More specifically:
When do you need to prefix the scope with :: (like ::Foo::Bar)
When is directly referring to a scoped const ok? (just Foo::Bar)
Is there a good reason why this behavior is so confusing?
EDIT: I am talking about stuff like this
module Foo
THING = 'thing'
module Bar
puts THING
end
end
#=> thing
module Foo::Bar
puts THING
end
#=> NameError: uninitialized constant Foo::Bar::THING
When do you need to prefix the scope
with :: (like ::Foo::Bar)
When there's another constant with the same name in the current namespace.
When is directly referring to a scoped
const ok? (just Foo::Bar)
When there isn't another constant with the same name in the current namespace. Ie. when that identifier is unambiguous. Similarly, you could just use Bar to aid readability if it was unambiguous.
Is there a good reason why this
behavior is so confusing?
It's balancing readability and ease of use against specificity. You don't always want to have to do ::Foo::Bar::Baz::Boo (the globally unique identifier) when you're deep down in your namespace.
In as far as I've understood/experienced it: when in a module/class Foo, then Bar refers to Foo::Bar unless it doesn't exist -- in which case it means ::Bar.)
Please take it with a grain of salt, though, because I'm new to ruby as well. :-P
Related
I'm kind of confused about reserved words in Ruby.
"The Ruby Programming Language", co-authored by Matz, says that begin and end are reserved words of the language. They're certainly used syntactically to mark out blocks.
However, range objects in the language have methods named begin and end, as in
(1..10).end
=> 10
Now, testing this out, I find that, indeed, I can define methods named "begin" and "end" on objects, though if I try to name a variable "begin" it fails. (Here's a sample of using it as a method name, it actually works...:)
class Foo
def begin
puts "hi"
end
end
Foo.new.begin
So, I suppose I'm asking, what actually is the status of reserved words like this? I would have imagined that they couldn't be used for method names (and yet it seems to work) or that at the very least it would be terrible style (but it is actually used in the core language for the Range class).
I'm pretty confused as to when they're allowed to be used and for what. Is there even documentation on this?
Yes, they are reserved words. Yes, they can be used for method names. No, you can't call them without an explicit receiver. It's probably not a good idea anyway.
class Foo
def if(foo)
puts foo
end
end
Foo.new.if("foo") # outputs foo, returns nil
Update: Here's a quote from "The Ruby Programming Language", by Matz (the creator of Ruby) himself:
In most languages, these words would be called “reserved words” and
they would be never allowed as identifiers. The Ruby parser is
flexible and does not complain if you prefix these keywords with #,
##, or $ prefixes and use them as instance, class, or global variable
names. Also, you can use these keywords as method names, with the
caveat that the method must always be explicitly invoked through an
object.
When they are given in a form that is unambiguously a method call, you can use them. If you have a period in front of it .begin or have parentheses after is begin(), then it is unambiguously a method call. When you try to use it as a variable begin, it is ambiguous (in principle).
Actually, as Perry, notes, begin() might be tricky. I checked with irb with Ruby 1.9.3, and the following strange thing happens:
irb(main):001:0> def begin(foo)
irb(main):002:1> puts 'a'
irb(main):003:1> end
=> nil
irb(main):004:0> begin(3)
irb(main):005:1>
irb(main):006:1* end
=> 3
It is not defined, and what looks like a method call might be just a block returning the last-evaluated 3. But the lines around def begin(foo) remains mystery.
I'm just getting into Ruby and come from the Java and C/C++ environment.
While coding a first little project in Ruby, I somehow got used to let all local variables start with an underscore. I guess my main motivation for this was a better readability and distinction from method calls.
As in principle there are only three types of variables ($global, #instance and local), the vast majority of variables start with an underscore. I'm not really sure, whether this is good or bad. Besides, in a lot other languages, the underscore would be substituted to some other character.
Is there somehow a best practice concerning variable naming beside the usual CamelCase and/or underscore separated? What are the habits of the professional "rubyists"? Have I overlooked some general Ruby conventions, when I chose the leading underscore?
edit
Thanks to all answers and suggestions. It helped me a lot.
Short Summary of Answers and Comments below
(for the short-on-time visitor)
Leading underscores go with:
method arguments: def my_method(_my_arg)
block arguments: e.g. my_array.each { |_x| puts _x}
All other local variables without leading underscores, as programmers coming from e.g. JavaScript might get confused about intended behaviour of the variables.
For visual separation between variable names and method calls, forcing oneself to use "(" brackets ")" with all method calls might increase readability significantly.
Existing answers to this question are now a few years old, and conventions have changed. You should only ever use a leading underscore (_some_param), or a standalone underscore (_), to indicate that you don't care about the value. The rubocop style linting tool will carp about a "useless assignment" if you assign a variable but don't use it, but it will ignore variables with a leading underscore. This allows you to expressly indicate that you don't care about the value and don't intend to use it.
Here's a somewhat-contrived example use-case in an RSpec context:
describe 'login' do
let(:user) { FactoryGirl.create(:user, login: 'bob') }
it 'must be unique' do
_user1 = user
user2 = User.new login: 'bob'
expect(user2.valid?).to be_false
end
end
Here we're indicating that our user helper has a side-effect and returns something, but we don't care about it. You could also just skip the assignment entirely, but seeing a bare user on a line by itself looks odd and doesn't reveal the intention as clearly:
describe 'login' do
let(:user) { FactoryGirl.create(:user, login: 'bob') }
it 'must be unique' do
user
user2 = User.new login: 'bob'
expect(user2.valid?).to be_false
end
end
Other scenarios include ignoring values in iterators, or overriding a method where you want to keep the original method signature but don't care about some of the values:
def greet(name, _title)
puts "Hi, #{name}!"
end
In my experience, underscore-prefixed variables in Ruby are much like underscore-prefixed variables in JavaScript: a "don't touch" flag. More specifically, they are used when the implementer is doing something that really is not supposed to be understood as a part of the object, or shouldn't be thought of as the conceptual interface of the object.
This is more clear in the JavaScript world, where somebody is emulating "private" by prefixing a variable with an underscore. They are encoding that there's part of the object that's under the hood and can be ignored when looking at the object from the outside.
In Ruby, I've only really seen this with things like a cache or a singleton instance - the kind of thing that should be invisible to consumers of your object. Non-underscored variables are things that people using your object might be interested to know are there.
In any case, they seem fairly rare, and I would avoid them unless you want to send a signal to the next guy that's coming along that there's some extra magic or voodoo happening.
As far as making a distinction for method calls, if you're worried that there can be confusion between a method and a local variable, I would call the method on self to clarify. For instance:
def foo
...
end
def some_method
foo # method
bar # variable
end
If this seems unclear for whatever reason, you can clarify with
def some_method
self.foo
bar
end
Nothing wrong with your idea. But if I was having trouble distinguishing local vars from method calls, I would probably just force myself to always use ()'s on methods. (My team at work has discussed making this part of our coding standards).
a = thing # var
b = thing() # method
The possible advantage to this is readability to others. Someone may wonder at your leading _'s, but using ()'s on all method calls should be clear to everyone.
Seeing as how instance variables have the # sign in front of them, and global variables have the $ sign in front of them already in ruby, it is probably unnecessary to put an underscore character in front of the variable names. That being said, I don't think it is a bad practice necessarily. If it helps you to read or write your code in Ruby, then you should use it.
I have sometimes seen Ruby code where an argument for an instance method on a class has an underscore in front of it. Such as:
def my_method(_argument1)
# do something
end
And I think that when you are dealing with a class that may have it's own attributes, like a model file in rails, for instance, this can be helpful so that you know you are dealing with a variable that has been passed into the method as opposed to one of the attributes that belongs to the class/model.
So Module can be used in Ruby to provide namespacing in addition to mixins, as so:
module SomeNamespace
class Animal
end
end
animal = SomeNamespace::Animal.new
But I've also seen the following used:
module SomeNamespace
end
class SomeNamespace::Animal
end
animal = SomeNamespace::Animal.new
My question is how they're different (if they are) and which is more idiomatic Ruby?
The difference lies in nesting.
In the example below, you can see that the former method using class Foo, can get the outer scope's constant variables BAR_A without errors.
Meanwhile, class Baz will bomb with an error of uninitialized constant A::B::Baz::BAR_A. As it doesn't bring in A::* implicitly, only A::B::*explicitly.
module A
BAR_A = 'Bar A!'
module B
BAR_B = 'Bar B!'
class Foo
p BAR_A
p BAR_B
end
end
end
class A::B::Baz
p BAR_A
p BAR_B
end
Both behaviors have their place. There's no real consensus in the community in my opinion as to which is the One True Ruby Way (tm). I personally use the former, most of the time.
The only difference between the two approaches is that the second one will throw uninitialized constant Object::SomeNamespace if the namespace hasn't previously been declared.
When declared in a single file, I would opt for the first one because you don't have to repeat SomeNamespace.
When using multiple files I also use the second one, to avoid running into the following problem:
# in a.rb
require 'b'
module SomeNamespace
def self.animal
Animal.new
end
end
# in b.rb
class SomeNamespace::Animal
end
# irb
require 'a' # explodes with the uninitialized constant error
This example may be contrived, but it's easy to trigger it if your code base is a little bit bigger. I usually use the explicit way (your first one) to avoid this.
One thing that may be helpful when using the second form is that it will detect typos in the namespace.
There doesn't seem to be an established way to create namespaces, Devise for example mixes both approaches: first one, second one.
I've long been aware that "constants" in Ruby (i.e., variable names that are capitalized) aren't really constant. Like other programming languages, a reference to an object is the only thing stored in the variable/constant. (Sidebar: Ruby does have the facility to "freeze" referenced objects from being modified, which as far as I know, isn't an ability offered in many other languages.)
So here's my question: when you re-assign a value into a constant, you get a warning like so:
>> FOO = 'bar'
=> "bar"
>> FOO = 'baz'
(irb):2: warning: already initialized constant FOO
=> "baz"
Is there a way to force Ruby to throw an exception instead of printing a warning? It's tough to figure out why reassignments happen sometimes.
Look at Can you ask ruby to treat warnings as errors? to see how it is possible in some cases to treat warnings as errors.
Otherwise I guess you'd have to write a custom method to assign constants and raise the exception if already assigned.
If you know that a reassignment happens to a specific constant, you can also add a sanity check just before the assignment.
You can't intercept it directly, no.
If you really need to do this, I can think of a very dirty hack, though. You could redirect the standard error IO to a custom IO object. The write method could then check for what is being written; if it contains "warning: already initialized constant", then you raise, otherwise you forward the call to the standard error's write.
If the constant is within a class or a module, then you could freeze the class or module:
# Normal scenario
$VERBOSE = true
class Foo
BAR = 1
end
Foo::BAR = 2 # warning: already initialized constant BAR
# Using freeze
Foo.freeze
Foo::BAR = 3
RuntimeError: can't modify frozen Class
from (irb):8
from /Users/agrimm/.rbenv/versions/1.9.3-p194/bin/irb:12:in `<main>'
For your scenario, you could freeze Object, but that sounds kind of scary.
What does Ruby constants really mean? The following code doesn't show any 'constant' attribute. The warning is there, but I still get to change what A refers to.
A = 1
puts A # => 1
A = 2 # warning: already initialized constant A
puts A # => 2
Or is Ruby constants are just an indication without any enforcement?
That's right, constants are just like variables in ruby, but you get a warning if you change them.
Also, there's one difference with mere variables: You can access constants even if they are defined inside another class or module, for example given this snippet:
module Constants
PI = 3,1415
other = "variable"
end
You can reach PI doing Constants::PI while Constants::other will not work.
Yes, Ruby constants aren't enforced, other than printing that warning.
That's right -- assigning to a constant is a warning, not an error; "constants" are just an indicator of how you should use something, not a rule that you do use it that way.
That may sound horrendous coming from a static-programming world, but it's immensely useful in various metaprogramming facilities, and it enables things that would otherwise be completely impossible in static languages.
That said, if you really want to make sure people keep their grubby hands off your references, you can use Object#freeze. It's still okay to change what a reference points to with this; you just can't change the contents of the reference itself:
irb(main):001:0> class Fruit; attr_accessor :name; end
=> nil
irb(main):002:0> f = Fruit.new
=> #<Fruit:0xb7e06570>
irb(main):003:0> f.name = "apple"
=> "apple"
irb(main):004:0> f.freeze # After freeze, can't touch this Fruit.
=> #<Fruit:0xb7e06570 #name="apple">
irb(main):005:0> f.name = "banana"
TypeError: can't modify frozen object # Kablammo!
from (irb):5:in `name='
from (irb):5
But this is okay:
irb(main):006:0> f = Fruit.new
=> #<Fruit:0xb7dfed84>
irb(main):007:0> f.name = "banana"
=> "banana"
"Constant" is really a misnomer, the most important aspect of Ruby's "Constants" is not their immutability but their lookup rules.
see: http://coderrr.wordpress.com/2008/03/11/constant-name-resolution-in-ruby/
Constants are used to store values that should not be changed. Their names must start with an uppercase letter. By convention, most constant names are written in all uppercase letters with an underscore as word separator, such as SOME_CONSTANT.
Constants defined within classes can be accessed by all methods of that class. Those created outside a class can be accessed globally (within any method or class).
class Car
WHEELS = 4
def initialize
puts WHEELS
end
end
c = Car.new # Output: 4
Note that Ruby does not stop us from changing the value of a constant, it only issues a warning.
SOME_CONSTANT = "foo"
SOME_CONSTANT = "bar"
warning: already initialized constant SOME_CONSTANT
warning: previous definition of SOME_CONSTANT was here
In Ruby, all class and module names are constants, but convention dictates they should be written in camel case, such as SomeClass.
Constants can be accessed from outside the class, even within another class, by using the :: (double colon) operator. To access the WHEELS constant from outside the Car class, we would use Car::WHEELS. The :: operator allows constants, public instance methods and class methods to be accessed from outside the class or module on which they are defined.
A built-in method called private_constant makes constants private (accessible only within the class on which they were created). The syntax is as follows:
class Car
WHEELS = 4
private_constant:WHEELS
end
Car::WHEELS # Output: NameError: private constant Car::WHEELS referenced
If you're coming from other programming languages, Ruby handles constants differently than what you may be used to. Constants, in general, take values that do not change through the entire application. The syntax is to use all capital letters while naming your constant so that the application knows how to handle it. For example, to set a constant to hold a baseball team you would declare it this way:
TEAM = "Angels"
I know you know this much, bear with me here. Typically, other programming languages will not allow you to change the value of TEAM. However, Ruby does not hold you back and takes the last value assigned to the constant. In the above example, I can change its value to:
TEAM = "Athletics"
Other programming languages would either throw an error or would print the value of Angels. However, Ruby prints the value Athletics because that is the last value assigned to the variable TEAM. Also, it gives a warning message that says that the constant was already initialized and was changed because changing a constant is considered a poor programming practice. But, it still allows you to make the change and follows the Ruby convention of trusting the developer to make the right programming decision. So, be careful while using constants in Ruby since they can be overridden.