On Saturday 20 March 2010 11:31:19 am Lars G. wrote:
The other one, of which I have not thought that much
yet, is that you can’t be 100% sure that #const_missing gets hit.
That was mostly my point, and the examples I used are cases where
const_missing isn’t hit.
What
if a class/module that uses #autoload defines its own #const_missing?
If they don’t do a proper alias_method_chain on it, that’s their own
problem.
Put another way: You’re allowed to redefine Fixnum#+, or NilClass#nil?,
or any
number of other things. If you abuse this ability, you get to keep both
pieces. Even the authors of irb don’t plan for every contingency:
irb(main):001:0> class NilClass
irb(main):002:1> def nil?
irb(main):003:2> false
irb(main):004:2> end
irb(main):005:1> end
=>
irb(main):006:0> true
/usr/lib/ruby/1.9.1/irb/slex.rb:234:in match_io': undefined methodcall’ for
nil:NilClass (NoMethodError)
from /usr/lib/ruby/1.9.1/irb/slex.rb:75:in match' from /usr/lib/ruby/1.9.1/irb/ruby-lex.rb:287:intoken’
from /usr/lib/ruby/1.9.1/irb/ruby-lex.rb:263:in lex' from /usr/lib/ruby/1.9.1/irb/ruby-lex.rb:234:inblock (2
levels) in
each_top_level_statement’
from /usr/lib/ruby/1.9.1/irb/ruby-lex.rb:230:in loop' from /usr/lib/ruby/1.9.1/irb/ruby-lex.rb:230:inblock in
each_top_level_statement’
from /usr/lib/ruby/1.9.1/irb/ruby-lex.rb:229:in catch' from /usr/lib/ruby/1.9.1/irb/ruby-lex.rb:229:ineach_top_level_statement’
from /usr/lib/ruby/1.9.1/irb.rb:145:in eval_input' from /usr/lib/ruby/1.9.1/irb.rb:69:inblock in start’
from /usr/lib/ruby/1.9.1/irb.rb:68:in catch' from /usr/lib/ruby/1.9.1/irb.rb:68:instart’
from /home/ruby19/bin/irb:12:in `’
Btw, what’s this second braindead decision? I would be very interested
in it 
The behavior of UnboundMethod – you can only bind an UnboundMethod to
an
object of an appropriate class. So, for example:
class Foo
def bar
:whatever
end
end
umeth = Foo.instance_method(:bar)
What do you do with an UnboundMethod? Well, this is roughly how things
like
BlankSlate can hide/unhide methods – it removes all methods from an
object
and stuffs them into a hash, but you can have it re-apply those methods
again,
kind of like this:
bmeth = umeth.bind(Foo.new)
Once it’s bound, you can call it:
bmeth.call
Or shortcut the process:
umeth.bind(Foo.new).call
Here’s the problem: In my mind, one of the cooler things about being
able to
unbind methods like this is to allow the kind of free-for-all that you
have in
JavaScript, where you can pull methods out of one object, leave them
around in
the closure to reapply to the same object, or apply them directly to a
different object… Yes, you could do prototypal inheritance, but you
could
also do ad-hoc code reuse.
As an example, in Ruby, Object#extend and Module#include either are or
depend
on very low-level constructs that aren’t really accessible to you. In
JavaScript, there is no Object.extend, but you can easily write it
yourself,
using the fact that methods are just functions that you apply to (or
attach
to) a given object, and functions are themselves first-class objects.
In Ruby, this isn’t quite the case. Try something like this instead:
umeth.bind(Object.new).call
You get a TypeError. That’s very Java-like behavior. That’s
anal-retentively-
strict type-checking sneaking into an otherwise beautiful, dynamic,
duck-typed
language. It’s the polar opposite of duck-typing.
There may be performance reasons to do it this way, I’m not sure. (A
counterargument: How is Ruby doing versus Google’s v8 interpreter for
JavaScript?) When I’ve brought it up before, people essentially argued
that
it’s never sane to do that, so I shouldn’t be able to. Erm, I can
redefine
Fixnum#+, you’ve got open classes, define_method, and eval, and you
won’t let
me re-bind an existing method? Sorry, not buying it – I thought the
whole
point is that it’s up to the programmer to decide what’s sane, and if
you do
something insane, you get to keep both pieces.
I thought it was only languages like Java that try to keep you from
shooting
yourself in the foot by limiting your possibilities.
But I digress – I did find an ugly workaround for the project I needed
that
on, and that project has stagnated for awhile anyway. Still, it’s one of
very
few things that still bother me about Ruby.
(Another is that I really like Python’s significant indentation, and
much
prefer it to Ruby’s end-end-end-end. However, that’s a dead horse, and
there
seem to be entirely too many Ruby people who don’t want to see that even
become an option, and there’s too many other things I like about Ruby
for that
one feature to send me back to Python.)
