Issue #4085 has been updated by matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto).
Since there still remain undefined corner case behavior in refinements,
and the time is running out, I decided not to introduce full refinement
for Ruby 2.0. The limited Ruby 2.0 refinement spec will be:
* refinements are file scope
* only top-level "using" is available
* no module scope refinement
* no refinement inheritance
* module_eval do not introduce refinement (even for string args)
In addition, Module#include should add refinements to included modules,
e.g.
module R1
refine String do
def bar
p :bar
end
end
end
module R2
include R1
refine String do
def foo
p :foo
end
end
end
using R2
"".foo
"".bar
module R1
refine String do
def bar; p :bar end
end
end
module R2
include R1
refine String do
def foo; p :foo end
end
end
using R2
"".foo
"".bar # does not work now
You can treat top-level "using" as soft-keyword, as long as it does not
change the behavior (but performance).
Matz.
----------------------------------------
Feature #4085: Refinements and nested methods
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/4085#change-34117
Author: shugo (Shugo Maeda)
Status: Assigned
Priority: Normal
Assignee: matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
Category: core
Target version: 2.0.0
=begin
As I said at RubyConf 2010, I'd like to propose a new features called
"Refinements."
Refinements are similar to Classboxes. However, Refinements doesn't
support local rebinding as mentioned later. In this sense,
Refinements might be more similar to selector namespaces, but I'm not
sure because I have never seen any implementation of selector
namespaces.
In Refinements, a Ruby module is used as a namespace (or classbox) for
class extensions. Such class extensions are called refinements. For
example, the following module refines Fixnum.
module MathN
refine Fixnum do
def /(other) quo(other) end
end
end
Module#refine(klass) takes one argument, which is a class to be
extended. Module#refine also takes a block, where additional or
overriding methods of klass can be defined. In this example, MathN
refines Fixnum so that 1 / 2 returns a rational number (1/2) instead
of an integer 0.
This refinement can be enabled by the method using.
class Foo
using MathN
def foo
p 1 / 2
end
end
f = Foo.new
f.foo #=> (1/2)
p 1 / 2
In this example, the refinement in MathN is enabled in the definition
of Foo. The effective scope of the refinement is the innermost class,
module, or method where using is called; however the refinement is not
enabled before the call of using. If there is no such class, module,
or method, then the effective scope is the file where using is called.
Note that refinements are pseudo-lexically scoped. For example,
foo.baz prints not "FooExt#bar" but "Foo#bar" in the following code:
class Foo
def bar
puts "Foo#bar"
end
def baz
bar
end
end
module FooExt
refine Foo do
def bar
puts "FooExt#bar"
end
end
end
module Quux
using FooExt
foo = Foo.new
foo.bar # => FooExt#bar
foo.baz # => Foo#bar
end
Refinements are also enabled in reopened definitions of classes using
refinements and definitions of their subclasses, so they are
*pseudo*-lexically scoped.
class Foo
using MathN
end
class Foo
# MathN is enabled in a reopened definition.
p 1 / 2 #=> (1/2)
end
class Bar < Foo
# MathN is enabled in a subclass definition.
p 1 / 2 #=> (1/2)
end
If a module or class is using refinements, they are enabled in
module_eval, class_eval, and instance_eval if the receiver is the
class or module, or an instance of the class.
module A
using MathN
end
class B
using MathN
end
MathN.module_eval do
p 1 / 2 #=> (1/2)
end
A.module_eval do
p 1 / 2 #=> (1/2)
end
B.class_eval do
p 1 / 2 #=> (1/2)
end
B.new.instance_eval do
p 1 / 2 #=> (1/2)
end
Besides refinements, I'd like to propose new behavior of nested
methods.
Currently, the scope of a nested method is not closed in the outer
method.
def foo
def bar
puts "bar"
end
bar
end
foo #=> bar
bar #=> bar
In Ruby, there are no functions, but only methods. So there are no
right places where nested methods are defined. However, if
refinements are introduced, a refinement enabled only in the outer
method would be the right place. For example, the above code is
almost equivalent to the following code:
def foo
klass = self.class
m = Module.new {
refine klass do
def bar
puts "bar"
end
end
}
using m
bar
end
foo #=> bar
bar #=> NoMethodError
The attached patch is based on SVN trunk r29837.
=end
on 2012-11-29 05:57
on 2012-11-30 19:59
> Since there still remain undefined corner case behavior in refinements, and the time is running out, I decided not to introduce full refinement for Ruby 2.0. The limited Ruby 2.0 refinement spec will be: > > * refinements are file scope > * only top-level "using" is available > * no module scope refinement > * no refinement inheritance > * module_eval do not introduce refinement (even for string args) While this removes a number of potential causes of problems we're now stuck with a feature-set that can not cover many of the originally discussed use-cases. And to support the restricted feature set we already have disagreements where refinements should be injected in the method hierarchy. What is labled as a "design decision" aren't even edge cases anymore. They're essential behavior of a new feature decided without much discussion or analysis in the context of potential uses. For DSLs we already have BasicObject + method_missing + instance_eval, so only ruby literals may need some sugar added to make the DSL really fluent. But if you already have all the instance_eval magic going then you don't really want to require people to pepper their code with "using" just so they can use your magical DSL. For patching broken/incompatible code Module.prepend is much better anyway since the breakage may occur in 3rd party code where you can't use "using" anyway. So with what does this leave us? String.camelize and 2.days.ago? Those are supposed to be convenience methods. If your files end up with a header of using "EnumeratorExtensions", "ActiveSupport::ClassNameConversions", "MyApplication::DateHelpers", "SomeGem::HashExtensions", "MyApplication::ActiveRecordExtensions", ....... That's not convenient at all anymore. Personally I wouldn't want to use refinements as they are now. I would love to have a powerful tool like pointcuts or Module.prepend in my toolbox. Refinements wouldn't really qualify. I'm getting the impression that refinements are getting rushed despite being supposed to bring a completely new axis to the language along which we can compose our applications. This shouldn't be happening in a mature language. The whole way this is going right now feels wrong to me. So I'm asking for two things: a) please consider removing refinements from ruby 2.0. b) rethink how such big features should be designed in the future.
Please log in before posting. Registration is free and takes only a minute.
Existing account
(Switch to SSL-encrypted connection)
NEW: Do you have a Google/GoogleMail or Yahoo account? No registration required!
Log in with Google account | Log in with Yahoo account
Log in with Google account | Log in with Yahoo account
No account? Register here.