I’ve got a little curiosity about defining methods. As far as I know (and
maybe I’m wrong) functions doesn’t exist in Ruby… right? Ruby only have
methods.
However, I can do this:
#!/usr/bin/env ruby
def test
puts "This is a test"
end
test
If test is really a method… what class it belongs to? Or is it a function
and I’ve missed something?
Thank you.
PD: OK, I know, I’m more worried about conceptual point of view that I’d must
be
I’ve got a little curiosity about defining methods. As far as I know (and
maybe I’m wrong) functions doesn’t exist in Ruby… right? Ruby only have
methods.
That’s right
However, I can do this:
#!/usr/bin/env ruby
def test
puts “This is a test”
end
test
If test is really a method… what class it belongs to? Or is it a function
and I’ve missed something?
test is added as a private method of the class Object.
Thank you.
PD: OK, I know, I’m more worried about conceptual point of view that I’d must
be
Some languages draw hard distinctions between “methods”, “functions”,
“subroutines”, etc., but Ruby’s much more laid-back than that. You’ll
notice a similar sort of looseness with @ and @@ variables, which can
act differently if they’re declared at a global scope than if they’re
declared within a class or method definition.
(Now, if you get seriously into Ruby’s more functional aspects you’ll
have to learn the differences between procs and lambdas, but you can
still do a lot without learning that stuff.)
I’ve got a little curiosity about defining methods. As far as I know (and
maybe I’m wrong) functions doesn’t exist in Ruby… right? Ruby only have
methods.
However, I can do this:
#!/usr/bin/env ruby
def test
puts “This is a test”
end
test
If test is really a method… what class it belongs to? Or is it a function
and I’ve missed something?
Thank you.
PD: OK, I know, I’m more worried about conceptual point of view that I’d must
be
–
(o_.’ Imobach González Sosa imobachgs@softhome.net
//\c{} imobachgs@step.es a2419@dis.ulpgc.es
V__)_ imodev@softhome.net osoh en jabber.at y jabber.org
Usuario Linux #201634
Debian GNU/Linux `Sarge’ con núcleo 2.4.24 sobre Intel Pentium 4
La buena y verdadera amistad no debe ser sospechosa en nada.
– Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra. (1547-1616) Escritor español.
Some languages draw hard distinctions between “methods”, “functions”,
“subroutines”, etc., but Ruby’s much more laid-back than that. You’ll
notice a similar sort of looseness with @ and @@ variables, which can
act differently if they’re declared at a global scope than if they’re
declared within a class or method definition.
I think the difference is mainly cosmetic, though. At the top level
the default ‘self’ is an instance of Object, so if you assign to a
top-level class variable, it belongs to Object. Similarly, if you
assign to an instance variable at the top level, it belongs to the
default object. There’s a kind of bootstrapping of the environment
going on, but I think it’s consistent with the behavior of those
variables all around (if less visible).
Some languages draw hard distinctions between “methods”, “functions”,
“subroutines”, etc., but Ruby’s much more laid-back than that. You’ll
notice a similar sort of looseness with @ and @@ variables, which can
act differently if they’re declared at a global scope than if they’re
declared within a class or method definition.
(Now, if you get seriously into Ruby’s more functional aspects you’ll
have to learn the differences between procs and lambdas, but you can
still do a lot without learning that stuff.)
What is the technical definition right now? And which part is
implemented and which parts are future changes?
As far as I understood it, lambda’s introduced a complete new scope so
you could shadow variables above, whereas procs produced a more loose
scope. But perhaps I misunderstood. Anyone have a good definition/example?
