Forum: Ruby self.inherited but wait until subclass is fully defined?

Announcement (2017-05-07): www.ruby-forum.com is now read-only since I unfortunately do not have the time to support and maintain the forum any more. Please see rubyonrails.org/community and ruby-lang.org/en/community for other Rails- und Ruby-related community platforms.
Fbb4d027695dfdf76bf448b15d7e306a?d=identicon&s=25 matt neuburg (Guest)
on 2009-03-20 17:26
(Received via mailing list)
Howdy. I am a class. There are certain rules for what you are supposed
to do when you subclass me, so as a sanity check I wish to introspect
your subclass to make sure it's obeying the contract.

However, my problem is that self.inherited is called too early.

class C # this is me
 def self.inherited(p)
  #whatever
  super
 end
end

class B < C # this is you
# C's self.inherited is called right here
 def yourFirstMethod
  # etc.
 end
end

So I can't, in my self.inherited, ask about what methods you have
defined, because you haven't defined them yet. This must have come up
before; is there an easy solution? Thx - m.
E0d864d9677f3c1482a20152b7cac0e2?d=identicon&s=25 Robert Klemme (Guest)
on 2009-03-20 17:40
(Received via mailing list)
On 20.03.2009 17:22, matt neuburg wrote:
>  end
> defined, because you haven't defined them yet. This must have come up
> before; is there an easy solution? Thx - m.

Even after the class definition methods can be added.  You could catch
that with method_added but if you require a minimum set of methods to be
defined before class is used (e.g. instantiated) this will be difficult
to track.  One option would be to define method initialize in your class
and do the check there.  But this is still fragile because it might not
be guaranteed that sub classes invoke it from their initialize...

Another option would be to override the sub class's method "new" so you
can do the check there.  This might be a bit more robust but even "new"
can be overridden by subclasses (although it isn't generally).

I'd probably just omit the check.  If any of your superclass methods
invokes a method that is not defined you'll see this at runtime anyway.

Kind regards

  robert
5a837592409354297424994e8d62f722?d=identicon&s=25 Ryan Davis (Guest)
on 2009-03-20 19:38
(Received via mailing list)
On Mar 20, 2009, at 09:37 , Robert Klemme wrote:

>> end
>
> even "new" can be overridden by subclasses (although it isn't
> generally).
>
> I'd probably just omit the check.  If any of your superclass methods
> invokes a method that is not defined you'll see this at runtime
> anyway.

I agree with this in general for Matt's particular problem. The
smalltalk pattern of defining all contracted methods and having them
raise SubclassResponsibility is a good one to use in this situation.

BUT... There have been many times where I've wanted a "class closed"
hook to go along with inherited (essentially a "class opened" hook).
Having both makes it very easy for me to do lots of things with my
language tools. I can instrument added methods quite easily with that
mechanism. It'd be nice to have this extra hook.
53581739a445ad78250a676dabddf55f?d=identicon&s=25 James Coglan (Guest)
on 2009-03-20 19:55
(Received via mailing list)
2009/3/20 Ryan Davis <ryand-ruby@zenspider.com>

>>> def self.inherited(p)
>>> So I can't, in my self.inherited, ask about what methods you have
>>
> SubclassResponsibility is a good one to use in this situation.
So, maybe a little helper:

class Module
  def abstract_methods(*names)
    names.each do |name|
      define_method(name) { raise SubclassResponsibility }
    end
  end
end

For example

class MyClass
  abstract_methods :foo, :bar
end

class Whizz < MyClass
  def foo; "foo!"; end
end

w = Whizz.new
w.foo #=> "foo!"
w.bar #=> error: SubclassResponsibility
Fbb4d027695dfdf76bf448b15d7e306a?d=identicon&s=25 matt neuburg (Guest)
on 2009-03-20 20:23
(Received via mailing list)
Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> wrote:

> Another option would be to override the sub class's method "new" so you
> can do the check there.  This might be a bit more robust but even "new"
> can be overridden by subclasses (although it isn't generally).

That's a good idea, I'll look into it - thanks! m.
856a8958ce6a5d0ca3bc21a2f537d1f0?d=identicon&s=25 Dan Wineman (dwineman)
on 2009-08-26 09:27
matt neuburg wrote:
> Howdy. I am a class. There are certain rules for what you are supposed
> to do when you subclass me, so as a sanity check I wish to introspect
> your subclass to make sure it's obeying the contract.

Is this even a good idea?

What if I wanted to create an abstract subclass that doesn't obey the
contract -- which is OK because it won't be instantiated -- but whose
own subclasses do?
703fbc991fd63e0e1db54dca9ea31b53?d=identicon&s=25 Robert Dober (Guest)
on 2009-08-26 18:14
(Received via mailing list)
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 8:35 PM, Ryan Davis<ryand-ruby@zenspider.com>
wrote:
>
> BUT... There have been many times where I've wanted a "class closed" hook to
> go along with inherited (essentially a "class opened" hook). Having both
> makes it very easy for me to do lots of things with my language tools. I can
> instrument added methods quite easily with that mechanism. It'd be nice to
> have this extra hook.
I am not sure I understand. Do you mean "class frozen hook"? I do not
really know when a "class closed" hook should be triggered.

Robert
This topic is locked and can not be replied to.