Forum: Ruby-core Refinements and nested methods

6c5fe81058fc5a5cd795ec577ed27945?d=identicon&s=25 Sony S. (sony_s)
on 2012-12-15 15:56
(Received via mailing list)
Issue #4085 has been updated by sonysantos (Sony Santos).


Sorry, I'm arriving late (and I didn't read all discussion yet), but
I've heard the ruby core team is looking for feedback on refinements,
and I feel I must give my 2 cents.

What if refinements were truly, strictly lexically scoped? Nothing more
than that? No affected subclasses, no module_eval issues, etc.

I think:

- it's enough for isolating conflicting libraries with core extensions
(the target for refinements), and
- it breaks down all complexity of refinements, both for implementing as
for programming, reading code etc.

I'm not a great or experienced Ruby programmer, but I made an emulation
of how it would look:

http://rubychallenger.blogspot.com.br/2012/12/refi...

It's basic usage is:

module Camelize
  refine String do
    def camelize
      dup.gsub(/_([a-z])/) { $1.upcase }
    end
  end
end

class Foo
  Camelize.enable            # it could be "using Camelize", but I found
it harder to implement by now

  def camelize_string(str)
    str.camelize
  end

  Camelize.disable
end

f = Foo.new
puts f.camelize_string('abc_def_ghi')   #=> abcDefGhi
# it works because str.camelize is called from an enabled range for
Camelize in this file.

class Bar < Foo
  def camelize_and_join1(str_ary)
    str_ary.map {|str| camelize_string(str) }.join(',')  #=> ok, same
reason above
  end

  def camelize_and_join2(str_ary)
    str_ary.map {|str| str.camelize}.join(',')   #=> NoMethodError,
unless I was "using Camelize" in Bar
  end

  # I don't see why I would want the Foo's "using Camelize" be valid
here. I don't need that!
  # If I need, I just add "using Camelize" again! Explicitly! Lexically!
No more surprises in subclasses! KIS
end

sa = %w(abc_abc def_def ghi_ghi)

b = Bar.new
puts b.camelize_and_join1(sa)    #=> abcAbc,defDef,ghiGhi
puts b.camelize_and_join2(sa)    #=> NoMethodError
# Since the call to String#camelize isn't in a enabled range for
Camelize in this file.

So here is my suggestion: truly lexically scoped "using module". Simple
as that. I guess we don't need more than that.

----------------------------------------
Feature #4085: Refinements and nested methods
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/4085#change-34767

Author: shugo (Shugo Maeda)
Status: Assigned
Priority: Normal
Assignee: shugo (Shugo Maeda)
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
This topic is locked and can not be replied to.