Issue #6688 has been updated by prijutme4ty (Ilya Vorontsov).


I suppose it'd work in such a way:
x.became(1) makes x equal to 1 and returns x as a new object
1.became(x) raises an exception

Unfortunately I don't clearly realise, what ruby interpreter makes under hood, so I really appreciate any corrections in my reasoning:


Here I suppose that if ruby yields all values by references it already have such level of indirection. Am I right that when I call f(y), y internally doesn't contain value, but a pointer to a value and that pointer can be derived from object_id. If so - there is a place where data live and we can rearrange pointers to data

Imagine code with two variables (object_id values are symbolical):

# y.object_id == 1
def f(y)
  # x.object_id == 2; ++x.ref_conter;
  x = X.new

  # y.object_id still == 1, x.object_id still == 2
  # internal data for x and y swaps.
  #ref_counters for particular object_ids(!) didn't changed. This action does nothing GC should worry about if it indexes objects by their object_id.
  y.become x

  #here we return nil so x.ref_counter decreases and object at x.object_id can now be garbage collected. It's internal data is data that was in y before became call
  nil
end

Where I am wrong if anywhere?
----------------------------------------
Feature #6688: Object#replace
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/6688#change-27988

Author: prijutme4ty (Ilya Vorontsov)
Status: Open
Priority: Normal
Assignee: 
Category: 
Target version: 


I suggest that #replace works not only on Enumerables but on any Object. It can make use the same object in different places more consistent. It makes it possible to write
class Egg; end
class Hen; end
class HenHouse; attr_accessor :species; end
class Incubator; def incubate(egg) Hen.new; end

# Here it is!
class IncubatorWithReplace; 
  def incubate(egg) 
    egg.replace(Hen.new)
  end
end

e1,e2,e3 = Egg.new, Egg.new, Egg.new
h1, h2 = HenHouse.new, HenHouse.new

# One egg is shared between hen houses
h1.species = [e1, e2]
h2.species = [e1, e3]
p h1 # ==> <HenHouse @species = [#<Egg 1>,#<Egg 2>]
p h2 # ==> <HenHouse @species = [#<Egg 1>,#<Egg 3>]


 # First option. It's bad choise because it makes two "data structures" HenHouse inconsistent: 
 #   they have different object while must have the same
h1[0] = Incubator.new.incubate(h1[0])
p h1 # ==> <HenHouse @species = [#<Hen>,#<Egg 2>]
p h2 # ==> <HenHouse @species = [#<Egg 1>,#<Egg 3>]

 # Second option is ok - now both shared objects're changed.
IncubatorWithReplace.new.incubate(h1[0])
h1 # ==> <HenHouse @species = [#<Hen>,#<Egg 2>]
h2 # ==> <HenHouse @species = [#<Hen>,#<Egg 3>]  

 # Third option is bad - it wouldn't affect HenHouses at all
e1 = Incubator.new.incubate(e1)
p h1 # ==> <HenHouse @species = [#<Egg 1>,#<Egg 2>]
p h2 # ==> <HenHouse @species = [#<Egg 1>,#<Egg 3>]

 # while Fourth option is ok and works as second do
IncubatorWithReplace.new.incubate(e1) ## would affect both HenHouses
p h1 # ==> <HenHouse @species = [#<Hen>,#<Egg 2>]
p h2 # ==> <HenHouse @species = [#<Egg 1>,#<Egg 3>]


I can't imagine how it'd be realized, it looks like some dark magic with ObjectSpace needed to replace one object at a reference with another at the same reference. But I didn't found a solution.

About ret-value. I think it should be two forms:
Object#replace(obj, retain = false)
If retain is false #replace should return a reference to a new object (in fact the same reference as to old object but with other content)
If retain is true, old object should be moved at another place and new reference to it is returned, so:
e1 # ==> <Egg id:1>
e1.replace( Hen.new, true ) # ==> <Egg id:2>
e1 # ==> <Hen id:1>


-- 
http://bugs.ruby-lang.org/