Bug #17429
closedProhibit include/prepend in refinement modules
Description
include/prepend in refinement modules has implementation difficulties such as #17007 and #17379, and tends to be misleading like #17374.
How about to prohibit it in future versions?
Method copy like #17380 may be more convenient, but it's confusing to use names include and prepend because semantics is different from the original ones.
Updated by matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto) almost 4 years ago
I basically agree. Combination of refinement and include/prepend
only cause confusion.
Matz.
Updated by Eregon (Benoit Daloze) almost 4 years ago
+1 from me!
I think a new Module method to copy all methods to another Module could be useful.
Something like A.copy_methods(B)
.
It seems there is no need to copy constants, because the constant scope of "copied" methods would still be A
(and lexical parents).
Actually the method would only do a shallow copy of each method, i.e., still use the same bytecode, etc, so maybe another name than copy_methods
would be clearer.
The docs of Module#append_features
make it sounds like #append_features
would do that, but it doesn't.
Actually, #append_features adds the given module in the ancestors chain (include = append_features + included).
Would be a good occasion to clarify the docs of #append_features
.
Updated by marcandre (Marc-Andre Lafortune) almost 4 years ago
Is there a proposal to import modules in refinements?
Something like this?
module Code
# ...
end
refine Object, import: Code do
# extra methods
end
I still think that include
and prepend
within the refine
block could have that function.
I think that having a nice way to implement methods that can be used with include
or using
would help adoption of refinements for gems.
Updated by Dan0042 (Daniel DeLorme) almost 4 years ago
I agree the current situation needs to be fixed, and prohibiting include/prepend is the simplest way. But I also think there has to be a way to achieve what Marc-Andre was trying in #17374.
marcandre (Marc-Andre Lafortune) wrote in #note-3:
refine Object, import: Code do # extra methods end
That looks pretty good I think.
I still think that
include
andprepend
within therefine
block could have that function.
But there's not much benefit to that is there? Having a different name such as import
feels cleaner. Using include
or prepend
within a refine block could result in a warning/error along the lines of "include
is not supported in refinements but you can use the almost-equivalent import
argument."
Updated by jeremyevans0 (Jeremy Evans) almost 4 years ago
I've added a pull request for this: https://github.com/ruby/ruby/pull/4029
Updated by jeremyevans0 (Jeremy Evans) almost 4 years ago
- Related to Bug #17007: SystemStackError when using super inside Module included and lexically inside refinement added
Updated by jeremyevans0 (Jeremy Evans) almost 4 years ago
- Related to Bug #17374: Refined methods aren't visible from a refinement's module added
Updated by jeremyevans0 (Jeremy Evans) almost 4 years ago
- Related to Bug #17379: Refinement with modules redefinition bug added
Updated by matsuda (Akira Matsuda) over 3 years ago
Calling include in refinement modules has certin use cases.
Here's an actual example.
https://github.com/tomykaira/rspec-parameterized/blob/v0.4.2/lib/rspec/parameterized/table_syntax.rb#L27-L61
This gem uses Module#include to avoid code repetition, which to me looks quite natural and basic usage of Module.
If we prohibit include in refinement modules, can this code still be written equally simply?
Updated by Eregon (Benoit Daloze) over 3 years ago
With https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/17429#note-3 it would.
I think it makes sense adding such functionality at the same time as no longer allowing include
for refinement modules.
Updated by shugo (Shugo Maeda) over 3 years ago
marcandre (Marc-Andre Lafortune) wrote in #note-3:
Is there a proposal to import modules in refinements?
Something like this?
module Code # ... end refine Object, import: Code do # extra methods end
I prefer the following way, but I'm not sure about the name import.
refine Object do
import Code
end
The behavior is similar to Module#mix proposed by Matz before.
Updated by Dan0042 (Daniel DeLorme) over 3 years ago
shugo (Shugo Maeda) wrote in #note-11:
The behavior is similar to Module#mix proposed by Matz before.
Visually it's a more pleasing API than the import
keyword, but would it be available in any module or just refinements?
If any module, we'd now have three mixin mechanisms: include, prepend, import. IMO that's overly complex.
If just refinements, it feels inconsistent. IMO we'll have people asking why they can't use import
in classes and modules.
As a keyword it's clear this is a refinement-only behavior.
Updated by shugo (Shugo Maeda) over 3 years ago
Dan0042 (Daniel DeLorme) wrote in #note-12:
shugo (Shugo Maeda) wrote in #note-11:
The behavior is similar to Module#mix proposed by Matz before.
Visually it's a more pleasing API than the
import
keyword, but would it be available in any module or just refinements?
If any module, we'd now have three mixin mechanisms: include, prepend, import. IMO that's overly complex.
If just refinements, it feels inconsistent. IMO we'll have people asking why they can't useimport
in classes and modules.
As a keyword it's clear this is a refinement-only behavior.
It's enough to changing the class of a module created by refine to the following subclass of Module, isn't it?
class Refinement < Module
[:include, :prepend].each do |name|
define_method(name) do |*args|
warn("#{name} in a refinement is deprecated; use mix instead", uplevel: 1, category: :deprecated)
super(*args)
end
end
def mix(*args)
# ...
end
end
Updated by Eregon (Benoit Daloze) over 3 years ago
Having a Module subclass for Refinements seems nice and useful :+1:
Updated by marcandre (Marc-Andre Lafortune) over 3 years ago
I like @shugo's approach too.
For anyone interested, I released the refine_export
gem that makes @jeremyevans' nice hack easy to use:
https://github.com/marcandre/refine_export#usage
Updated by shugo (Shugo Maeda) over 3 years ago
- Assignee set to matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
@Eregon (Benoit Daloze) @marcandre (Marc-Andre Lafortune) Thanks for your feedback.
The remaining issue is the name of the new method.
I came up with the following options:
- Refinement#import
- Refinement#mix
- Refinement#include (different behavior from Module#include)
@matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto) Which do you like, or do you have another option in mind?
Updated by ko1 (Koichi Sasada) over 3 years ago
I like Module#mix
for all modules (not only for refimement).
Updated by Eregon (Benoit Daloze) over 3 years ago
ko1 (Koichi Sasada) wrote in #note-17:
I like
Module#mix
for all modules (not only for refimement).
I think they need different semantics.
For refinements, we will need to do a deep copy of the method, or at least of the inline caches, so that the copied methods see the other refined methods of the refinement module.
That's quite expensive in footprint, but it probably makes sense for this use case with refinements.
For a general Module#mix, I don't think that is needed. Also what's the advantage of a general Module#mix over include/prepend?
Updated by Eregon (Benoit Daloze) over 3 years ago
- Related to Bug #18021: Mixins in Refinements: possibly multiple bugs, workarounds are awkward added
Updated by Eregon (Benoit Daloze) over 3 years ago
One more issue reported due these confusing semantics of include/prepend inside refine
: #18021.
I suggest we warn in 3.1, raise in 3.2.
And I suggest to add Refinement#import
, because:
-
mix
seems to imply other things, and if it's ever added to Module with different semantics we will just get more confusion. -
include
seems likely to cause confusion because the behavior would not be Module#include-like. It is also potentially backward-incompatible, raises the question about what would happen forprepend
and consistency. And finnalyinclude
would not longer mean "define higher in the ancestor" for this context, i.e., defining the same method in the refine block would replace, not just override).
Updated by Eregon (Benoit Daloze) over 3 years ago
I'll mention it here as it may be helpful.
If you want to define the same method in multiple refinements before this is fixed, the current workaround is to use class_eval/module_eval
inside refine
and have those shared methods in a String.
Not so pretty, but it works and it's simple.
Updated by shugo (Shugo Maeda) about 3 years ago
Eregon (Benoit Daloze) wrote in #note-20:
One more issue reported due these confusing semantics of include/prepend inside
refine
: #18021.I suggest we warn in 3.1, raise in 3.2.
And I suggest to addRefinement#import
, because:
mix
seems to imply other things, and if it's ever added to Module with different semantics we will just get more confusion.include
seems likely to cause confusion because the behavior would not be Module#include-like. It is also potentially backward-incompatible, raises the question about what would happen forprepend
and consistency. And finnalyinclude
would not longer mean "define higher in the ancestor" for this context, i.e., defining the same method in the refine block would replace, not just override).
I've implemented Refinement#import in https://github.com/shugo/ruby/pull/3
In the current implementation, the module in cref is replaced with the refinement like Module#dup, so constants in the imported module are not accessible from the copied methods.
It would be possible to support constant access with a hack on cref, but I'm afraid it may bring new problems.
Maybe Refinement#import_methods is a better name if we keep the current behavior.
Updated by Eregon (Benoit Daloze) about 3 years ago
shugo (Shugo Maeda) wrote in #note-22:
In the current implementation, the module in cref is replaced with the refinement like Module#dup, so constants in the imported module are not accessible from the copied methods.
Could you show an example that would not work due to that?
Methods from the imported module should be able to access constants from the imported module, otherwise I think it is very surprising.
They should not be able to access constants from the refinement module, that's fine they were declared in the imported module.
Updated by shugo (Shugo Maeda) about 3 years ago
Eregon (Benoit Daloze) wrote in #note-23:
shugo (Shugo Maeda) wrote in #note-22:
In the current implementation, the module in cref is replaced with the refinement like Module#dup, so constants in the imported module are not accessible from the copied methods.
Could you show an example that would not work due to that?
Methods from the imported module should be able to access constants from the imported module, otherwise I think it is very surprising.
They should not be able to access constants from the refinement module, that's fine they were declared in the imported module.
For me, it's surprising if the imported methods cannot access constants of the refinement.
However, constant assignments in refine block define constants not in the refinement but in the outer scope, so it may not be a problem actually.
module Ext
refine Object do
X = 1 # defines Ext::X
const_set(:Y, 2) # defines #<refinement:Object@Extension>::X
end
end
Is it enough that the imported methods can access only constants in the original context?
Updated by Eregon (Benoit Daloze) about 3 years ago
Yes, I think that's completely fine.
In code, this should work:
module Shared
A = 1
def foo
A
end
end
refine SomeClass do
import Shared
end
SomeClass.new.foo # => 1
And this should not:
module Shared
def foo
A
end
end
refine SomeClass do
self::A = 1
import Shared
end
SomeClass.new.foo # => NameError
That would be the equivalent of dynamic rebinding or so, I think nobody expects that, the constant scope has always been lexical (+ ancestors of the first enclosing module).
Could you add tests (or better, specs under spec/ruby) for that?
Then I think it should be good to go.
Updated by Eregon (Benoit Daloze) about 3 years ago
In other words, Refinement#import copies methods but does not attempt to change anything lexical, except which refinements are applied to these methods.
Updated by shugo (Shugo Maeda) about 3 years ago
I've changed the behavior and have added tests in https://github.com/shugo/ruby/pull/3/commits/3aaca9217f958640495c14ac11b08948960d1f30
Updated by shugo (Shugo Maeda) about 3 years ago
In the current implementation:
- Refinement#import raises an ArgumentError if the specified module has methods written in C.
Should it import C methods without refinements activation? - Only methods defined directly in the specified module are imported.
Importing ancestors' methods may be confusing because Refinement#import doesn't work with super.
Updated by mame (Yusuke Endoh) about 3 years ago
In today's dev meeting, matz accepted the concept, but wanted to take some time to consider the name import
.
Updated by mame (Yusuke Endoh) about 3 years ago
BTW, the change seems to add a top-level new constant ::Refinement
. I'm not against the addition, but unsure about the impact. Is it okay?
Updated by shugo (Shugo Maeda) about 3 years ago
mame (Yusuke Endoh) wrote in #note-30:
BTW, the change seems to add a top-level new constant
::Refinement
. I'm not against the addition, but unsure about the impact. Is it okay?
I found a gem named refinement....
https://github.com/square/refinement/blob/master/lib/refinement.rb
Updated by shugo (Shugo Maeda) about 3 years ago
shugo (Shugo Maeda) wrote in #note-31:
mame (Yusuke Endoh) wrote in #note-30:
BTW, the change seems to add a top-level new constant
::Refinement
. I'm not against the addition, but unsure about the impact. Is it okay?I found a gem named refinement....
https://github.com/square/refinement/blob/master/lib/refinement.rb
I've created an issue on the project: https://github.com/square/refinement/issues/71.
By gem-codesearch, I've found another gem which defines ::Refinement.
However, it's a gem for very old Ruby versions without Refinements, so I believe there's no problem.
Updated by shugo (Shugo Maeda) about 3 years ago
- Status changed from Open to Assigned
shugo (Shugo Maeda) wrote in #note-32:
I found a gem named refinement....
https://github.com/square/refinement/blob/master/lib/refinement.rb
I've created an issue on the project: https://github.com/square/refinement/issues/71.
The maintainer of the gem agreed with introducing the built-in class Refinement.
Matz, is the method name import OK?
Updated by matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto) almost 3 years ago
I agreed with import_methods
, which is more descriptive and clear.
Matz.
Updated by shugo (Shugo Maeda) almost 3 years ago
- Assignee changed from matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto) to shugo (Shugo Maeda)
Updated by shugo (Shugo Maeda) almost 3 years ago
- Status changed from Assigned to Closed
Applied in changeset git|6606597109bdb535a150606323ce3d8f5750e1f6.
Deprecate include/prepend in refinements and add Refinement#import_methods instead
Refinement#import_methods imports methods from modules.
Unlike Module#include, it copies methods and adds them into the refinement,
so the refinement is activated in the imported methods.
[Bug #17429] [ruby-core:101639]
Updated by shugo (Shugo Maeda) almost 3 years ago
- Related to Feature #18270: Refinement#{extend_object,append_features,prepend_features} should be removed added