Re: Attempted roadmap of future instance variables....

On Dec 5, 2003, at 12:15, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

> Hi,
>
> In message "Re: Attempted roadmap of future instance variables...."
>     on 03/12/06, "T. Onoma" <[e-mail]> writes:
>
> |Wouldn't it be better just to have instance vars (@foo) local to the 
> class.
> |Then subclasses and superclasses (and reportedly singletons too) 
> would have
> |to go through accessor methods? Just seems like a simpler and more 
> elegant
> |solution. Or is there a problem with this that I'm not seeing 
> (besides "back
> |breaking" compatability)?
>
> That would be interesting alternative idea.  I think it's matter of
> how much compatibility we would preserve.

The core of the problem that class local instance variables are trying 
to solve is variable shadowing (as Guy so elegantly showed). The 
problem with making all variables class local and using accessors, is 
that if I am shadowing an instance variable, there is a good chance 
that I will shadow the accessor as well. The superclass variable thus 
becomes completely inaccessible:

   # pretend all instance variables are class local
   class A
     attr_accessor :a

     def initialize
       @a = 1
     end
   end

   class B < A
     attr_accessor :a

     def initialize
       @a = 'a'
     end
   end

There is no way for the subclass to access the superclass's instance 
variable @a now, and I don't see a good work-around for this.

Personally I don't like any proposal I've seen for this concept yet 
(including Matz'). I understand that sometimes there are name clashes 
when we'd rather there not be, but every cure I've seen seems to be 
much worse than the disease, cutting down on the flexibility one 
currently has in Ruby to easily access anything that one needs to get 
the job done. Yes, as things stand now, it is possible to shoot oneself 
in the foot, but there are plenty of other ways to do that, and I don't 
think we're going to remove all of them in Ruby 2.0. I just know that 
I'm going to subclass a framework class in Ruby someday and find that 
the one variable that I need to change the value of is a class local 
instance variable, and I can't get access to it. Gives me Java 
flashbacks.

I wonder if a better solution for the issue doesn't lie in the idea of 
namespaces. Basically, library writers want to be able to say that 
@checkpoint is part of the Transaction::Simple namespace, and 
occasionally library users want to say that they want to read or write 
@checkpoint in the Transaction::Simple namespace. If there was a way to 
explicitly limit the namespace of an instance variable to a given Class 
or Module, and a way to access an instance variable in an explicit 
Class or Module, that would be quite handy. The key is that all data 
remains accessible all the time, to everyone. We just allow folks the 
ability to shadow.

Stupid, off the top of my head, code example:

   module Transaction::Simple
     def initialize
       namespace self do
         @checkpoint = true
       end
     end
   end

   class MyClass
     include Transaction::Simple

     def initialize
       @checkpoint = true
       namespace Transaction::Simple do
         @checkpoint = false
       end
     end
   end

This is definitely half-baked, but perhaps it will trigger something in 
someone's (read Matz' :-) brain.


Nathaniel

<:((><