming Ruby.
This question already has answers here:
Ruby metaclass confusion
(4 answers)
Closed 7 years ago.
I don't quite get some things about the Ruby object model. First, is EVERYTHING in Ruby an instance of Class? These all produce true:
p Object.instance_of?(Class)
p Class.instance_of?(Class)
p Module.instance_of?(Class)
p BasicObject.instance_of?(Class)
class Hello; end
p Hello.instance_of?(Class)
I can't quite get how is it possible, if Object is a superclass of Class, how can it be both a superclass of Class and an instance of it at the same time (most diagrams on the Ruby Object Model clearly state this hierarchy)? Which allows for some crazyness like this:
p BasicObject.is_a?(Object) #=> true
where BasicObject.class is Class, and Class.is_a?(Object).
By the way, using Ruby 2.0.
First, is EVERYTHING in Ruby an instance of Class?
No, not everything is an instance of Class. Only classes are instances of Class.
There are lots of things which aren't instances of Class: strings, for example, are instances of String, not Class. Arrays are instances of Array, integers are instances of Integer, floats are instances of Float, true is an instance of TrueClass, false is an instance of FalseClass, nil is an instance of NilClass, and so on.
Every class is an instance of Class, just like every string is an instance of String.
if Object is a superclass of Class, how can it be both a superclass of Class and an instance of it at the same time (most diagrams on the Ruby Object Model clearly state this hierarchy)?
Magic.
Just like in most other languages, there are some core entities that are simply assumed to exist. They fall from the sky, materialize out of thin air, magically appear.
In Ruby, some of those magic things are:
Object doesn't have a superclass, but you cannot define a class with no superclass, the implicit direct superclass is always Object. [Note: there may be implementation-defined superclasses of Object, but eventually, there will be one which doesn't have a superclass.]
Object is an instance of Class, which is a subclass of Object (which means that indirectly Object is an instance of Object itself)
Class is a subclass of Module, which is an instance of Class
Class is an instance of Class
None of these things can be explained in Ruby.
BasicObject, Object, Module and Class all need to spring into existence at the same time because they have circular dependencies.
Just because this relationship cannot be expressed in Ruby code, doesn't mean the Ruby Language Specification can't say it has to be so. It's up to the implementor to figure out a way to do this. After all, the Ruby implementation has a level of access to the objects that you as a programmer don't have.
For example, the Ruby implementation could first create BasicObject, setting both its superclass pointer and its class pointer to null.
Then, it creates Object, setting its superclass pointer to BasicObject and its class pointer to null.
Next, it creates Module, setting its superclass pointer to Object and its class pointer to null.
Lastly, it creates Class, setting its superclass pointer to Module and its class pointer to null.
Now, we can overwrite BasicObject's, Object's, Module's, and Class's class pointer to point to Class, and we're done.
This is easy to do from outside the system, it just looks weird from the inside.
You should notice that:
p BasicObject.instance_of?(BasicObject)
prints false.
That is, the expression BasicObject is not an instance of BasicObject, it is an instance of something else, that is, it is a Class object, which represents an object that holds (for example) the class methods, such as new.
For example:
p (BasicObject.new()).instance_of?(BasicObject)
prints true, and
p (BasicObject.new()).instance_of?(Class)
prints false.
All of your examples were by definition classes. Classes are also objects. But what you didn't do was look at an instance of a class:
p Object.new.class
p Hello.new.class
Classes define the form of an object, and by definition, a class is a Class. But when you instantiate class into an object, the object is the new type. But you can still see that the object's class is itself Class:
p Hello.new.class.class
I understand that all classes in ruby are instances of metaclass Class. And that "regular" objects are instances of these classes (the instances of metaclass Class).
But I keep wondering, I mean classes are root of objects, classes are themselves instances of Class (called metaclass because its instances are classes). I saw in some blogs some overriding of method new, of class Class.
So Class behaves as a class, but its instances are classes. So it seems we have a circle, it looks likes class Class is an instance of itself.
I'm clearly missing a point here. What is the origin of class Class?
Here's an example that's confusing me:
class Class
def new
#something
end
end
But keyword class implies an instance of class Class. So how do this work?
how do this work
Easy: it doesn't. Not in Ruby, anyway.
Just like in most other languages, there are some core entities that are simply assumed to exist. They fall from the sky, materialize out of thin air, magically appear.
In Ruby, some of those magic things are:
Object doesn't have a superclass, but you cannot define a class with no superclass, the implicit direct superclass is always Object. [Note: there may be implementation-defined superclasses of Object, but eventually, there will be one which doesn't have a superclass.]
Object is an instance of Class, which is a subclass of Object (which means that indirectly Object is an instance of Object itself)
Class is a subclass of Module, which is an instance of Class
Class is an instance of Class
None of these things can be explained in Ruby.
BasicObject, Object, Module and Class all need to spring into existence at the same time because they have circular dependencies.
Just because this relationship cannot be expressed in Ruby code, doesn't mean the Ruby Language Specification can't say it has to be so. It's up to the implementor to figure out a way to do this. After all, the Ruby implementation has a level of access to the objects that you as a programmer don't have.
For example, the Ruby implementation could first create BasicObject, setting both its superclass pointer and its class pointer to null.
Then, it creates Object, setting its superclass pointer to BasicObject and its class pointer to null.
Next, it creates Module, setting its superclass pointer to Object and its class pointer to null.
Lastly, it creates Class, setting its superclass pointer to Module and its class pointer to null.
Now, we can overwrite BasicObject's, Object's, Module's, and Class's class pointer to point to Class, and we're done.
This is easy to do from outside the system, it just looks weird from the inside.
Once they do exist, however, it is perfectly possible to implement most of their behavior in plain Ruby. You only need very barebones versions of those classes, thanks to Ruby's open classes, you can add any missing functionality at a later time.
In your example, the class Class is not creating a new class named Class, it is reopening the existing class Class, which was given to us by the runtime environment.
So, it is perfectly possible to explain the default behavior of Class#new in plain Ruby:
class Class
def new(*args, &block)
obj = allocate # another magic thing that cannot be explained in Ruby
obj.initialize(*args, &block)
return obj
end
end
[Note: actually, initialize is private, so you need to use obj.send(:initialize, *args, &block) to circumvent the access restriction.]
BTW: Class#allocate is another one of those magic things. It allocates a new empty object in Ruby's object space, which is something that cannot be done in Ruby. So, Class#allocate is something that has to be provided by the runtime system as well.
There is a meta-circularity given by the "twist" link. It is the built-in superclass link from the root's eigenclass to the Class class. This can be expressed by
BasicObject.singleton_class.superclass == Class
A clue to understanding the .class map is seeing this map as derived from the eigenclass and superclass links: for an object x, x.class is the first class in the superclass chain of x's eigenclass. This can be expressed by
x.class == x.eigenclass.superclass(n)
where eigenclass is a "conceptual alias" of singleton_class
(resistant to issues with immediate values), y.superclass(i) means i-th superclass of y and n is smallest such that x.eigenclass.superclass(n) is a class. Equivalently, eigenclasses in the superclass chain of x.eigenclass are skipped (see rb_class_real which also reveals that in MRI, even superclass links are implemented indirectly – they arise by skipping "iclasses").
This results in that the class of every class (as well as of every eigenclass) is constantly the Class class.
A picture is provided by this diagram.
The metaclass confusion has 2 main sources:
Smalltalk. The Smalltalk-80 object model contains conceptual inconsistencies that are rectified by the Ruby object model. In addition, Smalltalk literature uses dialectics in terminology, which unfortunately has not been sufficiently remedied in the Ruby literature.
The definition of metaclass. At present, the definition states that metaclasses are classes of classes. However, for so called "implicit metaclasses" (the case of Ruby and Smalltalk-80) a much more fitting definition would be that of meta-objects of classes.
Yes, Class is an instance of itself. It's a subclass of Module, which is also an instance of class, and Module is a subclass of Object, which is also an instance of Class. It is indeed quite circular — but this is part of the core language, not something in a library. The Ruby runtime itself doesn't have the same limits thast you or I do when we're writing Ruby code.
I've never heard the word "metaclass" used to talk about Class, though. It isn't used much in Ruby at all, but when it is, it's usually a synonym for what's officially called a "singleton class of an object," which is an even more confusing topic than Object-Module-Class triangle.
Though it is a little out of date, this article by _why may help in understanding the behavior. You can find an even deeper dive into the subject in Paolo Perrotta's Metaprogramming Ruby.
I understand that singleton methods live in singleton classes (or eigenclasses). My first question is:
Why can't they live inside objects? I know that in ruby, an object can
only hold instance variables. But I cannot see why singleton methods
weren't designed to be in objects.
Next,
If objects can only contain instance variables, how come classes,
which are objects of Class, are able to store methods?
I am just confused at conceptual level. I have read many times that ruby object model is consistent.
Ad 1, they indeed do live inside an object. Singleton class, in fact, is just a mental construct. 'Singleton' here means, that, by definition, the class has only one instance - that object. So the identity of the object and the singleton class is intextricably the same.
Ad 2, the answer is, because Matz decided so. More precisely, not classes, but modules (Module class) store methods, and Class < Module.
It might be of interest to you, that a singleton class of an object is not instantiated by default. Until you try to access it, it simply does not exist. This is because if all the singleton classes were immediately instantiated, you would have an infinite chain of singleton classes:
o = Object.new
o.singleton_class
o.singleton_class.singleton_class
o.singleton_class.singleton_class.singleton_class
...
The goal of singleton pattern is to ensure, that only one object of a particular class will live within a system.
So the methods still live in a class, but you just can't create another instance of that class.
A class is an object, but because it serves as a template for other objects, its own instances, it keeps their instance methods inside its module. But if you treat a class as an ordinary object, for example call #object_id on it, it gives you all the behavior expected of normal objects.
Continuing from our discussion in comments: Strictly speaking, the ability to store methods (and constants) is a buit-in special ability of modules (Module class). Class class happens to be a subclass of Module class, which makes it inherit modules' ability to store methods, but you are free to create other objects (not just classes) with that ability:
class MyPetObjectThatCanStoreMethods < Module
def greet; puts "Bow, wow!" end
end
Fred = MyPetObjectThatCanStoreMethods.new
So, Fred is not exactly a module, but decsends from Module and has thus ability to store methods and constants:
module Fred # this is allowed!
LENGTH = 19
def rise; puts "I'm rising!" end
end
You can't do this with normal objects, only with module descendants!
Fred::LENGTH #=> 19
Fred.greet
#=> Bow, wow!
Fred.rise
#=> NoMethodError
That's because Fred stores #rise method, just like modules do, but unlike #greet method, #rise is not its instance method! To gain access to it, we will have to include Fred in a suitable class:
o = Object.new
o.rise
#=> NoMethodError
class << o # Including Fred in the metaclass of o
include Fred
end
o.rise
#=> I'm rising!
If objects can only contain instance variables, how come classes, which are objects of Class, are able to store methods?
class Foo
def suprim;end
end
Foo.instance_methods(true).grep(/^sup/)
#=> [:suprim]
I searched for Class's instance method superclass ,but didn't appear,as Foo is an instance of Class,so it should not store the
instance methods of Class. But yes,Foo returns only the methods of its instances to be used. Which is natural.Look below now:
Class.instance_methods(true).grep(/^sup/)
#=>[:superclass]
I have been a Java programmer for a while and I am trying to switch to ruby for a while. I was just trying to develop a small test program in ruby and my intention is something like following.
I want to create a simple linked list type of an object in ruby; where an instance variable in class points to another instance of same type.
I want to populate and link all nodes; before the constructor is called and only once. Something that we'd usually do in Java Static block.
Initialize method is a constructor signature in ruby. Are there any rules around them? Like in Java you cannot call another constructor from a constructor if its not the first line (or after calling the class code?)
Thanks for the help.
-Priyank
I want to create a simple linked list type of an object in ruby; where an instance variable in class points to another instance of same type.
Just a quick note: the word type is a very dangerous word in Ruby, especially if you come from Java. Due to an historic accident, the word is used both in dynamic typing and in static typing to mean two only superficially related, but very different things.
In dynamic typing, a type is a label that gets attached to a value (not a reference).
Also, in Ruby the concept of type is much broader than in Java. In Java programmer's minds, "type" means the same thing as "class" (although that's not true, since Interfaces and primitives are also types). In Ruby, "type" means "what can I do with it".
Example: in Java, when I say something is of type String, I mean it is a direct instance of the String class. In Ruby, when I say something is of type String, I mean it is either
a direct instance of the String class or
an instance of a subclass of the String class or
an object which responds to the #to_str method or
an object which behaves indistinguishably from a String.
I want to populate and link all nodes; before the constructor is called and only once. Something that we'd usually do in Java Static block.
In Ruby, everything is executable. In particular, there is no such thing as a "class declaration": a class body is just exectuable code, just like any other. If you have a list of method definitions in your class body, those are not declarations that are read by the compiler and then turned into a class object. Those are expressions that get executed by the evaluator one by one.
So, you can put any code you like into a class body, and that code will be evaluated when the class is created. Within the context of a class body, self is bound to the class (remember, classes are just objects like any other).
Initialize method is a constructor signature in ruby. Are there any rules around them? Like in Java you cannot call another constructor from a constructor if its not the first line (or after calling the class code?)
Ruby doesn't have constructors. Constructors are just factory methods (with stupid restrictions); there is no reason to have them in a well-designed language, if you can just use a (more powerful) factory method instead.
Object construction in Ruby works like this: object construction is split into two phases, allocation and initialization. Allocation is done by a public class method called allocate, which is defined as an instance method of class Class and is generally never overriden. It just allocates the memory space for the object and sets up a few pointers, however, the object is not really usable at this point.
That's where the initializer comes in: it is an instance method called initialize, which sets up the object's internal state and brings it into a consistent, fully defined state which can be used by other objects.
So, in order to fully create a new object, what you need to do is this:
x = X.allocate
x.initialize
[Note: Objective-C programmers may recognize this.]
However, because it is too easy to forget to call initialize and as a general rule an object should be fully valid after construction, there is a convenience factory method called Class#new, which does all that work for you and looks something like this:
class Class
def new(*args, &block)
obj = alloc
obj.initialize(*args, &block)
return obj
end
end
[Note: actually, initialize is private, so reflection has to be used to circumvent the access restrictions like this: obj.send(:initialize, *args, &block)]
That, by the way, is the reason why to construct an object you call a public class method Foo.new but you implement a private instance method Foo#initialize, which seems to trip up a lot of newcomers.
To answer your question: since an initializer method is just a method like any other, there are absolutely no restrictions as to what you can do whithin an initializer, in particular you can call super whenever, wherever, however and how often you want.
BTW: since initialize and new are just normal methods, there is no reason why they need to be called initialize and new. That's only a convention, although a pretty strong one, since it is embodied in the core library. In your case, you want to write a collection class, and it is quite customary for a collection class to offer an alternative factory method called [], so that I can call List[1, 2, 3] instead of List.new(1, 2, 3).
Just as a side note: one obvious advantage of using normal methods for object construction is that you can construct instances of anonymous classes. This is not possible in Java, for absolutely no sensible reason whatsoever. The only reason why it doesn't work is that the constructor has the same name as the class, and anonymous classes don't have a name, ergo there cannot be a constructor.
Although I am not quite sure why you would need to run anything before object creation. Unless I am missing something, shouldn't a list basically be
class List
def initialize(head=nil, *tail)
#head = head
#tail = List.new(*tail) unless tail.empty?
end
end
for a Lisp-style cons-list or
class List
def initialize(*elems)
elems.map! {|el| Element.new(el)}
elems.zip(elems.drop(1)) {|prv, nxt| prv.instance_variable_set(:#next, nxt)}
#head = elems.first
end
class Element
def initialize(this)
#this = this
end
end
end
for a simple linked list?
You can simply initialize your class variables in the class body, outside of any method declaration. It will behave like a static initializer in Java:
class Klass
##foo = "bar"
def sayFoo
puts ##foo
end
def self.sayFoo
puts ##foo
end
end
The class field ##foo is here initialized to "bar".
In ruby object creation works like this
class Class
def new(*args)
obj= self.allocate # get some memory
obj.send(:initialize) # call the private method initialize
end
end
Object#initialize is just an ordinary private method.
If you wan't something to happen before Object#initialize you have to write your own Class#new. But I see no reason why you would want to do that.
This is basically the same answer paradigmatic gave back in '09.
Here I want to illustrate that the "static initializer" can call other code. I'm simulating a scenario of loading a special user once, upon class initialization.
class Foo
def user
"Thomas"
end
end
class Bar
##my_user = Foo.new.user
def my_statically_defined_user
##my_user
end
end
b = Bar.new
puts b.my_statically_defined_user # ==> Thomas