[rspec-users] class << self considered harmful... really?
dchelimsky at gmail.com
Tue Nov 25 09:52:49 EST 2008
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 8:39 AM, Zach Dennis <zach.dennis at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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'.
One thing Chris points out in his blog is that 'def self.method_name'
is perfectly fine, and that it makes refactoring easier. My experience
is different, because I'm often searching for methods with 'dev
method_name' - this is actually one of the reasons I have preferred
'class << self'.
That said, I'm all for speeding things up where we can, so I'll be
looking into this in rspec. I just found 22 uses of 'class << self' in
rspec. Sometime soon I'll see how many of them I feel I can get rid
>> Zach Dennis
> Zach Dennis
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
More information about the rspec-users