class Test
class << self
attr_accessor :some
def set_some
puts self.inspect
some = 'some_data'
end
def get_some
puts self.inspect
some
end
end
end
Test.set_some => Test
puts Test.get_some.inspect => Test nil
Here above I could find self as Test itself but not returning the some_data as output.
But while I modified in following way it returns expected output
class Test
class << self
attr_accessor :some
def set_some
puts self.inspect
self.some = 'some_data'
end
def get_some
puts self.inspect
self.some
end
end
end
Test.set_some => Test
puts Test.get_some.inspect => Test some_data
What is the differences?
EDIT
Now in the first example if I set as get some method as
Test.some = 'new_data'
puts Test.some.inspect #=> new_data
Test.set_some
puts Test.get_some.inspect => new_data
Now it made me much more confused.
some = :foo makes ruby think it should create a new local variable with name some. If you want to call some=(), you have to use an explicit reciever - as in self.some = :foo. I once lost a bet on that... :-/
It's (local) variable in the first example
In the first example some is a local variable.
In the second one, some is a method of self. Why? Because attr_accessor :some is the same as:
def some= (val)
#some = val
end
def some
return #some
end
So, you have created the getter and setter methods for the instance variable #some (it's an instance variable of the object Test, as every class is also an object of class Class).
in the first method
def set_some
puts self.inspect
some = 'some_data'
end
some is a local variable.. its not the same as #some that is a instance variable (in this case a class instance variable) so the value disappears when the method ends.
if you want to call the setter method some or set #some to something then do this
#some = 'some_data'
or
self.some = 'some_data'
in the second method
def get_some
puts self.inspect
self.some
end
your calling the method some. which returns the instace variable #some.. and since at this point #some has no value.. returns nil..
Example 1 with no method override and no local variable
class Foo
def initialize
#foo = 'foo'
end
def print_foo
print #foo
print self.foo
print foo
end
end
#foo, self.foo, and foo will access instance variable #foo within the instance method:
Foo.new.print_foo #=> foofoofoo
Example 2 with method override
class Foo
def initialize
#foo = 'foo'
end
def foo
return 'bar'
end
def print_foo
print #foo
print self.foo
print foo
end
end
#foo will access the instance variable, but self.foo and foo will call the foo override method:
Foo.new.print_foo #=> foobarbar
Example 3 with method override and local variable
class Foo
def initialize
#foo = 'foo'
end
def foo
return 'bar'
end
def print_foo
foo = 'baz'
print #foo
print self.foo
print foo
end
end
#foo accesses instance variable, self.foo accesses override method, and foo accesses local variable:
Foo.new.print_foo #=> foobarbaz
Related
could you please explain me why the class variable cannot be accessed by attribute_accessors?
As i am trying here to have the list of all methods of all subclasses in one array it works a little different. It created array #method_names in every subclass with specific methods for every class ... so i do need to do a loop through subclasses.
What kind of variable/attribute is #method_names?
Thanks!
module First
class First_class
class << self
def info
puts "First_class method info."
puts #subclasses
puts #method_names
end
def inherited(subclass)
puts "#{subclass} located ..."
subclasses << subclass
end
def subclasses
#subclasses ||= []
end
def method_added(method_name)
puts "Method located #{method_name} ..."
method_names << method_name
end
def method_names
#method_names ||= []
end
end
def initialize
puts "Instance of First_class is created."
end
def first_method
end
end
class Second_class < First_class
def self.info
puts "Second_class method info."
puts #subclasses
puts #method_names
end
def second_method
end
def initialize
puts "Instance of Second_class is created."
end
end
class Third_class < First_class
def third_method
end
def initialize
puts "Instance of Third_class is created."
end
end
end
First::First_class.subclasses.each {
|subclass| puts subclass
subclass.method_names.each {
|methodn| puts methodn
}
}
#################UPDATE#########
Ok, maybe I put the question incorrectly.
Basically what is the difference for ##method_names(class variable) and #method_names (instance variable) if i do not create the instance of object? After inserting more inputs into #method_names it still inserts into the same object_id. So what is benefit of ##method_names?
updated to answer updated question.
Classes in ruby can have class variables. However if you modify the class level variable, ALL instances will be modified. This is not recommended but will illustrate the point. But also see this answer
class Foo
##bar = 'bar'
attr_accessor :bar
def initialize
#bar = 'bar'
end
def class_bar
##bar
end
def change_class_bar string
raise ArgumentError unless string.is_a?(String)
##bar = string
end
end
a = Foo.new
b = Foo.new
# change the class variable ##bar
b.change_class_bar 'wtf?'
# see both instances are changed because objects are passed by referrence
print 'a.class_bar is: '
puts a.class_bar
print 'b.class_bar is: '
puts b.class_bar
# change one instance only
a.bar = 'only a has changed'
print 'a.bar is: '
puts a.bar
print 'b.bar is still: '
puts b.bar
run this and you should get output:
a.class_bar is: wtf?
b.class_bar is: wtf?
a.bar is: only a has changed
b.bar is still: bar
original answer left here
#method_names is an instance variable of an instance of the class from which it was instantiated. However it cannot be accessed for read/write unless those attributes are defined with getter or setter methods defined.
ff = First::First_class.new
Instance of First_class is created.
=> #<First::First_class:0x00007fde5a6867b8>
ff.method_names
NoMethodError: undefined method `method_names' for #<First::First_class:0x00007fde5a6867b8>
Did you mean? methods
Now if you call ff.methods you will see all methods defined through standard Ruby inheritance.
As a side note, class names in Ruby conventionally use PascalCase see PascalCase. Mixed_case is discouraged.
I'm trying to call a method of an object foo as if it was an method of object bar. I tried two approaches:
1. unbind and bind - fails because of different classes
class Foo
def initialize
#name = "John"
end
end
class Bar
def out
puts #name
end
end
foo = Foo.new
bar = Bar.new
m = bar.method :out
foo.instance_eval m.unbind.bind(foo)
2. instance_eval on proc made from method
This fails on the fact that instance_eval passes a reciever as an additional argument instead of the real reciever (afaik)
class Foo
def initialize
#name = "John"
end
end
class Bar
def out
puts #name
end
end
foo = Foo.new
bar = Bar.new
m = bar.method :out
proc = m.to_proc
foo.instance_eval &proc
It says: in `out': wrong number of arguments (1 for 0) (ArgumentError) in the stacktrace.
However when I use this instead of the last line it works fine:
foo.instance_eval {
puts #name
}
The problem is that #instance_eval sends to the block a parameter that is the object it self. So you can do it:
# ...
class Bar
def out(foo_object)
[#name, foo_object, self]
end
end
# ...
m = bar.method :out
foo.instance_eval &m # => ["John", #<Foo:0x1c11b10>, #<Bar:0x1bb2470>]
The argument is place where the method is called and self is from here the method is. I don't know how to call the method without parsing this extra argument.
If creating a class variable is often dangerous and unpredictable why do we need them?
If solution is just to use class instance variable with the class level accessors:
class Foo
#variable = :something
def self.getvariable
#variable
end
def self.setvariable(value)
#variable = value
end
end
Then why do we need class variables???
Class variables have their use on occasion, but I agree that using the eigenclass is frequently more useful:
class Foo
#bar = 'bar'
class << self
attr_accessor :bar
end
end
puts Foo.bar # bar
puts Foo.bar = 'baz' # baz
The above is safe with inheritance, because it sets a variable in the Foo constant, rather than a class variable.
Foo.new.instance_eval { puts ##bar } # error
This has several causes:
It's syntactic sugar. You can always get a class variable (whether you are in class or instance scope) using ##var. This won't work for instance variables of the class.
Class variables persist for the singleton classes of the instances of this class. Example:
class Test
#instance_var = 0
##class_var = 0
def self.instance_var
#instance_var
end
def self.class_var
##class_var
end
end
Test.instance_var #=> 0
Test.class_var #=> 0
Test.new.singleton_class.instance_var #=> nil
Test.new.singleton_class.class_var #=> 0
Here is an example (think ActiveRecord):
class Base
def connect(connection)
##connection = connection
end
def connection
##connection
end
end
class User < Base
end
class SuperUser < User
end
Base.new.connect("A connection")
puts User.new.connection #=> A connection
puts SuperUser.new.connection #=> A connection
The trick here is that class variable is accessible from an instance method and is inherited. Try this:
class Base
def self.connect(connection)
#connection = connection
end
def self.connection
#connection
end
def connection
self.class.connection
end
end
class User < Base
end
Base.connect("A connection")
puts User.new.connection #=> nil
You will get nil as self.connection tries to access it's own class instance variable (from User class), and it is not inherited.
Added: And yes, it can be dangerous if you misuse it:
##a = "A"
class A
def self.a
##a
end
def a
##a
end
end
puts A.a #=> A
puts A.new.a #=> A
Is there any difference if you define Foo with instance_eval: . . .
class Foo
def initialize(&block)
instance_eval(&block) if block_given?
end
end
. . . or with 'yield self':
class Foo
def initialize
yield self if block_given?
end
end
In either case you can do this:
x = Foo.new { def foo; 'foo'; end }
x.foo
So 'yield self' means that the block after Foo.new is always evaluated in the context of the Foo class.
Is this correct?
Your two pieces of code do very different things. By using instance_eval you're evaluating the block in the context of your object. This means that using def will define methods on that object. It also means that calling a method without a receiver inside the block will call it on your object.
When yielding self you're passing self as an argument to the block, but since your block doesn't take any arguments, it is simply ignored. So in this case yielding self does the same thing as yielding nothing. The def here behaves exactly like a def outside the block would, yielding self does not actually change what you define the method on. What you could do is:
class Foo
def initialize
yield self if block_given?
end
end
x = Foo.new {|obj| def obj.foo() 'foo' end}
x.foo
The difference to instance_eval being that you have to specify the receiver explicitly.
Edit to clarify:
In the version with yield, obj in the block will be the object that is yielded, which in this case is is the newly created Foo instance. While self will have the same value it had outside the block. With the instance_eval version self inside the block will be the newly created Foo instance.
They are different. yield(self) does not change the value of self inside the block, while instance_eval(&block) does.
class Foo
def with_yield
yield(self)
end
def with_instance_eval(&block)
instance_eval(&block)
end
end
f = Foo.new
f.with_yield do |arg|
p self
# => main
p arg
# => #<Foo:0x100124b10>
end
f.with_instance_eval do |arg|
p self
# => #<Foo:0x100124b10>
p arg
# => #<Foo:0x100124b10>
end
You just can drop the self keyword
class Foo
def initialize
yield if block_given?
end
end
Update from comments
Using yield there is a bit new to my taste, specially when used outside irb.
However there is a big and significant difference between instance_eval approach and yield approach, check this snippet:
class Foo
def initialize(&block)
instance_eval(&block) if block_given?
end
end
x = Foo.new { def foo; 'foo'; end }
#=> #<Foo:0xb800f6a0>
x.foo #=> "foo"
z = Foo.new #=> #<Foo:0xb800806c>
z.foo #=>NoMethodError: undefined method `foo' for #<Foo:0xb800806c>
Check this one as well:
class Foo2
def initialize
yield if block_given?
end
end
x = Foo2.new { def foo; 'foo'; end } #=> #<Foo:0xb7ff1bb4>
x.foo #=> private method `foo' called for #<Foo2:0xb8004930> (NoMethodError)
x.send :foo => "foo"
z = Foo.new #=> #<Foo:0xb800806c>
z.send :foo => "foo"
As you can see the difference is that the former one is adding a singleton method foo to the object being initialized, while the later is adding a private method to all instances of Object class.
I'm trying to make a method similar to attr_reader but I can't seem to get the instance of the class that the method gets called in.
class Module
def modifiable_reader(*symbols)
# Right here is where it returns Klass instead of #<Klass:0x1df25e0 #readable="this">
mod = self
variables = symbols.collect { |sym| ("#" << sym.to_s).to_sym }
attr_reader *symbols
(class << ModifyMethods; self; end).instance_eval do
define_method(*symbols) do
mod.instance_variable_get(*variables)
end
end
end
end
class Object
module ModifyMethods; end
def modify(&block)
ModifyMethods.instance_eval(&block)
end
end
class Klass
modifiable_reader :readable
def initialize
#readable = "this"
end
end
my_klass = Klass.new
my_klass.modify do
puts "Readable: " << readable.to_s
end
I'm not sure what it is you're trying to do.
If it helps, the spell for attr_reader is something like this:
#!/usr/bin/ruby1.8
module Kernel
def my_attr_reader(symbol)
eval <<-EOS
def #{symbol}
##{symbol}
end
EOS
end
end
class Foo
my_attr_reader :foo
def initialize
#foo = 'foo'
end
end
p Foo.new.foo # => "foo"
What I can understand from your code is that you want to have the modify block to respond to the instance methods of Klass, that's as simple as:
class Klass
attr_reader :modifiable
alias_method :modify, :instance_eval
def initialize(m)
#modifiable = m
end
end
Klass.new('john').modify do
puts 'Readable %s' % modifiable
end
About this tidbit of code:
def modifiable_reader(*symbols)
# Right here is where it returns Klass instead of #<Klass:0x1df25e0 #readable="this">
mod = self
...
Probably this can give you a hint of what is going on:
Class.superclass # => Module
Klass.instance_of?(Class) # => true
Klass = Class.new do
def hello
'hello'
end
end
Klass.new.hello # => 'hello'
When you are adding methods to the Module class, you are also adding methods to the Class class, which will add an instance method to instances of Class (in this case your class Klass), at the end this means you are adding class methods on your Klass class