Project

General

Profile

Actions

Feature #17749

open

Const source location without name

Added by tenderlovemaking (Aaron Patterson) 7 months ago. Updated 6 months ago.

Status:
Open
Priority:
Normal
Assignee:
-
Target version:
-
[ruby-core:103026]

Description

Hi,

I would like to be able to ask a class or module what its source location is without knowing the name. For example, I want to do this:

module A
  class B
  end
end

p A::B.const_source_location

In other works A::B.const_source_location would be equivalent to A.const_source_location(:B).

The reason I want to do this is because sometimes it is very difficult to get the name of a constant, and sometimes I don't have access to the constant that "encloses" the class or module.

One example:

ObjectSpace.each_object(Class) do |k|
  p k.const_source_location
end

In this case I have class objects, but I can't tell what constant k was defined inside of. Also I can't trust the "name" method on k because sometimes it's not the default method (of course I could work around that, but it's not fun).

I've attached a patch that implements the feature, and there is a PR here

Side note: I think I would like "source_location" better than const_source_location, but I wanted to just file a feature request so we could talk about the feature in general.


Files


Related issues

Related to Ruby master - Feature #13383: [PATCH] Module#source_locationOpenioquatix (Samuel Williams)Actions

Updated by dylants (Dylan Thacker-Smith) 7 months ago

I agree that source_location would be better for this new feature, since it is referring to the receiver of the call. const_source_location makes sense for the existing method, since it is referring to the source location of something else, a nested constant. So I think you should make a new source_location method rather than trying to combine them.

Updated by shevegen (Robert A. Heiler) 7 months ago

Personally I agree with Aaron's use case or the general potential usefulness
of being able to query const_source_location where Aaron's suggestion is a
simplification over A::B (because the ruby user no longer HAS to know that
specific name, since the ruby user can just call a method instead, in this
case simply .const_source_location() ); and I love introspection anyway, so +1.

To the comment about the name (s): .source_location is in general better
than .const_source_location, in my opinion, for two reasons :

(1) it's shorter. :) We all like being concise ... two words are better than
three words most of the time. (One word may be even better but we often have
clashes with other names/methods, so two words are a bit better in these
cases.)

(2) even aside from (1), I believe .source_location is better as a name from
a design point of view. While Dylan reasoned that .const_source_location() makes
more sense, IMO we could actually go the other approach and say "ruby, I don't
quite care if it is a constant, or a method, or a class, or anything,
I just want to query the source_location to it". So I think it depends on
the point of view you have for the name. In my opinion, omitting "const_"
would be perfectly fine; also I struggle with things such as "when to use
class_eval or instance_eval" so I am all for simpler names in general. ;)

Now we do have Method#source_location but I think and also const_source_location
as well - but I think it would be simpler to "unify" towards one general name,
no matter what that name may be, if we look at it from the point of view of
"how ruby users may want to use the feature". So from that point of view,
from a ruby user perspective, I think it would be better to omit "const_"
completely. But this is quite secondary; IMO the use case described makes
sense.

Updated by sawa (Tsuyoshi Sawada) 7 months ago

I also think that a method name other than const_source_location should be used for this feature because this feature has nothing to do with constants. Modules are not necessarily constants, and constants are not necessarily modules.

Updated by Eregon (Benoit Daloze) 7 months ago

Module#source_location sounds good to me.

I wonder if we should try to collect all places where the class/module is opened/reopened.
const_source_location returns where the module was first defined, but there we might want to know e.g. in which files that class was modified.

I could imagine that could be useful in an IDE or debugger.
OTOH it's probably not so reasonable for class_exec/module_exec which could be done in a loop potentially.

Updated by Eregon (Benoit Daloze) 7 months ago

Actually a good way to list all files where methods were added to the class is to go though instance_methods and ask their source_location, so that may be good enough for that purpose.

Actions #7

Updated by ko1 (Koichi Sasada) 7 months ago

Updated by mame (Yusuke Endoh) 6 months ago

@tenderlove I'm not sure about the use case. What purpose do you want this for? Memory profiling?

const_source_location and source_location are very similar but different for an anonymou class. The former returns the site where the class object is assigned to a constant, while the latter returns the site where it is created. But in almost all cases, they are same and redundant. I don't think it is a good idea to introduce similar and redundant fields in terms of maintenance, unless it is really needed. So, I'd like to ask a question: is the difference really needed for your use case?

(I'm never negative for this proposal, but I wanted to confirm.)

Updated by tenderlovemaking (Aaron Patterson) 6 months ago

mame (Yusuke Endoh) wrote in #note-8:

@tenderlove I'm not sure about the use case. What purpose do you want this for? Memory profiling?

const_source_location and source_location are very similar but different for an anonymou class. The former returns the site where the class object is assigned to a constant, while the latter returns the site where it is created. But in almost all cases, they are same and redundant. I don't think it is a good idea to introduce similar and redundant fields in terms of maintenance, unless it is really needed. So, I'd like to ask a question: is the difference really needed for your use case?

(I'm never negative for this proposal, but I wanted to confirm.)

For my use case the difference doesn't matter. If we had namespace as in #17753, then I think I could write klass.namespace.const_source_location(klass.name) (or make the implementation do this).

But to confirm the difference between "allocation location" vs "assignment location" doesn't matter to me.

Updated by mame (Yusuke Endoh) 6 months ago

Thank you! Then, I think the patch should use const_source_location info instead of adding file and line fields.

tenderlovemaking (Aaron Patterson) wrote in #note-9:

For my use case the difference doesn't matter. If we had namespace as in #17753, then I think I could write klass.namespace.const_source_location(klass.name) (or make the implementation do this).

Sorry I am missing somthing but if an anonymous class does not matter at all, I think you are already able to write Object.const_source_location(klass.name) even if #17753 is not accepted.

Actions

Also available in: Atom PDF