< :前の番号
^ :番号順リスト
> :次の番号
P :前の記事(スレッド移動)
N :次の記事(スレッド移動)
|<:前のスレッド
>|:次のスレッド
^ :返事先
_:自分への返事
>:同じ返事先を持つ記事(前)
<:同じ返事先を持つ記事(後)
---:分割してスレッド表示、再表示
| :分割して(縦)スレッド表示、再表示
~ :スレッドのフレーム消去
.:インデックス
..:インデックスのインデックス
Issue #4893 has been updated by Lazaridis Ilias.
Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
> Your request has been too vague for me.
> Your definition of terms such as "object model" seems different from others.
I don't think so:
"Object Model" as in
* Design and implementation of a programming language's OO behaviour (classes, object, inheritance, mixin, methods, attributes, per-instance-behaviour etc.).
Special part of this language's (ruby) "Object Model" is
* Primitive data types (integer, string, ...) are objects, and have related classes (Integer, String)
* Classes (including those of the primitive data types) can be redefined at runtime.
This is a flexible ability, but it has (in the current implementation) a limitation (essentially a bug):
* Limitation: a redefined initialize method is *not* called during "literal instantiation"
> Probably the code will tell what you want.
Mr. Matsumoto.
Will you honestly insist that you have not understood (after the public thread, and the compact irb demonstration) that "what I want" is:
* The *redefined* initialize method *must* be called during literal instantiation (when instantiating objects from literals)?
> I will reopen this issue when a patch is posted
This means that this issue is on "Standby" or "Feedback" and not "Rejected".
I think you abuse your position here, because you take the freedom to process this issue based on your personal feelings or bias, instead of the existent facts.
You should respect my time more (I've already invested more that a week with this issue on a OO user-level, and I need some confirmations prior to continuing on C-core-level.
I have to use the official ruby interpreter, thus it makes no sense for me to invest time for a patch which has no chance to be applied.
(Btw: This modification/patch would be the foundation to further unify the behaviour of objects within the language, especially those which are speed-critical.)
Possibly we can agree on this:
* You confirm that the issue is a limitation in the current implementation, concrete:
* Limitation: a redefined initialize method is *not* called during "literal instantiation"
* You confirm that you will consider to apply a patch, under the condition that the patch
* does not introduces a performance loss (or at least only a minimal one, e.g. < 1%)
* does not break existent behaviour (compatibility)
* You place the issue back on an "Standby" / "Halted" / "Feedback" state (other than "Rejected")
And then I can go on to work on a solution/patch.
----------------------------------------
Bug #4893: Literal Instantiation breaks Object Model
http://redmine.ruby-lang.org/issues/4893
Author: Lazaridis Ilias
Status: Rejected
Priority: Normal
Assignee:
Category:
Target version:
ruby -v: 1.9.2
#String2.rb
class String
def initialize(val)
self.replace(val)
puts object_id
end
def my_method_test
'has method <my_method_test>'
end
end
# command line
$ irb
irb(main):001:0> original = String.new("original")
=> "original"
irb(main):002:0> load "String2.rb"
=> true
irb(main):003:0> altered = String.new("altered")
21878604
=> "altered"
irb(main):004:0> altered.my_method_test
=> "has method <my_method_test>"
irb(main):005:0> literal = "literal"
=> "literal"
irb(main):006:0> literal.my_method_test
=> "has method <my_method_test>"
irb(main):007:0>
-
The initialize method is an integral part of the class String.
From the moment that "String2.rb" is loaded, the initialize method of
class String has been validly redefined.
(The behaviour of the String class within the "irb session" is
altered)
The altered initialize method is now an integral part of the class
String.
The altered String object behaves as expected (responds to
"my_method_test, initialized via redefined initialize method).
The String(Literal) object responds to "my_method_test", but it is was
not initialized with the redefined initialize method.
-
The "Literal Instantiation" calls the original (core-C-level) String
initialize method instead of the redefined one (user-language-level).
This *breaks* the object model.
--
http://redmine.ruby-lang.org