Difference between Class.new and class
 

Hi,

why do class definitions with the keyword "class" return nil and not the =
=20
class itself?

>> class Foo
>> def foo
>> puts "in Foo"
>> end
>> end
=3D> nil

and what is the difference to:

>> Bar =3D Class.new do
>> define_method(:bar) do
>> puts "in Bar"
>> end
>> end
=3D> Bar

Thank you,
Levin

Re: Difference between Class.new and class
 

Levin Alexander <levin@grundeis.net> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> why do class definitions with the keyword "class" return nil and not
> the class itself?

Because the last expression in the block is returned:

>> class Foo; self end
=> Foo
>> class Bar; 123 end
=> 123

Method definitions ("def ...") return nil.

> >> class Foo
> >> def foo
> >> puts "in Foo"
> >> end
> >> end
> => nil
>
> and what is the difference to:
>
> >> Bar = Class.new do
> >> define_method(:bar) do
> >> puts "in Bar"
> >> end
> >> end
> => Bar

The former is the standard syntax for defining classes. The latter can be
used to create anonymous classes.

>> Irks = Class.new
=> Irks
>> ui = Class.new
=> #<Class:0x10189d98>

A disadvantage of the latter approach is that you cannot define methods that
receive a block. There is no equivalent (yet) for "def foo(&b) b.call(1)
end" with define_method, because you cannot do define_method(:foo) {|&b|
b.call(1)}. Also, you cannot have default values for method arguments with
define_value. The bottom line is: use the block form only if you need
anonymous classes or have to otherwise. HTH

Kind regards

robert

Re: Difference between Class.new and class
 

Levin Alexander wrote:
> Hi,
>
> why do class definitions with the keyword "class" return nil and not
> the class itself?
>
> >> class Foo
> >> def foo
> >> puts "in Foo"
> >> end
> >> end
> => nil
irb(main):001:0> class X
irb(main):002:1> def y
irb(main):003:2> puts "z"
irb(main):004:2> end
irb(main):005:1> self
irb(main):006:1> end
=> X
The class definition returns the result of the last statement, so you
can put 'self' just before the end of the definition to get it to return
the class. It's returning nil because def returns nil.

Re: Difference between Class.new and class
 

Robert Klemme wrote:

> A disadvantage of the latter approach is that you cannot define
> methods that receive a block. There is no equivalent (yet) for "def
> foo(&b) b.call(1) end" with define_method, because you cannot do
> define_method(:foo) {|&b| b.call(1)}.

(flori@lambda:~ 0)$ irb
irb(main):001:0> A = Class.new { define_method(:foo) {|&b| b.call(1)} }
=> A
irb(main):002:0> A.new.foo { |x| 2 * x }
=> 2
irb(main):003:0> RUBY_VERSION
=> "1.9.0"

--
Florian Frank

Re: Difference between Class.new and class
 

"Robert Klemme" <bob.news@gmx.net> writes:

> There is no equivalent (yet) for "def foo(&b) b.call(1) end" with
> define_method, because you cannot do define_method(:foo) {|&b|
> b.call(1)}.

As Florian Frank pointed out, this is fixed in Ruby 1.9.

> Also, you cannot have default values for method arguments
> with [define_method].

I just wanted to point out that this is not a show-stopping problem.
In Ruby 1.9, `define_method' can do everything `def' can.

def foo(bar, baz = QUUX, *rest)
...
end

can be written as

define_method :foo do |bar, *rest|
baz = rest.empty? and QUUX or rest.shift
...
end

For longer parameter lists, you could refactor a bit:

class Array
def shift_or default
if empty? then default else shift end
end
end

define_method :foo do |bar, *rest|
baz1 = rest.shift_or QUUX1
baz2 = rest.shift_or QUUX2
baz3 = rest.shift_or QUUX3
...
end

But of course, you already know this.

As I said, I just wanted to point out that `def' and `define_method'
are essentially equal in power as of Ruby 1.9.

--
Daniel Brockman <daniel@brockman.se>

So really, we all have to ask ourselves:
Am I waiting for RMS to do this? --TTN.

Re: Difference between Class.new and class
 

Daniel Brockman <daniel@brockman.se> writes:

> def foo(bar, baz = QUUX, *rest)
> ...
> end
>
> can be written as
>
> define_method :foo do |bar, *rest|
> baz = rest.empty? and QUUX or rest.shift
> ...
> end

My apologies, that should have been

define_method :foo do |bar, *rest|
baz = rest.empty? && QUUX || rest.shift
...
end

--
Daniel Brockman <daniel@brockman.se>

Re: Difference between Class.new and class
 

Robert Klemme wrote:

> A disadvantage of the latter approach is that you cannot define methods
> that receive a block. There is no equivalent (yet) for "def foo(&b)
> b.call(1) end" with define_method, because you cannot do
> define_method(:foo) {|&b| b.call(1)}. Also, you cannot have default
> values for method arguments with define_value. The bottom line is: use
> the block form only if you need anonymous classes or have to otherwise.

But you can use def in Class.new blocks:

Bar = Class.new do
def two_times(&block)
2.times(&block)
end
end

Bar.new.two_times { puts "Hello World!"}

This is on 1.8.2.