[rspec-users] class << self considered harmful... really?
zach.dennis at gmail.com
Tue Nov 25 09:39:26 EST 2008
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 9:38 AM, Zach Dennis <zach.dennis at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 8:41 AM, Matt Wynne <matt at mattwynne.net> wrote:
>> Sorry, I know this is off-topic, but I'd really like to know what the
>> revered ruby-hackers who read this list think.
>> I have adopted class << self, partly from reading RSpec and Cucumber's code
>> as I learn Ruby. I personally think of class methods (or 'static' methods)
>> as being in a kind of 'holding pen' waiting to be factored off onto a proper
>> class of their own, so I rather like the clear way you can group them in a
>> 'nameless' metaclass ready for the exit door.
>> I also really like the clarity of seeing the invisible metaclass for what it
>> What do people think? How can this be harmful?
I forgot to add it is considered harmful because it can so easily be
abused and make readability of the code very difficult to understand.
Especially when doing meta-meta programming. :)
> I think the issue is that people are using class << self to access the
> virtual class when they don't need it. I've seen code where you have
> to scroll to see all of the methods implemented inside of class <<
> self. Adding methods to a virtual class does make method dispatching
> in ruby less efficient, but I don't think enough to render it
> The virtual class of an object (class or instance alike) gives you the
> ability to modify the object in ways that a simple class method
> usually does not allow. For example, if you want to break down a class
> method into a couple of methods, but you don't want to support all of
> the methods as a public API. Here you can use class << self to
> privately scope some of those helper methods that you just decomposed.
> My rule of thumb is to use it when I can't easily achieve the same
> result using other mechanisms, but not to use it just cause'.
> Zach Dennis
More information about the rspec-users