Eval needs explicit self for accessor methods?

[tfdj]

hi all!

i encountered a strange problem with eval. please see the following
test case:


require 'test/unit'

class TestContext

def eval_in_context( ruby_code )
instance_eval ruby_code
end

def toast
@toast
end

def toast=( val )
@toast = val
end

end



class TestMetaEval < Test::Unit::TestCase

def test_toast
tc = TestContext.new
tc.toast = 'yes'

assert_equal 'yes', tc.toast
assert_equal 'yes', tc.eval_in_context( "toast" )

# These two lines - using explicit self - work as expected:
assert_equal 'maybe', tc.eval_in_context( "self.toast = 'maybe'" )
assert_equal 'maybe', tc.toast

# What is happening here:
assert_equal 'no', tc.eval_in_context( "toast = 'no'" )

# Why does the next test fail?
# What did the previous line set? A local variable?

# tc.toast returns 'maybe' here instead of the expected 'no':
assert_equal 'no', tc.toast
end

end


why is the 'toast=(val)' method not visible in eval unless i
explicitly use "self.toast = ..."?

what is it i don't understand about ruby scoping? :/

any help really appreciated!

cheers,

daniel

 

[Trans]

It really has nothing to do with eval, your just setting a local
variable.

An unfortuate side effect of the setter notation is that it conflicts
with local var setting. Local var setting wins out, so you have to use
self as the reciever in order to tell ruby you mean the setter method.

T.

 

[tfdj]

Of course! Thank you! Sorry for the dumb question. Makes perfect sense
now..

dl

 

[Mike Austin]

It really has nothing to do with eval, your just setting a local
variable.

An unfortuate side effect of the setter notation is that it conflicts
with local var setting. Local var setting wins out, so you have to use
self as the reciever in order to tell ruby you mean the setter method.

T.

Since you bring this up, there are a few more cases where implicit locals
declaration causes unexpected behavior (if new to ruby that is):

x = 10
(1..10).each { |i| x = x + i } # x == 65
x = 10
(1..10).each { |i| x = i } # x == 10

So if you're assigning x to itself in some way, it recognizes x in the
enclosing scope, else it creates a new local. That's kind of a confusing rule.
Also, what if I wanted the first example to create a local? How do I refer
to the toplevel `x` in the second?

I'd really like to see explicit locals declarations in Ruby, and this would all
be solved by simply introducing `var` or `local`, as in `var x = 10`. Even if
it was only optional, and invoked with -strict-locals, I think many people
would be happy. Maybe I'll download the source and hack away to test it


Mike

 

[gwtmp01]

Since you bring this up, there are a few more cases where implicit
locals declaration causes unexpected behavior (if new to ruby that
is):

x = 10
(1..10).each { |i| x = x + i } # x == 65
x = 10
(1..10).each { |i| x = i } # x == 10

So if you're assigning x to itself in some way, it recognizes x in
the enclosing scope, else it creates a new local. That's kind of a
confusing rule. Also, what if I wanted the first example to
create a local? How do I refer to the toplevel `x` in the second?

The 'x' in each of those blocks references the local variable 'x'
defined outside the block.
In neither case is a new local variable 'x' created within the
block. In both cases a new
local variable 'i' is created within the blocks and is only visible
within the individual block.

Here are the rules I use to understand local variable scope and blocks:

1) Local variables *created* outside a block are visible inside the
block.

2) Local variables *created* inside a block are *not* visible outside
the block.

3) Block arguments behave like *local* variables *not* formal
(method) arguments.


If you combine 1 and 2 you see that block scope is sort of a one-way
barrier. Code inside the block can see variables created outside the
block but not the other way around.

The third rule is the one that throws everyone because most
programmers tend to think of block arguments as formal arguments that
shadow any similarly named variables outside the block but this is
incorrect (in Ruby). Block arguments behave like *local* variables
so if a block argument has the same name as a variable in the
enclosing scope then a new local variable is *not* created. On the
other hand if there is no local variable in the enclosing scope with
the same name then a new local variable *is* created and is only
visible within the block (rule 2).

I believe it is rule 3) that Matz is considering changing for Ruby 2.0


Gary Wright

 

[Logan Capaldo]

--Apple-Mail-18-260058564
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=US-ASCII;
delsp=yes;
format=flowed

Here are the rules I use to understand local variable scope and
blocks:

1) Local variables *created* outside a block are visible inside the
block.

2) Local variables *created* inside a block are *not* visible
outside the block.

3) Block arguments behave like *local* variables *not* formal
(method) arguments.

Good list!
--Apple-Mail-18-260058564--

 

[Mike Austin]

The 'x' in each of those blocks references the local variable 'x'
defined outside the block.
In neither case is a new local variable 'x' created within the block.
In both cases a new
local variable 'i' is created within the blocks and is only visible
within the individual block.

Here are the rules I use to understand local variable scope and blocks:

1) Local variables *created* outside a block are visible inside the block.

2) Local variables *created* inside a block are *not* visible outside
the block.

3) Block arguments behave like *local* variables *not* formal (method)
arguments.


If you combine 1 and 2 you see that block scope is sort of a one-way
barrier. Code inside the block can see variables created outside the
block but not the other way around.

The third rule is the one that throws everyone because most programmers
tend to think of block arguments as formal arguments that shadow any
similarly named variables outside the block but this is incorrect (in
Ruby). Block arguments behave like *local* variables so if a block
argument has the same name as a variable in the enclosing scope then a
new local variable is *not* created. On the other hand if there is no
local variable in the enclosing scope with the same name then a new
local variable *is* created and is only visible within the block (rule 2).

I believe it is rule 3) that Matz is considering changing for Ruby 2.0

Changing the hiding characteristics of formal arguments sounds like a good
idea, but there's still a big problem of not being able to declare locals. For
example, given the following:

def test()
a = 2
Proc.new { Proc.new { a = 10 }.call() }.call()
puts a
end

test() => 10

Lexical closure are a very nice thing, but if I think I'm creating a local when
in fact I'm modifying some value in the enclosing scope, then that's bad. I
think shadowing a parameters is a lot less dangerous, and a warning can be
printed when that happens. So the above would look like this:

Proc.new { Proc.new { var a = 10 }.call() }.call()


Mike

 

[Pit Capitain]

Since you bring this up, there are a few more cases where implicit
locals declaration causes unexpected behavior (if new to ruby that is):

x = 10
(1..10).each { |i| x = x + i } # x == 65
x = 10
(1..10).each { |i| x = i } # x == 10

So if you're assigning x to itself in some way, it recognizes x in the
enclosing scope, else it creates a new local. That's kind of a
confusing rule. Also, what if I wanted the first example to create a
local? How do I refer to the toplevel `x` in the second?

Mike, you're accessing the toplevel "x" in both cases:

x = nil
(1..10).each { |i| x = i } # x == 10

Regards,
Pit