Is it possible to attach my own methods to another class, in limited region ?
If so, could anyone show me a better practice, or is it supposed to use something like deligate to do this?
The situation is like this : In class A that receive, generate and pass out instance of class B,
I want to attach some method onto those bs, without leaving those new methods accessible outside class A.
These are called singleton methods. You can add methods to any object, only affecting that instance, not the entire class it was created from.
some_object = Whatever.new
other_object = Whatever.new
class << some_object
def another_method
...
end
end
some_object.another_method # works
other_object.another_method # error: no such method another_method
You can also use define_singleton_method:
some_object.define_singleton_method(:foo) do |arg1, arg2|
puts "Called with #{arg1} and #{arg2}"
end
some_object.foo(7, 8)
There's also instance_eval, but you get the idea ;)
You can write a private method in class B that takes an A object as an argument and uses instance_variable_get, instance_variable_set, and send to access whatever data from the object you want. This is pretty ugly though.
Related
I'm near the finish of the Ruby track in Code Academy, and I'm curious about a peculiar thing: I was under the impression that a class is a repository of constants, methods, etc... and that in order to access most of them, you would first need to create an instance of that class or in some cases the methods of themselves can be invoked (as in they are all technically part of the global object). And then I saw something like this:
#Worked
Time.now
I understood as this as the method [now] of instance of class [Time] being invoked. I then tried to invoke the method on its own:
#Failed
now
and that failed, and I assumed that while a method can be created in the general scope [as part of the global object], if it relies on initialized variables of "parent" class, it cannot be called on its own, because it would not know which object to search for those initialized variables. Following that I created a test class:
class Clock
def initialize
#hours = 1
#minutes = 30
end
def showTime
puts "The time is: #{#hours}:#{#minutes}"
end
end
#this worked
watch = Clock.new
watch.showTime
#this failed
showTime
I then just created a basic method (assuming it's in the global level)
def mymethod
puts "The mighty METHOD!"
end
#Works
mymethod
and calling this method the way I did, without referencing the global object worked. So... the questions I have are as follows:
How can [Time.now] be called in this fashion? Shouldn't there be an instance of Time first created?
Why can't I call the method [now] on its own? Am I right that it relies on resources that it cannot find when called this way?
Why could I not call the method showTime on its own? But if I define any method on the "global" level I can access it without referencing the global object
First of all, your intuition is correct.
Every methods must be an instance method of some receiver.
Global methods are defined as private instance methods on Object class and hence seem to be globally available. Why? From any context Object is always in the class hierarchy of self and hence private methods on Object are always callable without receiver.
def fuuuuuuuuuuun
end
Object.private_methods.include?(:fuuuuuuuuuuun)
# => true
Class methods are defined as instance methods on the "singleton class" of their class instance. Every object in Ruby has two classes, a "singleton class" with instance methods just for that one single object and a "normal class" with method for all objects of that class. Classes are no different, they are objects of the Class class and may have singleton methods.
class A
class << self # the singleton class
def example
end
end
end
A.singleton_class.instance_methods.include?(:example)
# => true
Alternative ways of defining class methods are
class A
def self.example
end
end
# or
def A.example
end
Fun fact, you can define singleton methods on any object (not just on class objects) using the same syntax def (receiver).(method name) as follows
str = "hello"
def str.square_size
size * size
end
str.square_size
# => 25
"any other string".square_size
# => raises NoMethodError
Some programming language history — Singleton classes are taken from the Smalltalk language where they are called "metaclasses". Basically all object-oriented features in Ruby (as well as the functional-style enumerators on Enumerable) are taken from the Smalltalk language. Smalltalk was an early class-based object-oriented language created in the 70ies. It was also the language that invented graphical user interfaces like overlapping windows and menus et cetera. If you love Ruby maybe also take a look at Smalltalk, you might fall in love yet again.
This is known as a class method. If CodeAcademy didn't cover it, that's a shame. Here's some examples:
# basic way
class Foo
def self.bar; :ok; end
end
Foo.bar # => :ok
# alternate syntax
class Foo
class << self
def bar; :ok; end
end
end
# alternate syntax, if Foo class already exists
def Foo.bar; :ok; end
# alternate approach if Foo class already exists
Foo.class_exec do
def bar; :ok; end
end
# to define a class method on an anonymous 'class' for a single instance
# you won't need to use this often
Foo.new.singleton_class.class_exec do
def bar; :ok; end
end
# to define a class method on an instance's actual class
Foo.new.class.class_exec do
def bar; :ok; end
end
Another way to get class methods is to extend a module.
module FooMethods
def bar; :ok; end
end
module Foo
extend FooMethods
end
Foo.bar # => :ok
Note that with Modules, the methods are always defined as instance methods. This way they can be either extended into class scope or included into instance scope. Modules can also have class methods, using the exact same syntax / examples as shown above with classes. However there's not such as easy to load a module's class methods via include or extend.
How can [Time.now] be called in this fashion? Shouldn't there be an
instance of Time first created?
The Time.now method is a class method, not an instance method and therefore can be called directly on the Time class rather than an instance of it Time.new
Class methods are defined on the class themselves using the self keyword:
class Time
def self.now
# code
end
end
Time.now # works
Why can't I call the method [now] on its own? Am I right that it
relies on resources that it cannot find when called this way?
When you call a method "on its own" you're actually implicitly calling it on self:
self.now
The above is the same as just doing:
now
Why could I not call the method showTime on its own? But if I define
any method on the "global" level I can access it without referencing
the global object
You defined the showTime method on a specific class so you have to send that method to that class. When you define a method in the "global" scope you're implicitly defining it on self and the subsequent call to mymethod is actually self.mymethod so it will work.
Time.now is a class method.
To define a class method, you need to define the method with self. : def self.method_name
class Clock
#hours = 1
#minutes = 30
def self.showTime
puts "The time is: #{#hours}:#{#minutes}"
end
end
Clock.showTime
#=> The time is: 1:30
If you want to call now on its own, you can do so inside Time class :
class Time
puts now
#=> 2017-01-19 22:17:29 +0100
end
I am a beginner in ruby.
I've tried to run this code and it shows run time error.
What's wrong with this code?
class Calc
attr_accessor :val1, :val2
def initialize (val1,val2)
#val1=val1
#val2=val2
end
end
a=Calc.new(2,3)
a.add_two_numbers(3)
def add_two_numbers(v3)
return #val1+#val2+v3
end
The method add_two_numbers is not defined on the class Calc, however you are using it as if it is. This is the problem.
I would presume you got a NoMethodError.
Update: As pointed out in the comments, in actuallity, the method is defined on the Object class by default, which then gets auto inherited into all classes, but as private. This actually means that you will be getting the error saying that a private method is being called. The fix remains the same, since the overarching problem is a confusion in how to define classes and their methods.
The fix would be to define the method on the class, by putting it in the class body.
class Calc
attr_accessor :val1, :val2
def initialize (val1,val2)
#val1=val1
#val2=val2
end
def add_two_numbers(v3)
return #val1+#val2+v3
end
end
So you are defining a method outside of a class (which is want we don't want)
def add_two_numbers(v3)
return #val1+#val2+v3
end
You always want to make sure that you keep your classes and you logic as two separate entities in terms of organization. By that I mean:
Your classes in one file (calc.rb):
**class Calc
attr_accessor :val1, :val2
def initialize (val1,val2)
#val1=val1
#val2=val2
end
def add_two_numbers(v3)
return #val1+#val2+v3
end
end**
And your logic to access calc.rb in another file. Use require relative to access the logic inside the class file:
require_relative"/calc.rb"
a=Calc.new(2,3)
a.add_two_numbers(3)
Tip: When I was learning ruby the best way to keep them in two separate files for better organization.That way you know you don't have a method somewhere outside of the class. This would avoid your "no method error"
I have a class that has a "factory" method which returns new instances given a file_name. Depending on the type of file given it needs to construct the object differently. It also happens to be a swig generated class wrapping a c++ class, I am not sure that matters, but I am including that detail just in case it does. So I have this class defined somewhere, which has among other things this new_from_file method
class Wv::WvWaveList
def self.new_from_file file_name
...
Wv::WaveList.new
end
....
end
I wanted to add a method copy_wave, so my first thought was to subclass and add it there so something like this.
class MyWaveList < Wv::WvWaveList
def copy_wave
...
end
end
The problem is that new_from_file still returns a Wv::WaveList not a MyWaveList so I can't call copy_wave on instances returned by new_from_file
One simple solution is to just open the class up here and add the method
class Wv::WvWave
def copy_wave
...
end
end
Another solution would be to have MyWaveList have an instance of a Wv::WaveList and delegate all the appropriate calls to that instance.
So I am just wondering what the inheritance solution might be? I just don't see it right now.
I believe this should work
class Wv::WvWaveList
def self.new_from_file file_name
...
self.new
end
....
end
Because self.new_from_file was always calling Wv::WaveList.new, it was always instantiating objects with that class, even from subclasses. But by using self, you'll be able to call new_from_file on any subclass, and the objects will be of the correct class:
>> a = MyWaveList.new_from_file "some_file"
=> #<MyWaveList:0x007fd473004318 #file_name="some_file">
>> a.class
=> MyWaveList
I Just started learning ruby and I don't see the difference between an #instace_variable and an attribute declared using attr_accessor.
What is the difference between the following two classes:
class MyClass
#variable1
end
and
class MyClass
attr_accessor :variable1
end
I searched lot of tutorials online and everybody uses different notation, Does it have to do anything with the ruby version? I also searched few old threads in StackOverflow
What is attr_accessor in Ruby?
What's the Difference Between These Two Ruby Class Initialization Definitions?
But still I am not able to figure out what is the best way to use.
An instance variable is not visible outside the object it is in; but when you create an attr_accessor, it creates an instance variable and also makes it visible (and editable) outside the object.
Example with instance variable (not attr_accessor)
class MyClass
def initialize
#greeting = "hello"
end
end
m = MyClass.new
m.greeting #results in the following error:
#NoMethodError: undefined method `greeting' for #<MyClass:0x007f9e5109c058 #greeting="hello">
Example using attr_accessor:
class MyClass
attr_accessor :greeting
def initialize
#greeting = "hello"
end
end
m2 = MyClass.new
m2.greeting = "bonjour" # <-- set the #greeting variable from outside the object
m2.greeting #=> "bonjour" <-- didn't blow up as attr_accessor makes the variable accessible from outside the object
Hope that makes it clear.
Instance variables are not directly visible outside of the class.
class MyClass
def initialize
#message = "Hello"
end
end
msg = MyClass.new
#message
#==> nil # This #message belongs to the global object, not msg
msg.message
#==> NoMethodError: undefined method `message'
msg.#message
#==> SyntaxError: syntax error, unexpected tIVAR
Now, you can always do this:
msg.instance_eval { #message }
or ask for the variable directly like this:
msg.instance_variable_get :#message
But that's awkward and sort of cheating. Poking around someone else's class may be educational, but your client code shouldn't be required to do it to get reliable results. So if you want clients to be able to see those values, don't make them use the above techniques; instead, define a method to expose the value explicitly:
class MyClass
def message
return #message
end
end
msg.message
# ==> "Hello"
Because you so often want to do that, Ruby provides a shortcut to make it easier. The code below has exactly the same result as the code above:
class MyClass
attr_reader :message
end
That's not a new type of variable; it's just a shorthand way to define the method. You can look at msg.methods and see that it now has a message method.
Now, what if you want to allow outsiders to not only see the value of an instance variable, but change it, too? For that, you have to define a different method for assignment, with a = in the name:
class MyClass
def message=(new_value)
#message = new_value
end
end
msg.message = "Good-bye"
msg.message
# ==> "Good-bye"
Note that the assignment operators are semi-magical here; even though there's a space between msg.message and =, Ruby still knows to call the message= method. Combination operators like += and so on will trigger calls to the method as well.
Again, this is a common design, so Ruby provides a shortcut for it, too:
class MyClass
attr_writer :message
end
Now, if you use attr_writer by itself, you get an attribute that can be modified, but not seen. There are some odd use cases where that's what you want, but most of the time, if you are going to let outsiders modify the variable, you want them to be able to read it, too. Rather than having to declare both an attr_reader and an attr_writer, you can declare both at once like so:
class MyClass
attr_accessor :message
end
Again, this is just a shortcut for defining methods that let you get at the instance variable from outside of the class.
attr_accesor gives you methods to read and write the instance variables. Instance variables are deasigned to be hidden from outside world so to communicate with them we should have attr_ibute accesor methods.
In OOPS we have a concept called encapsulation which means, the internal representation of an object is generally hidden from view outside of the object's definition. Only the Object 'itself' can mess around with its own internal state. The outside world cannot.
Every object is usually defined by its state and behavior, in ruby the instance variables is called internal state or state of the object and according to OOPS the state should not be accessed by any other object and doing so we adhere to Encapsulation.
ex: class Foo
def initialize(bar)
#bar = bar
end
end
Above, we have defined a class Foo and in the initialize method we have initialized a instance variable (attribute) or (property). when we create a new ruby object using the new method, which in turn calls the initialize method internally, when the method is run, #bar instance variable is declared and initialized and it will be saved as state of the object.
Every instance variable has its own internal state and unique to the object itself, every method we define in the class will alter the internal state of the object according to the method definition and purpose. here initialize method does the same, such as creating a new instance variable.
var object = Foo.new(1)
#<Foo:0x00000001910cc0 #bar=1>
In the background, ruby has created an instance variable (#bar =1) and stored the value as state of the object inside the object 'object'. we can be able to check it with 'instance_variables' method and that methods returns an array containing all the instance variables of the object according to present state of the object.
object.instance_variables
#[
[0]: #bar
]
we can see '#bar' instance variable above. which is created when we called the initialize method on the object. this '#bar' variable should not be visible (hidden) by default and so it cannot be seen by others from outside of the object except the object, from inside. But, an object can mess around with its own internal state and this means it can show or change the values if we give it a way to do so, these two can be done by creating a new instance methods in the class.
when we want to see the #bar variable by calling it we get an error, as by default we cannot see the state of an object.
show = object.bar
#NoMethodError: undefined method `bar' for #<Foo:0x00000001910cc0 #bar=1>
#from (irb):24
#from /home/.rvm/rubies/ruby-2.0.0-p648/bin/irb:12:in `<main>'
But we can access the variables by two methods, these two are called setter and getter methods, which allow the object to show or change its internal state (instance variables/attributes/properties) respectively.
class Foo
def bar
#bar
end
def bar=(new_bar)
#bar = new_bar
end
end
We have defined a getter(bar) and setter(bar=) methods, we can name them any way but the instance variable inside must the same as instance variable to which we want to show or change the value. setters and getters are a violation to OOPS concepts in a way but they are also very powerful methods.
when we define the two methods by re-opening the class and defining them, when we call the object with the methods, we can be able to view the instance variables(here #foo) and change its value as well.
object.bar
1
object.bar=2
2
object.bar
2
Here we have called the bar method (getter) which returns the value of #bar and then we have called bar= method (setter) which we supplied a new_value as argument and it changes the value of instance variable (#bar) and we can look it again by calling bar method.
In ruby we have a method called attr_accessor , which combines the both setter and getter methods, we define it above the method definitions inside the class. attr_* methods are shortcut to create methods (setter and getter)
class Foo
attr_accessor :bar
end
we have to supply a symbol (:bar) as argument to the attr_accessor method which creates both setter and getter methods internally with the method names as supplied symbol name.
If we need only a getter method, we can call attr_reader :bar
If we need only a setter method, we can call attr_writer :bar
attr_accessor creates both attr_writer and attr_reader methods
we can supply as many instance variables as we want to the attr_* methods seperated by commas
class Foo
attr_writer :bar
attr_reader :bar
attr_accessor :bar, :baz
end
Because attr_accessor defines methods, you can call them from outside the class. A #variable is only accessible from inside the class.
And another answer more compact (for Java developers)
attr_accessor :x creates the getters and setters to #x
class MyClassA
attr_accessor :x
end
is the same as
class MyClassB
def x=(value) #java's typical setX(..)
#x=value
end
def x
#x
end
end
I'm wondering if there's a way to return an object instead of a string when calling an object without any methods.
For instance:
class Foo
def initialize
#bar = Bar.new
end
end
Is there any way to define the Foo class so that the following happens:
foo = Foo.new
foo #returns #bar
In the specific case I'm interested in I'm using a presenter in a Rails view. The presenter sets up one main object and then loads a bunch of related content. The important part looks like this:
class ExamplePresenter
def initialize( id )
#example = Example.find( id )
end
def example
#example
end
...
end
If I want to return the example used by the ExamplePresenter I can call:
#presenter = ExamplePresenter.new(1)
#presenter.example
It would be nice if I could also return the example object by just calling:
#presenter
So, is there a way to set a default method to return when an object is called, like to_s but returning an object instead of a string?
If I understand correctly, you want to return the instance of Example when you call the ExamplePresenter instance. Such a direct mechanism does not exist in any language, and even if it did, it would block all access to the ExamplePresenter instance and its methods. So it is not logical.
There is something you can do however. You can make the ExamplePresenter class delegate methods to the Example instance inside it. Effectively you do not get a real Example from #presenter but you get an ExamplePresenter that passes all eligible methods into its internal Example effectively acting in behalf of it.
Some ways of doing this is:
method_missing
class ExamplePresenter
… # as defined in the question
def method_missing symbol, *args
if #example.respond_to?(symbol)
#example.send(symbol, *args)
else
super
end
end
end
This will pass any method call down to the internal Example if the ExamplePresenter cannot respond to it. Be careful, you may expose more than you want of the internal Example this way, and any method already defined on ExamplePresenter cannot be passed along.
You can use additional logic inside method_missing to limit exposure or pre/post process the arguments/return values.
Wrapper methods
You can define wrapper methods on ExamplePresenter that do nothing but pass everything to the internal Example. This gives you explicit control on how much of it you want to expose.
class ExamplePresenter
… # as before
def a_method
#example.a_method
end
def another_method(argument, another_argument)
#example.another_method(argument, another_argument)
end
end
This gets tedious fast, but you can also add logic to alter arguments before passing it along to the Example or post process the results.
You can also mix and match the above two methods
Delegator library
There is a library in Ruby stdlib called Delegator built exactly for this purpose. You may look into it.
Although this is not recommended, you can do:
class Foo
def self.new
#bar = Bar.new
end
end
If you actually do need to create an instance of Foo, then
class << Foo
alias original_new :new
end
class Foo
def self.new
self.original_new # It will not be useful unless you assign this to some variable.
#bar = Bar.new
end
end