[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software
Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

comp.lang.ruby

Accessing functions in a module without 'include'

Ronald Fischer

6/29/2007 9:25:00 AM

Usually I work with modules like this:

# Defining a module in one file
module M
def f(x)
....
end
end

# Using the module in another file
require 'M'
include M
f(45)

Sometimes I would find it more convenient to *not* inject
the module's namespace into the user's namespace, i.e. to
do it without the include statement. I thought it would
be easy to qualify the foreign function with the module
name:

# Using the module in another file
# (this does not work)
require 'M'
M::f(45) # Error: undefined method 'f'

Maybe I'm thinking to Perlish here. Can it be done what I want
to achieve, and how?

Ronald
--
Ronald Fischer <ronald.fischer@venyon.com>
Phone: +49-89-452133-162
6 Answers

Trans

6/29/2007 11:59:00 AM

0



On Jun 29, 5:25 am, "Ronald Fischer" <ronald.fisc...@venyon.com>
wrote:
> Usually I work with modules like this:
>
# Defining a module in one file
module M
module_function # <<<<<<<<< HERE
def f(x)
....
end
end

T.

Michael Hollins

6/29/2007 1:03:00 PM

0

Ronald Fischer wrote:
> Usually I work with modules like this:
>
> # Defining a module in one file
> module M
> def f(x)
> ....
> end
> end
>
> # Using the module in another file
> require 'M'
> include M
> f(45)
>
> Sometimes I would find it more convenient to *not* inject
> the module's namespace into the user's namespace, i.e. to
> do it without the include statement. I thought it would
> be easy to qualify the foreign function with the module
> name:
>
> # Using the module in another file
> # (this does not work)
> require 'M'
> M::f(45) # Error: undefined method 'f'
>
> Maybe I'm thinking to Perlish here. Can it be done what I want
> to achieve, and how?

Not sure if it's what you want, but if you define M as follows it works:

module M
def self.f(x)
....
end
end

cheers,
mick

Ronald Fischer

7/2/2007 9:33:00 AM

0

> > Sometimes I would find it more convenient to *not* inject
> > the module's namespace into the user's namespace, i.e. to
> > do it without the include statement. I thought it would
> > be easy to qualify the foreign function with the module
> > name:
> >
> > # Using the module in another file
> > # (this does not work)
> > require 'M'
> > M::f(45) # Error: undefined method 'f'
> >
> > Maybe I'm thinking to Perlish here. Can it be done what I want
> > to achieve, and how?
>
> Not sure if it's what you want, but if you define M as
> follows it works:
>
> module M
> def self.f(x)
> ....
> end
> end

Thank you, this works perfectly well!

Ronald

Ronald Fischer

7/2/2007 9:34:00 AM

0

> # Defining a module in one file
> module M
> module_function # <<<<<<<<< HERE
> def f(x)
> ....
> end
> end

Thank you, this is indeed one solution to my problem (though in the
end, I'm going to stick with Michael Hollins' proposal).

Ronald

Trans

7/2/2007 10:32:00 AM

0



On Jul 2, 5:34 am, "Ronald Fischer" <ronald.fisc...@venyon.com> wrote:
> > # Defining a module in one file
> > module M
> > module_function # <<<<<<<<< HERE
> > def f(x)
> > ....
> > end
> > end
>
> Thank you, this is indeed one solution to my problem (though in the
> end, I'm going to stick with Michael Hollins' proposal).

Don't mention it :) BTW, Just to make sure you know, you can't use
Micheal's solution if you still want the option of including the
Module elsewhere. In effect using module_function is the same as:

module M
def self.f(x)
....
end
def f(x)
....
end
private :f
end

Probably you've already figured that out, but just in case...

T.

Ronald Fischer

7/2/2007 10:56:00 AM

0

> BTW, Just to make sure you know, you can't use
> Micheal's solution if you still want the option of including the
> Module elsewhere. In effect using module_function is the same as:
>
> module M
> def self.f(x)
> ....
> end
> def f(x)
> ....
> end
> private :f
> end

I wasn't aware that the instance functions would then go private,
but in my case this would be no problem anyway.

Ronald