I'd like to build a function "create" that gives me the following capabilities :
zoo=[]
zoo << create(:dog,4)
zoo[0].class #Dog class
myDog=zoo[0].new("foobar") #instance of Dog
myDog.legs #4 legs because my dog is a Dog
zoo[0].class.legs #4
zoo[0].class.superclass #Animal
zoo[0].class.superclass.legs #whatever, but they have legs
"create(:dog,4)" produces a new class Dog that inherits Animal etc
Can you help about this apparently simple metaprogramming question ?
class Animal
def self.legs=(legs)
#legs = legs
end
def self.legs
#legs
end
def legs
self.class.legs
end
end
def create(sym, legs)
klass = Object.const_set(sym.to_s.capitalize, Class.new(Animal))
klass.legs = legs
klass
end
kdog = create(:dog, 4)
kalien = create(:alien, 3)
dog = kdog.new
alien = kalien.new
puts kdog
puts kdog.class
puts kdog.superclass
puts kdog.legs
puts dog.class
puts dog.legs
puts "------"
puts kalien
puts kalien.class
puts kalien.superclass
puts kalien.legs
puts alien.class
puts alien.legs
Output:
Dog
Class
Animal
4
Dog
4
------
Alien
Class
Animal
3
Alien
3
Related
I've been trying to get this code to output:
'Mary has a pet called Satan.'
But what I get is:
'Mary has a pet called #<Cat:0x00000002784c20>'
Code Below:
class Person
def initialize(name)
#name = name
#pet = nil
#hobbies = []
end
def describe()
puts "This persons name is #{#name}."
puts "#{#name}'s hobbies are:"
#hobbies.map { |hobby| puts hobby }
if #pet == nil
puts "#{#name} has not got any pets."
else
puts "#{#name} has a pet called #{#pet}"
end
end
attr_accessor :pet, :hobbies
end
class Cat < Animal
def initialize(name)
#name = name
end
end
satan = Cat.new("Satan")
mary = Person.new("Mary")
mary.pet = satan
mary.describe
Thanks for all your help.
In your describe() function, you are calling the object Cat without specifing the name.
But if you call #{pet.name} it will throw:
<undefined method `name' for #<Cat:0x0055d750a1a450 #name="Satan">
You have to allow the access to the variable name in the Cat class first with attr_accessor
class Cat < Animal
attr_accessor :name # First allow access
end
class Person
def describe()
puts "#{#name} has a pet called #{#pet.name}" # Then call the pet's name!
end
end
I'm trying to get the following code to work.
class Animal
end
class Tiger < Animal
#hunger = 100
def self.hunger
#hunger
end
def run
puts "The Tiger runs"
#hunger += 10
end
end
class Statistics
puts "This tigers hunger is: #{Tiger.hunger}"
end
tiger = Tiger.new()
tiger.run
So the tiger has a variable called hunger which is by itself at the top of the Tiger class. I want to make it so this variable can be changed throughout the class methods. For example in run the hunger is set to hunger += 10, but when I run this code I get an undefined method '+' for nil:NilClass (NoMethodError). What do I do to make this program work so the variable can be changed and then displayed in the Statistics class?
The problem is that you have completely mushed class and instance variables/methods together.
If you want to use instances (which you should):
class Animal; end
class Tiger < Animal
attr_reader :hunger
def initialize
#hunger = 100
end
def run
puts "The Tiger runs"
#hunger += 10
end
end
class Statistics
def self.show(tiger)
puts "This tigers hunger is: #{tiger.hunger}"
end
end
tiger = Tiger.new
tiger.run
Statistics.show(tiger)
If you want to use class methods/variables:
class Animal; end
class Tiger < Animal
#hunger = 100
def self.hunger
#hunger
end
def self.run
puts "The Tiger runs"
#hunger += 10
end
end
class Statistics
def self.show
puts "This tigers hunger is: #{Tiger.hunger}"
end
end
Tiger.run
Statistics.show
Note that #hunger is now a class instance variable of Tiger. The difference between class instance variables and class variables (ones defined with ##) is that the latter is shared by all descendants of the said class, while the former is only tied to the class where it was defined.
I do not agree with your descision about Statistic in either case though.
Don't you need an initialize method in your Tiger class?
def initialize()
#hunger = 100
end
I am confused about your Statistics class. Shouldn't this be a method in the Tiger class? How does it know what Tiger to access? I would add that puts in a method taking your tiger as a parameter if you want to do that.
class Statistics
def tiger_stat(tiger_name)
puts "This tigers hunger is: #{tiger_name.hunger}"
end
end
Edit* this is the code I would use:
class Animal
def initialize(animal_type, hunger_start)
#animal_type = animal_type
#hunger = hunger_start
end
def hunger_print
puts "This #{#animal_type}'s hunger is: #{#hunger}."
end
end
class Tiger < Animal
def initialize
super("Tiger", 100)
end
def run
puts "The Tiger runs"
#hunger += 10
end
end
This way you can call hunger_print on any animal without worrying about the type or making an extra class. You could do something like.
tiger = Tiger.new
tiger.run
tiger.hunger_print
You can use class variable that is access from both instance and class methods.
class Animal
##hunger = 100
def self.hunger
##hunger
end
def self.increase_hunger
##hunger +=1
end
def hunger
##hunger
end
def increase_hunger
##hunger += 1
end
end
Animal.increase_hunger
puts Animal.hunger # => 101
animal = Animal.new
animal.increase_hunger
puts animal.hunger # => 102
Sandi Metz says in SOLID OOPS concepts from GORUCO that presence of if..else blocks in Ruby can be considered to be a deviation from Open-Close Principle. What all methods can be used to avoid not-urgent if..else conditions? I tried the following code:
class Fun
def park(s=String.new)
puts s
end
def park(i=Fixnum.new)
i=i+2
end
end
and found out that function overloading does not work in Ruby. What are other methods through which the code can be made to obey OCP?
I could have simply gone for:
class Fun
def park(i)
i=i+2 if i.class==1.class
puts i if i.class=="asd".class
end
end
but this is in violation to OCP.
With your current example, and wanting to avoid type detection, I would use Ruby's capability to re-open classes to add functionality you need to Integer and String:
class Integer
def park
puts self + 2
end
end
class String
def park
puts self
end
end
This would work more cleanly when altering your own classes. But maybe it doesn't fit your conceptual model (it depends what Fun represents, and why it can take those two different classes in a single method).
An equivalent but keeping your Fun class might be:
class Fun
def park_fixnum i
puts i + 2
end
def park_string s
puts s
end
def park param
send("park_#{param.class.to_s.downcase}", param)
end
end
As an opinion, I am not sure you will gain much writing Ruby in this way. The principles you are learning may be good ones (I don't know), but applying them forcefully "against the grain" of the language may create less readable code, regardless of whether it meets a well-intentioned design.
So what I would probably do in practice is this:
class Fun
def park param
case param
when Integer
puts param + 2
when String
puts param
end
end
end
This does not meet your principles, but is idiomatic Ruby and slightly easier to read and maintain than an if block (where the conditions could be far more complex so take longer for a human to parse).
You could just create handled classes for Fun like so
class Fun
def park(obj)
#parker ||= Object.const_get("#{obj.class}Park").new(obj)
#parker.park
rescue NameError => e
raise ArgumentError, "expected String or Fixnum but recieved #{obj.class.name}"
end
end
class Park
def initialize(p)
#park = p
end
def park
#park
end
end
class FixnumPark < Park
def park
#park += 2
end
end
class StringPark < Park
end
Then things like this will work
f = Fun.new
f.park("string")
#=> "string"
f.instance_variable_get("#parker")
#=> #<StringPark:0x1e04b48 #park="string">
f = Fun.new
f.park(2)
#=> 4
f.instance_variable_get("#parker")
#=> #<FixnumPark:0x1e04b48 #park=4>
f.park(22)
#=> 6 because the instance is already loaded and 4 + 2 = 6
Fun.new.park(12.3)
#=> ArgumentError: expected String or Fixnum but received Float
You could do something like this:
class Parent
attr_reader :s
def initialize(s='')
#s = s
end
def park
puts s
end
end
class Child1 < Parent
attr_reader :x
def initialize(s, x)
super(s)
#x = x
end
def park
puts x
end
end
class Child2 < Parent
attr_reader :y
def initialize(s, y)
super(s)
#y = y
end
def park
puts y
end
end
objects = [
Parent.new('hello'),
Child1.new('goodbye', 1),
Child2.new('adios', 2),
]
objects.each do |obj|
obj.park
end
--output:--
hello
1
2
Or, maybe I overlooked one of your twists:
class Parent
attr_reader :x
def initialize(s='')
#x = s
end
def park
puts x
end
end
class Child1 < Parent
def initialize(x)
super
end
def park
x + 2
end
end
class Child2 < Parent
def initialize(x)
super
end
def park
x * 2
end
end
objects = [
Parent.new('hello'),
Child1.new(2),
Child2.new(100),
]
results = objects.map do |obj|
obj.park
end
p results
--output:--
hello
[nil, 4, 200]
And another example using blocks, which are like anonymous functions. You can pass in the desired behavior to park() as a function:
class Function
attr_reader :block
def initialize(&park)
#block = park
end
def park
raise "Not implemented"
end
end
class StringFunction < Function
def initialize(&park)
super
end
def park
block.call
end
end
class AdditionFunction < Function
def initialize(&park)
super
end
def park
block.call 1
end
end
class DogFunction < Function
class Dog
def bark
puts 'woof, woof'
end
end
def initialize(&park)
super
end
def park
block.call Dog.new
end
end
objects = [
StringFunction.new {puts 'hello'},
AdditionFunction.new {|i| i+2},
DogFunction.new {|dog| dog.bark},
]
results = objects.map do |obj|
obj.park
end
p results
--output:--
hello
woof, woof
[nil, 3, nil]
Look at the is_a? method
def park(i)
i.is_a?(Fixnum) ? (i + 2) : i
end
But even better not to check a type, but use duck typing:
def park(i)
i.respond_to?(:+) ? (i + 2) : i
end
UPD: After reading comments. Yes, both examples above don't solve the OCP problem. That is how I would do it:
class Fun
# The method doesn't know how to pluck data. But it knows a guy
# who knows the trick
def pluck(i)
return __pluck_string__(i) if i.is_a? String
__pluck_fixnum__(i) if i.is_a? Fixnum
end
private
# Every method is responsible for plucking data in some special way
# Only one cause of possible changes for each of them
def __pluck_string__(i)
puts i
end
def __pluck_fixnum__(i)
i + 2
end
end
I understand or equal to operation in ruby but can you explain what
you have done with:
Object.const_get("#{obj.class}Park").new(obj)
In ruby, something that starts with a capital letter is a constant. Here is a simpler example of how const_get() works:
class Dog
def bark
puts 'woof'
end
end
dog_class = Object.const_get("Dog")
dog_class.new.bark
--output:--
woof
Of course, you can also pass arguments to dog_class.new:
class Dog
attr_reader :name
def initialize(name)
#name = name
end
def bark
puts "#{name} says woof!"
end
end
dog_class = Object.const_get("Dog")
dog_class.new('Ralph').bark
--output:--
Ralph says woof!
And the following line is just a variation of the above:
Object.const_get("#{obj.class}Park").new(obj)
If obj = 'hello', the first portion:
Object.const_get("#{obj.class}Park")
is equivalent to:
Object.const_get("#{String}Park")
And when the String class object is interpolated into a string, it is simply converted to the string "String", giving you:
Object.const_get("StringPark")
And that line retrieves the StringPark class, giving you:
Object.const_get("StringPark")
|
V
StringPark
Then, adding the second portion of the original line gives you:
StringPark.new(obj)
And because obj = 'hello', that is equivalent to:
StringPark.new('hello')
Capice?
I'd appreciate knowing why the instance of "Cat" below isn't also putting the "This animal can:" text before its specific instance attributes. I'm expecting an output like this:
This animal can:
Say it's name: 'Rover'
Bark
This animal can:
Say its name: 'Satan'
Meow
Here's the code:
class Animal
puts "This animal can:"
end
class Dog < Animal
def initialize(name)
#name = name
puts "Say its #name: '%s'" % [name]
end
def bark
puts "Bark"
end
end
class Cat < Animal
def initialize(name)
#name = name
puts "Say its #name: '%s'" % [name]
end
def meow
puts "Meow"
end
end
rover = Dog.new("Rover").bark
satan = Cat.new("Satan").meow
What I'm seeing is this:
This animal can:
Say it's name: 'Rover'
Bark
Say its name: 'Satan'
Meow
Doesn't "cat" also inherit from the Animal class? Shouldn't its output also begin with "This animal can:"?
The problem in your code is that:
puts "This animal can:"
is run when the Animal class gets defined. It seems like you want this in the initializer:
class Animal
def initialize(name)
puts "This animal can:"
end
end
You'll then need to call super in the other initializers for the result you're expecting.
The "This Animal can:" line only occurs when the class is defined, since it doesn't live in a method. Since both animals have common behavior in their initializers, you might want to promote the initializer to the Animal class.
class Animal
def introduce_myself
puts "Hello! My name is #{#name} and I know how to: "
end
def initialize(name)
#name = name
introduce_myself
end
end
class Dog < Animal
def bark
puts "Woof!"
end
end
class Cat < Animal
def meow
puts "Meow!"
end
end
Dog.new("Fido").bark
Cat.new("Sparky").meow
Output:
Hello! My name is Fido and I know how to:
Woof!
Hello! My name is Sparky and I know how to:
Meow!
Your Animal class doesn't define a constructor, nor is it called by inheritors:
class Animal
def initialize
puts "This animal can:"
end
end
class Dog < Animal
def initialize(name)
super()
#name = name
puts "Say its #name: '%s'" % [name]
end
def bark
puts "Bark"
end
end
Exactly!
class Animal
def initialize(name)
puts "This animal can:"
end
end
def initialize(name)
#name = name
puts "Say its #name: '%s'" % [name]
super # initializer from parent class
end
why that don't work ?
class Animal
puts "This animal can:"
end
when ruby parser read code it evaluate everything on way. I mean even if you will not create any object it will display "This animal can:" That's why you saw that for the first time and had impression that Dog class worked correctly
Install name_magic (gem install y_support) and have fun
require 'y_support/name_magic';
class Animal
include NameMagic
def initialize; puts "This animal #{sound}s." end
def sound; "growl" end
def speak; puts "#{sound.capitalize}!" end
end
class Dog < Animal
def sound; "bark" end
end
class Cat < Animal
def sound; "meow" end
end
def hullo( animal )
Animal.instance( animal ).speak
end
Rover = Dog.new
#=> This animal barks.
Satan = Cat.new
#=> This animal meows.
hullo :Rover
#=> Bark!
Animal.instances.each( &:speak )
#=> Bark!
#=> Meow!
I would like to create a base class to handle all the methods. How would I achieve this using ruby in this scenario?
class Dog
def initialize
#breed = "good breed"
end
def show_dog
puts "#{self.class.first_name} of breed #{#breed}"
end
end
class Lab < Dog
attr_reader :first_name
def initialize
#first_name = "good dog"
end
end
lb = Lab.new()
lb.show_dog
The expected result would be "good dog of breed good breed"
Thank you in advance :)
self.class.first_name doesn't do what you probably wanted to do. You need to use #first_name directly.
You need to call the parent class' constructor from the child class; it's not called automatically.
This works:
class Dog
def initialize
#breed = "good breed"
end
def show_dog
puts "#{#first_name} of breed #{#breed}" ### <- Changed
end
end
class Lab < Dog
attr_reader :first_name
def initialize
super ### <- Added
#first_name = "good dog"
end
end
lb = Lab.new()
lb.show_dog
self.class.first_name means Lab.first_name, not Lab's instance lb.first_name