I want to use the combination method with a custom class.
If my class looks like this...
class MyClass
def initialize
#data = []
end
def to_a
#data
end
end
I could call this...
myobj = MyClass.new
myobj.to_a.combination(2) {|a,b| puts "#{a} #{b}" }
But I'd much rather have this...
myobj.combination {|a,b| puts "#{a} #{b}" }
I've tried to write a class method to wrap the combination method, passing the block. But it's not working.
def combination(&block)
#data.to_a.combination(2) block.call
end
Also, does anyone know why combination is in the Array class and not Enumerable? I'd have thought it would have been more useful there.
The block is a special type of parameter to Array#combination (much like you've got it in your own definition). The correct invocation is:
def combination(&block)
#data.to_a.combination(2, &block)
end
Try this:
def combination(&block)
#data.to_a.combination(2) { block }
end
Related
I have a class that loads a collection and loads items into a collection based on a certain criteria
require_relative 'thing'
class Someclass
def self.tings
things=load_things()
end
def self.select_things(something)
return things.select { |thing| thing.some_property == something }
end
end
I would like to use method_missing instead of the direct defintions
require_relative 'thing'
class Someclass
def self.method_missing(method, *args)
things=load_things()
if method == 'select_things'
self.send("things.select { |thing| thing.some_property == args }")
end
end
end
However, this approach doesn't work and method_missing just outputs the code string. Is there a proper way to call a code from method_missing?
Thank you very much everyone in advance
There are two issues with your method_missing implementation:
The method name is given as a symbol, not as a string:
def self.method_missing(method, *args)
if method == :select_things
# ...
end
end
You have to call super if you don't process the message yourself:
def self.method_missing(method, *args)
if method == :select_things
# ...
else
super
end
end
If you don't call super your object is going to swallow any message without ever raising a NoMethodError and you'll have a very hard time understanding why your code isn't working.
In addition, you should also implement respond_to_missing? to return true for the messages you are responding to, e.g.:
def self.respond_to_missing?(method, include_all = false)
[:select_things].include?(method) || super
end
The above gives you:
Someclass.respond_to?(:select_things) #=> true
I am working on a project of context-oriented programming in ruby. And I come to this problem:
Suppose that I have a class Klass:
class Klass
def my_method
proceed
end
end
I also have a proc stored inside a variable impl. And impl contains { puts "it works!" }.
From somewhere outside Klass, I would like to define a method called proceed inside the method my_method. So that if a call Klass.new.my_method, I get the result "it works".
So the final result should be something like that:
class Klass
def my_method
def proceed
puts "it works!"
end
proceed
end
end
Or if you have any other idea to make the call of proceed inside my_method working, it's also good. But the proceed of another method (let's say my_method_2) isn't the same as my_method.
In fact, the proceed of my_method represent an old version of my_method. And the proceed of my_method_2 represent an old version of my_method_2.
Thanks for your help
Disclaimer: you are doing it wrong!
There must be more robust, elegant and rubyish way to achieve what you want. If you still want to abuse metaprogramming, here you go:
class Klass
def self.proceeds
#proceeds ||= {}
end
def def_proceed
self.class.proceeds[caller.first[/`.*?'/]] = Proc.new
end
def proceed *args
self.class.proceeds[caller.first[/`.*?'/]].(*args)
end
def m_1
def_proceed { puts 1 }
proceed
end
def m_2
def_proceed { puts 2 }
proceed
end
end
inst = Klass.new
inst.m_1
#⇒ 1
inst.m_2
#⇒ 2
What you in fact need, is Module#prepend and call super from there.
One way of doing that is to construct a hash whose keys are the names of the methods calling proceed and whose values are procs that represent the implementations of proceed for each method calling it.
class Klass
singleton_class.send(:attr_reader, :proceeds)
#proceeds = {}
def my_method1(*args)
proceed(__method__,*args)
end
def my_method2(*args)
proceed(__method__,*args)
end
def proceed(m, *args)
self.class.proceeds[m].call(*args)
end
end
def define_proceed(m, &block)
Klass.proceeds[m] = Proc.new &block
end
define_proceed(:my_method1) { |*arr| arr.sum }
define_proceed(:my_method2) { |a,b| "%s-%s" % [a,b] }
k = Klass.new
k.my_method1(1,2,3) #=> 6
k.my_method2("cat", "dog") #=> "cat-dog"
I'm wondering if you can use a defined method into another defined method
like for example
def method1(example)
funtion1
end
def method2(example)
funtion2
end
Like how can you use method1 to method2
def method_1(arg)
arg.call
end
def method_2
puts 'hi'
end
method_1(method(:method_2)) #=> should print 'hi'
You can't pass a method to a method. However you can pass a proc to a method.
Define a proc like so
proc = Proc.new {|x| puts x}
I can take a block of code, instance_exec it, and get the proper result. I would like to take a method off a different object and call one of it's methods in my scope. When I take a method from a different object, turn it into a proc, and then instance_exec it, I don't get the expected result. Code follows.
class Test1
def ohai(arg)
"magic is #{#magic} and arg is #{arg}"
end
end
class Test2
def initialize
#magic = "MAGICAL!"
end
def scope_checking
#magic
end
def do_it
ohai = Test1.new.method(:ohai)
self.instance_exec("foobar", &ohai)
end
end
describe "Test2 and scopes" do
before do
#t2 = Test2.new
end
it "has MAGICAL! in #magic" do
#t2.scope_checking.should == "MAGICAL!"
end
# This one fails :(
it "works like I expect converting a method to a proc" do
val = #t2.do_it
val.should == "magic is MAGICAL! and arg is foobar"
end
it "should work like I expect" do
val = #t2.instance_exec do
"#{#magic}"
end
val.should == "MAGICAL!"
end
end
It seems that, in Ruby, methods defined using def some_method are bound permanently to the class they're defined in.
So, when you call .to_proc on them they keep the binding of their original implementation, and you cannot rebind them. Well, you can, but only to an object of the same type as the first one. It's possible I could do some fancyness with inheritance, but I don't think so.
The solution becomes instead of using methods, I just put actual Procs into variables and use them then, as they're not bound until execution time.
not sure how good of an idea this is, but this passes your tests:
class Test1
def ohai(arg, binding)
eval('"magic is #{#magic} "', binding).to_s + "and arg is #{arg}"
end
end
class Test2
def initialize
#magic = "MAGICAL!"
end
def scope_checking
#magic
end
def get_binding
return binding()
end
def do_it
self.instance_exec(get_binding) {|binding| Test1.new.ohai("foobar", binding) }
end
end
obj = SomeObject.new
def obj.new_method
"do some things"
end
puts obj.new_method
> "do some things"
This works ok. However, I need to do same thing inside an existing method:
def some_random_method
def obj.new_method
"do some things"
end
end
Works ok as well, but having a method inside a method looks pretty horrible. The question is, is there any alternate way of adding such a method?
In ruby 1.9+, there's a better way of doing this using define_singleton_method, as follows:
obj = SomeObject.new
obj.define_singleton_method(:new_method) do
"do some things"
end
Use a Mixin.
module AdditionalMethods
def new_method
"do some things"
end
end
obj = SomeObject.new
obj.extend(AdditionalMethods)
puts obj.new_method
> "do some things"
There are several ways to achieve this, and they are all related to the singleton class:
You can use class << idiom to open the singleton class definition:
obj = Object.new
class << obj
def my_new_method
...
end
end
Or you can use define_singleton_method on the obj:
obj = Object.new
obj.define_singleton_method(:my_new_method) do
...
end
You can also use define_method from the singleton class:
obj = Object.new
obj.singleton_class.define_method(:my_new_method) do
...
end
Or you can use def directly:
obj = Object.new
def obj.my_new_method
...
end
Pay attention to example 3, I think the concept of a singleton class becomes clearer on that one. There is a difference between these two examples:
a = Object.new
b = Object.new
# -- defining a new method in the object's "class" --
a.class.define_method(:abc) do
puts "hello abc"
end
a.abc # prints "hello abc"
b.abc # also prints "hello abc"
# -- defining a new method in the object's "singleton class" --
a.singleton_class.define_method(:bcd) do
puts "hello bcd"
end
a.bcd # prints "hello bcd"
b.bcd # error undefined method
This is because every object has its own singleton class:
a = Object.new
b = Object.new
p a.class # prints "Object"
p a.singleton_class # prints "#<Class:#<Object:0x000055ebc0b84438>>"
p b.class # also prints "Object"
p b.singleton_class # prints "#<Class:#<Object:0x000055ebc0b84410>>" (a different reference address)
Just an interesting point to note:
if you had instead gone:
def my_method
def my_other_method; end
end
Then my_other_method would actually be defined on the CLASS of the object not withstanding that the receiver ofmy_method is an instance.
However if you go (as you did):
def my_method
def self.my_other_method; end
end
Then my_other_method is defined on the eigenclass of the instance.
Not directly relevant to your question but kind of interesting nonetheless ;)
You can use modules.
module ObjSingletonMethods
def new_method
"do some things"
end
end
obj.extend ObjSingletonMethods
puts obj.new_method # => do some things
Now if you need to add more methods to that object, you just need to implement the methods in the module and you are done.
Use instance_eval:
obj = SomeObject.new
obj.instance_eval do
def new_method
puts 'do something new'
end
end
obj.new_method
> "do something new"
class Some
end
obj = Some.new
class << obj
def hello
puts 'hello'
end
end
obj.hello
obj2 = Some.new
obj2.hello # error
Syntax class << obj means that we are opening definition of the class for an object. As you probably know we can define Ruby class methods using syntax like this:
class Math
class << self
def cos(x)
...
end
def sin(x)
...
end
end
end
Then we can use those methods like this:
Math.cos(1)
In Ruby, everything is an object - even classes. self here is an object of Math class itself (you can access that object with Math.class). So syntax class << self means we are opening class for Math class object. Yes, it means that Math class has class too (Math.class.class).
Another way to use a Mixin
obj = SomeObject.new
class << obj
include AnotherModule
end
This includes all of the methods from AnotherModule into the current object.