Is there a way to override a class's operator, by creating a new operator method inside a module, then mixing that module into the class?
eg, this overrides Fixnum's + operator:
class Fixnum
def +(x)
product = x
product = product * self
return product
end
end
p 3 + 3
# => 9
This does not override Fixnum's + operator:
module NewOperators
def +(x)
product = x
product = product * self
return product
end
end
class Fixnum
include NewOperators
end
p 3 + 3
# => 6
Your question led me to this interesting article which describes the problem:
Fixing Ruby’s Inheritance Model with Metamorph
This is the ultimate problem with Ruby’s inheritance model, in my opinion. Because mixins always take lower priority than methods defined directly in a class body, A#foo can not be overridden by mixin inclusion. Moreover, because mixins take lower priority than methods, A#foo is now violating encapsulation [...]
And his solution is to transparently define all new methods inside an anonymous inner module:
class Object
def self.method_added(name)
return if name == :initialize
const_set(:InstanceMethods, Module.new) unless defined?(self::InstanceMethods)
meth = instance_method(name)
self::InstanceMethods.send(:define_method, name) {|*args, &block| meth.bind(self).call(*args, &block) }
remove_method(name)
include self::InstanceMethods
end
end
This is also conveniently packaged in a library called metamorph, which allows you to have mixin methods override class methods by just requiring it.
No, because in a method lookup you don't get a chance to pull in methods that were defined in mixins or parent classes until you've actually looked at the current class.
That said, you can create a method that, when called on a class, will create methods in that class. This can give you a way to inject operators into classes easily.
Be warned that actually doing this is a good recipe for surprise. This is doubly true when you are changing standard modules whose behavior is relied upon by others. See http://avdi.org/devblog/2008/02/23/why-monkeypatching-is-destroying-ruby/ for context.
Related
2 main techniques for creating class methods (without the obvious "def self.method") are:
Defining them in "class << self" block
Defining ClassMethod module and extending it later
I personally prefer second way, seems cleaner. Does anyone has any reason to prefer one technique over the other?
There's also "class_method" method, but I never used it, it has quite complex implementation and seem to do a lot more than previous 2.
self.method is the simplest option when you just need to create one method without dependencies or related logic.
class << self allows you to do far more than define methods on the metaclass. This is useful when you're defining methods which need to work with other parts of the metaclass (eg. aliasing existing method names).
For instance:
class Logger
class << self
attr_reader :payload
def log(message)
#payload = message
end
end
end
The module extension method comes in handy for method reuse and to group multiple coherent methods.
For instance:
module QueryMethods
def find
end
def where
end
end
module FactoryMethods
def build
end
def create
end
end
class BusinessModel
extend QueryMethods
extend FactoryMethods
end
First, the class << foo syntax opens up foo's singleton class (eigenclass). This allows you to specialise the behaviour of methods called on that specific object.
a = 'foo'
class << a
def inspect
'"bar"'
end
end
a.inspect # => "bar"
a = 'foo' # new object, new singleton class
a.inspect # => "foo"
class << self opens up self's singleton class, so that methods can be redefined for the current self object (which inside a class or module body is the class or module itself). Usually, this is used to define class/module ("static") methods
class << self is good at keeping all of your class methods in the same block. If methods are being added in def self.method from then there's no guarantee (other than convention and wishful thinking) that there won't be an extra class method tucked away later in the file.
def self.method is good at explicitly stating that a method is a class method, whereas with class << self you have to go and find the container yourself.
Which of these is more important to you is a subjective decision, and also depends on things like how many other people are working on the code and what their preferences are.
Pros of “class << self” style
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
Can anyone explain to me what the meaning of adding self to the method definition is? Is it similar to the this keyword in java?
Contrary to other languages, Ruby has no class methods, but it has singleton methods attached to a particular object.
cat = String.new("cat")
def cat.speak
'miaow'
end
cat.speak #=> "miaow"
cat.singleton_methods #=> ["speak"]
def cat.speak creates a singleton method attached to the object cat.
When you write class A, it is equivalent to A = Class.new :
A = Class.new
def A.speak
"I'm class A"
end
A.speak #=> "I'm class A"
A.singleton_methods #=> ["speak"]
def A.speak creates a singleton method attached to the object A. We call it a class method of class A.
When you write
class A
def self.c_method
'in A#c_method'
end
end
you create an instance of Class(*). Inside the class definition, Ruby sets self to this new instance of Class, which has been assigned to the constant A. Thus def self.c_method is equivalent to def cat.speak, that is to say you define a singleton method attached to the object self, which is currently the class A.
Now the class A has two singleton methods, that we commonly call class methods.
A.singleton_methods
=> ["c_method", "speak"]
(*) technically, in this case where A has already been created by A = Class.new, class A reopens the existing class. That's why we have two singleton methods at the end. But in the usual case where it is the first definition of a class, it means Class.new.
In ruby self is somewhat similar to this in java, but when it comes to classes its more like the keyword static in java. A short example:
class A
# class method
def self.c_method
true
end
# instance method
def i_method
true
end
end
A.c_method #=> true
A.i_method #=> failure
A.new.i_method #=> true
A.new.c_method #=> failure
Update: Difference between static methods in java and class methods in ruby
Static methods in Java have two distinct features that makes them different from instance methods: a) they are static, b) they are not associated with an instance. (IOW: they really aren't like methods at all, they are just procedures.) In Ruby, all methods are dynamic, and all methods are associated with an instance. In fact, unlike Java where there are three different kinds of "methods" (instance methods, static methods and constructors), there is only one kind of method in Ruby: instance methods. So, no: static methods in Java are completely unlike methods in Ruby. – Jörg W Mittag 1 hour ago
When declaring a method, the self of the declaration is the declaring class/module, so effectively you are defining a class method. For the client, this works similar to a static method in java. The client would call the method on the class instead of an instance: MyClass.method
Here you can find some more details on class and instance methods.
EDIT: While the self keyword is akin to the this keyword in java, the effects of using self for class method declaration are similar to the effect of using the static keyword in java. The similarity is that static methods in java, like class methods in ruby are accessed using the class object iself instead of an instance of the class.
Please note that static does not stand for the opposite of dynamic. The choice of the name for this keyword is questionable (probably inherited from C) and rather should have been called perClass or similar to better reflect the meaning. The technical meaning is that all static members exist only once for each classloader.
Is it possible to do something like this in Ruby (1.9.2-p290)?
class SomeClass
include SomeModuleThatProvidesLotOfConstants
def build(&block)
singleton_class.instance_eval(&block)
end
end
obj = SomeClass.new
obj.build do
some_class_method SomeConstant, :an => :option
...
end
Where some_class_method is a method that is available to SomeClass (not to instances of it) and SomeConstant is a class/module that is in scope inside of SomeClass, but would have to be references as SomeClass::SomeConstant from outside.
I can get this working if I always pass fully-qualified class names inside my block, but I'm trying to effectively "re-scope" the block when it is invoked. Is this possible? I'm pretty sure RSpec and other such tools that make heavy use of blocks achieve something like this :)
Note that while I'm calling class methods from inside the block, I only want the changes to affect this individual singleton class, rather than propogate to all instances.
EDIT | Ok, here's the non-pseudo version of what I'm trying to achieve. I'm trying to add some DataMapper properties at runtime, but only to singleton classes... I don't want them to suddenly appear across all instances of the model.
class Post
include DataMapper::Resource
property :id, Serial
property :title, String
property :created_at, DateTime
... etc ...
def virtualize(&block)
singleton_class.instance_eval(&block)
self
end
end
def suspend_post
#post = Post.get!(1).virtualize do
property :delete_comments, Boolean
end
end
I know there are other ways to do virtual attributes (I'm currently using a couple of different approaches, depending on the complexity), but I'm just experimenting with a few ideas to avoid cluttering my model definitions with transient methods that are only used for transporting form data in one specific part of the site and don't mean anything when you're reading the source code of the model by itself. One or two virtual attributes are ok, but as they start to mount up on commonly used models I start to explore things like this ;)
In the above, the resource would have all of the standard properties defined in the concrete class, plus any that are added in the #virtualize method. It's the reference to Boolean without the DataMapper::Property:: prefix that's throwing it off.
You've already got what you want with respect to methods. If you define some_class_method like this:
def Foo.some_class_method(name)
define_method name do
puts("this is the method #{name}")
end
end
and do
f = Foo.new
f.build { some_class_method "new_method" }
f.singleton_methods # => [:new_method]
You've defined behavior on just that one instance.
However I don't think you can get what you're looking for with respect to constants. One option would be to use methods instead of constants for those arguments. Another would be to have the client code mix in whatever module defines the constants.
Do keep in mind this is pretty dense metaprogramming, so the complexity may not be justified.
What's wrong with this:
class SomeClass
SOME_CONSTANT = 42
class << self
def some_class_method
'foo'
end
end
def build &block
self.class.instance_eval(&block)
end
end
SomeClass.new.build do
puts "#{some_class_method} #{SOME_CONSTANT}"
end
#=>foo 42
Foo = Class.new
Foo.instance_eval do
def instance_bar
"instance_bar"
end
end
puts Foo.instance_bar #=> "instance_bar"
puts Foo.new.instance_bar #=> undefined method ‘instance_bar’
My understanding is that calling instance_eval on an object is supposed to allow you to define an instance variable or method for that object.
But in the example above, when you call it on class Foo to define the instance_bar method, instance_bar becomes a class method that can be invoked with "Foo.instance_bar". It is clear that this code has not created an instance method because Foo.new.instance_bar results in "undefined method ‘instance_bar’".
Why does instance_eval define a class method rather than an instance method in this context?
x.instance_eval changes your context so self evaluates to x.
This allows you to do many things, including defining instance variables and instance methods but only for x.
x = Object.new
y = Object.new
# define instance variables for x and y
x.instance_eval { #var = 1 }
y.instance_eval { #var = 2 }
# define an instance method for all Objects
class Object
def var
#var
end
end
x.var #=> 1
y.var #=> 2
Ruby lets you define instance methods for an object in a couple places. Normally,
one defines them in a class, and those instance methods are shared among all instances
of that class (like def var above).
However, we can also define an instance method for just a single object:
# here's one way to do it
def x.foo
"foo!"
end
# here's another
x.instance_eval do
# remember, in here self is x, so bar is attached to x.
def bar
"bar!"
end
end
Even though x and y have the same class, they don't share these methods, since they were only defined for x.
x.foo #=> "foo!"
x.bar #=> "bar!"
y.foo #=> raises NoMethodError
y.bar #=> raises NoMethodError
Now in ruby, everything's an object, even classes. Class methods are just instance methods
for that class object.
# we have two ways of creating a class:
class A
end
# the former is just syntatic sugar for the latter
B = Class.new
# we have do ways of defining class methods:
# the first two are the same as for any other object
def A.baz
"baz!"
end
A.instance_eval do
def frog
"frog!"
end
end
# the others are in the class context, which is slightly different
class A
def self.marco
"polo!"
end
# since A == self in here, this is the same as the last one.
def A.red_light
"green light!"
end
# unlike instance_eval, class context is special in that methods that
# aren't attached to a specific object are taken as instance methods for instances
# of the class
def example
"I'm an instance of A, not A itself"
end
end
# class_eval opens up the class context in the same way
A.class_eval do
def self.telegram
"not a land shark"
end
end
Note again, that all these methods are A-specific, B doesn't get access to any of them:
A.baz #=> "baz!"
B.telegram #=> raises NoMethodError
The important thing to take away from here is that
class methods are just instance methods of an object of class Class
The purpose of 'instance_eval' is to extend objects, but the purpose of 'class_eval' is to extend classes. And because classes are also objects, you can apply instance_eval on classes.
I guess that extending of classes is just more understandable in classic OOP. Dynamic languages allow us to easily specify behaviour of particular objects. Fact that each object can have own behaviour adds a lot of flexibility designing an application. Not only data can vary for objects of the same class. Two humans differ not only because they were born in different years, not only because they have different parents but they can think different and thus behave different.
Ability to change the behaviour of each object is fundamental. It exists in many languages.
Thinking about instance_eval think about objects first. Then you'll realize that classes are also objects - objects which additional purpose to create new objects, to hold description of common behaviour (methods). You can not only use definition of a class, but can also assign class to a variable, pass class as an argument, call method on a class, program a class!
I would recommend articles written by Yehuda Katz and Yugui to dive deeper into it:
http://yehudakatz.com/2009/11/15/metaprogramming-in-ruby-its-all-about-the-self/
http://yugui.jp/articles/846