From: "headius (Charles Nutter)" Date: 2012-11-14T05:23:52+09:00 Subject: [ruby-core:49319] [ruby-trunk - Feature #4085] Refinements and nested methods Issue #4085 has been updated by headius (Charles Nutter). Talking more with folks online about refinements, there's a lot of confusion about what they solve. So, in one sense, refinements are to localize monkey-patching. But they don't actually localize it much better since they can apply at a distance to blocks (module_eval feature), and classes down-hierarchy. Previously, all code determined what methods to call based solely on the target object's class hierarchy. Even with monkeypatches in place, we still have to look solely at the target class to determine what's being called. With refinements, every piece of code everywhere in the system could potentially see refinements active whether there's a "using" clause near them or not. Blocks could be forced to call different methods at any time, normal code could see a superclass add a refinement and change all future calls. Refinements may prevent monkeypatches from affecting the entire runtime, but don't make it any easier to determine what methods will actually be called. They also don't solve the monkeypatching problem in any way. Monkeypatches have been used for a few reasons: * Adding methods to existing types, for DSL or fluent API purposes. Refinements would limit the visibility of those methods, somewhat, but you can't tell without digging around both the target class hierarchy and the calling class hierarchy what methods will really be called. * Replacing existing methods with "better" versions Refinements would again limit the visibility of those changes, but ultimately result in some code calling one method and some code calling another, with no easy way to determine the code that will be called ahead of time. It may be possible to address the technical issues of optimizing call sites with and without refinements, but I really don't feel like refinements are solving as many problems as they're going to create. I lament a future where I can't look at a piece of code and determine the methods it's calling solely based on the types it is calling against. It's going to be harder -- not easier -- to reason about code with refinements in play. ---------------------------------------- Feature #4085: Refinements and nested methods https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/4085#change-32878 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 -- http://bugs.ruby-lang.org/