Ruby中的method_missing陷阱 [英] method_missing gotchas in Ruby

问题描述

在Ruby中定义method_missing方法时，有什么需要注意的事情吗?我想知道继承，异常抛出，性能或其他方面是否存在一些不太明显的交互作用.

Are there any things to be careful about when defining the method_missing method in Ruby? I'm wondering whether there are some not-so-obvious interactions from inheritance, exception throwing, performance, or anything else.

推荐答案

一个显而易见的方法:如果重新定义method_missing，请始终重新定义respond_to?.如果method_missing(:sym)有效，则respond_to?(:sym)应该始终返回true.有很多库都依赖于此.

A somewhat obvious one: always redefine respond_to? if you redefine method_missing. If method_missing(:sym) works, respond_to?(:sym) should always return true. There are many libraries that rely on this.

稍后:

一个例子:

# Wrap a Foo; don't expose the internal guts.
# Pass any method that starts with 'a' on to the
# Foo.
class FooWrapper
  def initialize(foo)
    @foo = foo
  end
  def some_method_that_doesnt_start_with_a
    'bar'
  end
  def a_method_that_does_start_with_a
    'baz'
  end
  def respond_to?(sym, include_private = false)
    pass_sym_to_foo?(sym) || super(sym, include_private)
  end
  def method_missing(sym, *args, &block)
    return foo.call(sym, *args, &block) if pass_sym_to_foo?(sym)
    super(sym, *args, &block)
  end
  private
  def pass_sym_to_foo?(sym)
    sym.to_s =~ /^a/ && @foo.respond_to?(sym)
  end
end

class Foo
  def argh
    'argh'
  end
  def blech
    'blech'
  end
end

w = FooWrapper.new(Foo.new)

w.respond_to?(:some_method_that_doesnt_start_with_a)
# => true
w.some_method_that_doesnt_start_with_a
# => 'bar'

w.respond_to?(:a_method_that_does_start_with_a)
# => true
w.a_method_that_does_start_with_a
# => 'baz'

w.respond_to?(:argh)
# => true
w.argh
# => 'argh'

w.respond_to?(:blech)
# => false
w.blech
# NoMethodError

w.respond_to?(:glem!)
# => false
w.glem!
# NoMethodError

w.respond_to?(:apples?)
w.apples?
# NoMethodError

这篇关于Ruby中的method_missing陷阱的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！