Class_eval doesn't find const_missing

ruby-talk
1

I am trying to write a DSL which uses method_missing and const_missing
to catch upper and lowercase names (specified in isolation) and fetch
the asscoated (already initialized) objects. This works great until I
need to use class_eval which seemingly doesn't follow the custom
const_missing method.

Here's a more simple example of a class with a constant and
#method_missing and #const_missing methods.

class DummyClass

  NAME = 'dummy constant'

  def self.method_missing(method,*args,&block)
    return "this #{method} was captured by #method_missing"
  end

  def self.const_missing(constant)
    return "this #{constant} was captured by #const_missing"
  end

end

Accessing the constant is no problem

DummyClass::NAME

=> "dummy constant"

Unknown methods and constants are handled as expected

DummyClass::ANOTHER_CONSTANT

=> "this ANOTHER_CONSTANT was captured by #const_missing"

DummyClass.some_method

=> "this some_method was captured by #method_missing"

Accessing the constant via class_eval is variable - it works when
evaluating strings but not blocks.

DummyClass.class_eval "NAME"

=> "dummy constant"

DummyClass.class_eval {NAME}

NameError: uninitialized constant NAME
  from (irb):14
  from (irb):14:in `class_eval'
  from (irb):14

This is partly understood since blocks are scoped to the context in
which they were created. But even if the explicit constant is not
recognised, why isn't the class #const_missing method invoked?

Does the class_eval method allow the method_missing method to be used?

DummyClass.class_eval "dummy_method"

=> "this dummy_method was captured by #method_missing"

DummyClass.class_eval {dummy_method}

=> "this dummy_method was captured by #method_missing"

Yes. #method_missing works as expected, in both string and block
formats. So only #const_missing is causing a problem.

Interestingly, an explicit call to #const_missing inside a class_eval
block DOES work.

DummyClass.class_eval {const_missing :ANOTHER_CONSTANT}

=> "this ANOTHER_CONSTANT was captured by #const_missing"

Anybody understand this, and is there a way to get around it?

Cheers

···

from :0

--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/\.

2

If you add this code:

class Object
  def self.const_missing(constant)
    return "this #{constant} found in obj!"
  end
end

Then you get the following:

DummyClass.class_eval "NAME"

=> "dummy constant"

DummyClass.class_eval {NAME}

=> "this NAME found in obj!"

NAME

=> "this NAME found in obj!"

Not sure if that helps you much, but it seems that class_eval doesn't
affect the constant lookup in the way that you'd like.

···

--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/\.

3

Const lookup varies between 1.8, 1.9.1, and 1.9.2.

Basically, constants are lexically scoped.

You can use "const_get" I believe to lookup your constant in the current binding rather than in the lexical scope.

stephen

···

On Apr 21, 2011, at 2:20 PM, Andrew Berkeley wrote:

I am trying to write a DSL which uses method_missing and const_missing
to catch upper and lowercase names (specified in isolation) and fetch
the asscoated (already initialized) objects. This works great until I
need to use class_eval which seemingly doesn't follow the custom
const_missing method.

Here's a more simple example of a class with a constant and
#method_missing and #const_missing methods.

class DummyClass

NAME = 'dummy constant'

def self.method_missing(method,*args,&block)
   return "this #{method} was captured by #method_missing"
end

def self.const_missing(constant)
   return "this #{constant} was captured by #const_missing"
end

end

Accessing the constant is no problem

DummyClass::NAME

=> "dummy constant"

Unknown methods and constants are handled as expected

DummyClass::ANOTHER_CONSTANT

=> "this ANOTHER_CONSTANT was captured by #const_missing"

DummyClass.some_method

=> "this some_method was captured by #method_missing"

Accessing the constant via class_eval is variable - it works when
evaluating strings but not blocks.

DummyClass.class_eval "NAME"

=> "dummy constant"

DummyClass.class_eval {NAME}

NameError: uninitialized constant NAME
from (irb):14
from (irb):14:in `class_eval'
from (irb):14
from :0

This is partly understood since blocks are scoped to the context in
which they were created. But even if the explicit constant is not
recognised, why isn't the class #const_missing method invoked?

Does the class_eval method allow the method_missing method to be used?

DummyClass.class_eval "dummy_method"

=> "this dummy_method was captured by #method_missing"

DummyClass.class_eval {dummy_method}

=> "this dummy_method was captured by #method_missing"

Yes. #method_missing works as expected, in both string and block
formats. So only #const_missing is causing a problem.

Interestingly, an explicit call to #const_missing inside a class_eval
block DOES work.

DummyClass.class_eval {const_missing :ANOTHER_CONSTANT}

=> "this ANOTHER_CONSTANT was captured by #const_missing"

Anybody understand this, and is there a way to get around it?

Cheers

--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/\.

4

Andrew Berkeley wrote in post #994369:

Interestingly, an explicit call to #const_missing inside a class_eval
block DOES work.

DummyClass.class_eval {const_missing :ANOTHER_CONSTANT}

=> "this ANOTHER_CONSTANT was captured by #const_missing"

Anybody understand this, and is there a way to get around it?

This line:

  DummyClass.class_eval {const_missing :ANOTHER_CONSTANT}

is equivalent to:

  DummyClass.class_eval {
    self.const_missing(:ANOTHER_CONSTANT)
  }

And because class_eval() changes self inside the block to be equal to
the receiver, the above is equivalent to:

  DummyClass.class_eval {
    DummyClass.const_missing(:ANOTHER_CONSTANT)
  }

...producing the output you see.

Also, note the output here:

DummyClass.class_eval do
  puts self::NAME
end

--output:--
dummy constant

···

--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/\.

5

Thanks People - very helpful and seems pretty clear what's going on
then. A lesson learned for me!

The Object monkeypatch appears to work well for what I was wanting to
do..

···

--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

6

Stephen Prater wrote in post #994391:

Const lookup varies between 1.8, 1.9.1, and 1.9.2.

Basically, constants are lexically scoped.

You can use "const_get" I believe to lookup your constant in the
current binding rather than in the lexical scope.

That works for me in ruby 1.9.2:

DummyClass.class_eval do
  puts const_get(:NAME)
end

--output:--
dummy constant

That makes sense because the call is really:

  puts self.const_get(:NAME)

and because self is equal to DummyClass, that is equivalent to:

  puts DummyClass.const_get(:NAME)

which like class_eval'ing a string does the lookup in the "directory"
DummyClass.

···

--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/\.

7

7stud -- wrote in post #994396:

In "The Well-Grounded Rubyist" David Black explains that constants are
like files in a file system, and depending on what "directory" you are
currently in, it will determine the "path name" to the constant that you
are interested in retrieving. It seems that class_eval does not affect
the path name to a constant. But then I don't understand how
class_eval'ing a string changes that.

Here is a blog post from 2007 asking the exact same question:

http://www.pgrs.net/2007/9/12/ruby-constants-have-weird-behavior-in-class_eval

As one person replied, constants are looked up by the parser, so their
lexical scope determines the proper 'path' to the constant; while
eval'ing a string happens in the 'dynamic scope' at runtime.

···

--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/\.