Is it possible to determine if a public instance method is being called
from an object or within the class?
Thanks for your help.
···
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
I think you might need to be a little more specific with your
question. A class is also an object.
irb(main):001:0> Class.ancestors
-> [Class, Module, Object, Kernel]
I don't think it's possible to grab a method's owner, because methods
can be created in any context on the fly (somebody please correct me
if I'm wrong). So, really what you are probably looking for is the
binding scope.
Just a thought,
Todd
···
On Jan 22, 2008 4:47 PM, Ben Johnson <bjohnson@contuitive.com> wrote:
Is it possible to determine if a public instance method is being called
from an object or within the class?
You can also do...
irb(main);001:0> class C
irb(main):002:1> def self.foo
irb(main):003:2> puts "in class"
irb(main):004:2> end
irb(main):005:1> def foo
irb(main):006:2> puts "in instance"
irb(main):007:2> end
irb(main):008:1> end
=> nil
irb(main):009:0> c = C.new
=> #<C:0x2dcadf0>
irb(main):010:0> C.method(:foo)
=> #<Method: C.foo>
irb(main):011:0> c.method(:foo)
=> #<Method: C#foo>
Todd
···
On Jan 22, 2008 9:00 PM, Todd Benson <caduceass@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jan 22, 2008 4:47 PM, Ben Johnson <bjohnson@contuitive.com> wrote:
> Is it possible to determine if a public instance method is being called
> from an object or within the class?I think you might need to be a little more specific with your
question. A class is also an object.irb(main):001:0> Class.ancestors
-> [Class, Module, Object, Kernel]I don't think it's possible to grab a method's owner, because methods
can be created in any context on the fly (somebody please correct me
if I'm wrong). So, really what you are probably looking for is the
binding scope.Just a thought,
Todd
If I understood correctly, you want to look into the call stack. If
so, you must resort to an hack.
You might want to look into Kernel#caller. To see a practical example,
look into the source code for Deep End:
gem install deepend
(Disclaimer: Deep End is just an half-baked thing I released some time
ago, and it basically sucks).
Paolo Perrotta
Bologna, Italy
···
On Jan 22, 2008 4:47 PM, Ben Johnson <bjohn...@contuitive.com> wrote:
Is it possible to determine if a public instance method is being called
from an object or within the class?
I do not see how using #caller is a hack.
I was under the impression that Ben rather wanted a static analysis,
i.e. determine code coverage. This is next to impossible with a
dynamic language such as Ruby. A simple approach would be to grep all
involved source files and look for the method's name. But if that is
a common name or overloaded a lot you're out of luck.
Kind regards
robert
···
2008/1/23, Paolo Nusco Perrotta <paolo.nusco.perrotta@gmail.com>:
On Jan 22, 2008 4:47 PM, Ben Johnson <bjohn...@contuitive.com> wrote:
> Is it possible to determine if a public instance method is being called
> from an object or within the class?If I understood correctly, you want to look into the call stack. If
so, you must resort to an hack.
--
use.inject do |as, often| as.you_can - without end
I do not see how using #caller is a hack.
This is probably in the eye of the beholder. To me, having the call
stack as a single long string and parsing it to fish out the caller
looks a bit hack-ish. It feels like #caller is supposed to be read by
a human, not by code.
I was under the impression that Ben rather wanted a static analysis,
i.e. determine code coverage. This is next to impossible with a
dynamic language such as Ruby.
Agreed.
···
On Jan 23, 2:08 pm, Robert Klemme <shortcut...@googlemail.com> wrote:
---
Paolo Perrotta
Bologna, Italy
> I do not see how using #caller is a hack.
This is probably in the eye of the beholder. To me, having the call
stack as a single long string
???
$ ruby -e 'p caller.class'
Array
and parsing it to fish out the caller
looks a bit hack-ish. It feels like #caller is supposed to be read by
a human, not by code.
That's true. But then again, this is not for code execution but
rather analysis.
>I was under the impression that Ben rather wanted a static analysis,
>i.e. determine code coverage. This is next to impossible with a
>dynamic language such as Ruby.Agreed.
I am still waiting for Ben to chime in again.
Cheers
robert
···
2008/1/25, Paolo Nusco Perrotta <paolo.nusco.perrotta@gmail.com>:
On Jan 23, 2:08 pm, Robert Klemme <shortcut...@googlemail.com> wrote:
--
use.inject do |as, often| as.you_can - without end
Sorry, you're right. It's not a single long string, but it's still one
string per call frame. My point is that you have to parse these
strings if you want to do anything other than just print them
somewhere. For example, to solve Ben's original problem, I'd rather
have an alternate #caller that returns a chain of calling Objects, or
maybe Methods.
Again, that's assuming he wasn't talking about static analysis.
···
On Jan 25, 11:44 am, Robert Klemme <shortcut...@googlemail.com> wrote:
2008/1/25, Paolo NuscoPerrotta<paolo.nusco.perro...@gmail.com>:
>To me, having the call stack as a single long string???
---
Paolo Perrotta
Bologna, Italy
Robert Klemme wrote:
I am still waiting for Ben to chime in again.
Cheers
robert
I have not chimed in because I found another solution to my problem and
I realized what I was asking was nearly impossible. I also agree that
caller seems to be used for a human to read and analyze vs using it in
your code.
···
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/\.
Preach on! I would love to have caller return an array of Methods, or
even ExecutionContexts, with #file, #line, and #binding methods.
···
On Jan 25, 2008 1:59 PM, Paolo Nusco Perrotta <paolo.nusco.perrotta@gmail.com> wrote:
For example, to solve Ben's original problem, I'd rather
have an alternate #caller that returns a chain of calling Objects, or
maybe Methods.
--
Your subnet is currently 169.254.0.0/16. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
For the adventurous (or just foolhardy, I'm still not sure which:)
caller.map do |line|
/([^:]+):(\d*)(?::in `([^']+)')?/.match(line)[1,3]
end
will return a series of arrays: [file, line, method name] (as strings)
You know, until the format of caller's strings changes...
Judson
···
On Jan 25, 2008 2:28 PM, Ben Johnson <bjohnson@contuitive.com> wrote:
I have not chimed in because I found another solution to my problem and
I realized what I was asking was nearly impossible. I also agree that
caller seems to be used for a human to read and analyze vs using it in
your code.
--
Your subnet is currently 169.254.0.0/16. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.