In Ruby, super is a keyword rather than a method.
Why was it designed this way?
Ruby's design tends toward implementing as much as possible as methods; keywords are usually reserved for language features that have their own grammar rules. super, however, looks and acts like a method call.
(I know it would be cumbersome to implement super in pure Ruby, since it would have to parse the method name out of caller, or use a trace_func. This alone wouldn't prevent it from being a method, because plenty of Kernel's methods are not implemented in pure Ruby.)
It behaves a little differently, in that if you don't pass arguments, all of the current arguments (and block, if present) are passed along... I'm not sure how that would work as a method.
To give a rather contrived example:
class A
def example(a, b, c)
yield whatever(a, b) + c
end
end
class B < A
def example(a, b, c)
super * 2
end
end
I did not need to handle the yield, or pass the arguments to super. In the cases where you specifically want to pass different arguments, then it behaves more like a method call. If you want to pass no arguments at all, you must pass empty parentheses (super()).
It simply doesn't have quite the same behaviour as a method call.
super doesn't automatically call the parent class's method. If you imagine the inheritance hierarchy of a ruby class as a list, with the class at the bottom and Object at the top, when ruby sees the the super keyword, rather than just check the the parent class, it moves up the entire list until it finds the first item that has a method defined with that name.
I'm careful to say item because it could also be a module. When you include a module in to a class, it is wrapped in an anonymous superclass and put above your class in the list I talked about before, so that means if you had a method defined for your class that was also defined in the module, then calling super from the class's implementation would call the module's implementation, and not the parent class's:
class Foo
def f
puts "Foo"
end
end
module Bar
def f
puts "Bar"
super
end
end
class Foobar < Foo
include Bar
def f
puts "Foobar"
super
end
end
foobar = Foobar.new
foobar.f
# =>
# Foobar
# Bar
# Foo
And I don't believe that it is possible to access this 'inheritance list' from the ruby environment itself, which would mean this functionality would not be available (However useful it is; I'm not every sure if this was an intended feature.)
Hm, good qustion. I'm not sure how else (besides using super) you would you reference the super version of a given method.
You can't simply call the method by name, because the way that polymorphism works (how it figures out which version of that method to actually call, based on the object class) would cause your method to call itself, spinning into an infinite set of calls, and resulting in a stack overflow.
Related
Most of the Factorybot factories are like:
FactoryBot.define do
factory :product do
association :shop
title { 'Green t-shirt' }
price { 10.10 }
end
end
It seems that inside the ":product" block we are building a data structure, but it's not the typical hashmap, the "keys" are not declared through symbols and commas aren't used.
So my question is: what kind of data structure is this? and how it works?
How declaring "association" inside the block doesn't trigger a:
NameError: undefined local variable or method `association'
when this would happen on many other situations. Is there a subject in compsci related to this?
The block is not a data structure, it's code. association and friends are all method calls, probably being intercepted by method_missing. Here's an example using that same technique to build a regular hash:
class BlockHash < Hash
def method_missing(key, value=nil)
if value.nil?
return self[key]
else
self[key] = value
end
end
def initialize(&block)
self.instance_eval(&block)
end
end
With which you can do this:
h = BlockHash.new do
foo 'bar'
baz :zoo
end
h
#=> {:foo=>"bar", :baz=>:zoo}
h.foo
#=> "bar"
h.baz
#=> :zoo
I have not worked with FactoryBot so I'm going to make some assumptions based on other libraries I've worked with. Milage may vary.
The basics:
FactoryBot is a class (Obviously)
define is a static method in FactoryBot (I'm going to assume I still haven't lost you ;) ).
Define takes a block which is pretty standard stuff in ruby.
But here's where things get interesting.
Typically when a block is executed it has a closure relative to where it was declared. This can be changed in most languages but ruby makes it super easy. instance_eval(block) will do the trick. That means you can have access to methods in the block that weren't available outside the block.
factory on line 2 is just such a method. You didn't declare it, but the block it's running in isn't being executed with a standard scope. Instead your block is being immediately passed to FactoryBot which passes it to a inner class named DSL which instance_evals the block so its own factory method will be run.
line 3-5 don't work that way since you can have an arbitrary name there.
ruby has several ways to handle missing methods but the most straightforward is method_missing. method_missing is an overridable hook that any class can define that tells ruby what to do when somebody calls a method that doesn't exist.
Here it's checking to see if it can parse the name as an attribute name and use the parameters or block to define an attribute or declare an association. It sounds more complicated than it is. Typically in this situation I would use define_method, define_singleton_method, instance_variable_set etc... to dynamically create and control the underlying classes.
I hope that helps. You don't need to know this to use the library the developers made a domain specific language so people wouldn't have to think about this stuff, but stay curious and keep growing.
I sometimes use this construct:
class Test
def today
date = Date.today
def date.is_friday?
strftime("%A") == "Friday"
end
date
end
end
it works fine...
t = Test.new
t.today # => <Date: 2016-09-03 ((2457635j,0s,0n),+0s,2299161j)>
t.today.is_friday? # => false
I have always thought of this as a nested method. But others are adamant that Ruby does not have nested methods. OK, I'm not hooked on the name. But what DO you call it? And is there a better way to achieve the same functionality?
When people talk about nested methods/functions, they generally mean things that are only visible/usable from within the enclosing method. This isn't true of your example - once defined, it can be called on that object by anyone.
What you're showing is Ruby's singleton methods: the ability to define a method on one instance of a class (for example when people say class method in ruby, those are actually singleton methods on that instance of the Class class)
As to whether there is a better way, that is unanswerable since you haven't said what the problem you are trying to solve is.
Calling def inside a method is usually the wrong way to do this. What you want is to define a module that encapsulates this and potentially other methods, then mix that in on any objects as necessary:
module DateExtensions
def is_friday?
wday == 5
end
end
It's worth noting that strftime might return values other than "Friday" because localization may be in effect. You could get "Freitag" or "Vendredi" depending on where you are. The wday method returns a predictable numerical value.
Now you can mix this in:
class Test
def today
date = Date.today
date.extend(DateExtensions)
date
end
end
By declaring these methods inside a module it's a lot more obvious they're part of a package. It also means you don't need to define a brand new method for each instance of a Date you create.
A more Ruby way of doing this is to define your own subclass of Date that adds in this additional behaviour.
Method definitions are code just like any other code. They can appear in methods just like any other code. And just like any other code, they will be executed every time the method runs.
So, this
class Foo
def foo
def bar
end
end
end
is not a nested method, but simply a method that defines a method. It is easy to see that this is not a nested method, by simply calling it twice, paying attention to the warnings generated and inspecting the defined methods of the surrounding module:
foo = Foo.new
Foo.public_instance_methods(false)
#=> [:foo]
foo.foo
Foo.public_instance_methods(false)
#=> [:foo, :bar]
foo.foo
# (irb):3: warning: method redefined; discarding old bar
# (irb):3: warning: previous definition of bar was here
As you can see, bar is not nested inside foo, instead it is defined besides foo in class Foo. It is only defined after foo has run, and it gets re-defined every time foo runs.
Your example is a bit different, of course, since it doesn't keep overwriting the method in the same class, instead it defines it in a different class every time it is called.
Note that there are plans of forbidding this kind of usage, see Feature #11665: Support nested functions for better code organization.
But what DO you call it?
It's a method that defines a method.
And is there a better way to achieve the same functionality?
It's kinda hard to tell what exactly it is you are trying to achieve.
You could create a module with your method and extend all the objects with it. That would be the closest analog.
Other solutions would require a larger restructuring of your code, e.g. using the Decorator Design Pattern or, in your specific Rails use case, a Presenter.
I am new to Ruby and I saw methods defined like:
def method_one
puts "method 1"
end
class MyClass
method_one
def method_two
puts "method 2"
end
end
The way method_one is used reminds me of Python decorators.The output of
c = MyClass.new
c.method_two
is
method 1
method 2
I have been trying to search for more information about this syntax/language feature in the Ruby documentation on the web but I don't know what keywords to search for.
What this is thing called?
TL;DR
This code doesn't do what you think it does. Don't do stuff like this.
Ruby's Top-Level Object
Ruby lets you define methods outside a class. These methods exist on a top-level object, which you can (generally) treat as a sort of catch-all namespace. You can see various posts like What is the Ruby Top-Level? for more details, but you shouldn't really need to care.
In your original post, method_one is just a method defined in the top-level. It is therefore available to classes and methods nested within the top-level, such as MyClass.
Methods in Classes
Despite what you think, the following doesn't actually declare a :method_one class or instance method on MyClass:
class MyClass
method_one
def method_two; end
end
Instead, Ruby calls the top-level ::method_one during the definition of the class, but it never becomes a class method (e.g. MyClass::method_one) or an instance method (e.g. MyClass.new.method_one). There might be a few use cases for doing this (e.g. printing debugging information, test injection, etc.) but it's confusing, error-prone, and generally to be avoided unless you have a really strong use case for it.
Better Options
In general, when you see something like this outside an academic lesson, the programmer probably meant to do one of the following:
Extend a class.
Add a singleton method to a class.
Include a module in a class.
Set up a closure during class definition.
The last gets into murky areas of metaprogramming, at which point you should probably be looking at updating your class initializer, or passing Proc or lambda objects around instead. Ruby lets you do all sorts of weird and wonderful things, but that doesn't mean you should.
I think you're a little mislead; the output of:
c = MyClass.new
c.method_two
is
#<MyClass:0x007feda41acf18>
"method 2"
You're not going to see method one until the class is loaded or if you're in IRB you enter the last end statement.
I would suggest looking into ruby's initialize method.
Currently reading a Ruby style guide and I came across an example:
def no_op; end
What is the purpose of empty body methods?
There are a number of reasons you might create an empty method:
Stub a method that you will fill in later.
Stub a method that a descendant class will override.
Ensure a class or object will #respond_to? a method without necessarily doing anything other than returning nil.
Undefine an inherited method's behavior while still allowing it to #respond_to? the message, as opposed to using undef foo on public methods and surprising callers.
There are possibly other reasons, too, but those are the ones that leapt to mind. Your mileage may vary.
There may be several reasons.
One case is when a class is expected to implement a specific interface (virtually speaking, given that in Ruby there are no interfaces), but in that specific class that method would not make sense. In this case, the method is left for consistency.
class Foo
def say
"foo"
end
end
class Bar
def say
"bar"
end
end
class Null
def say
end
end
In other cases, it is left as a temporary placeholder or reminder.
There are also cases where the method is left blank on purpose, as a hook for developers using that library. The method it is called somewhere at runtime, and developers using that library can override the blank method in order to execute some custom callback. This approach was used in the past by some Rails libraries.
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