Feature #18798
closed`UnboundMethod#==` with inherited classes
Description
Now UnboundMethod
for a same method from a superclass and an inherited class are not ==
.
class C
def foo = :C
$mc = instance_method(:foo)
end
class D < C
$md = instance_method(:foo)
end
p $mc == $md #=> false
p $mc.owner #=> C
p $mc.owner == $md.owner #=> true
p $mc.source_location == $md.source_location #=> true
p $mc.inspect #=> "#<UnboundMethod: C#foo() t.rb:3>"
p $md.inspect #=> "#<UnboundMethod: D(C)#foo() t.rb:3>"
How about to make it UnboundMethod#==
return true for this case?
Rule: "return true if the UnboundMethod objects point to a same method definition" seems simple.
FYI: On aliased unbound methods point to a same method are ==
.
class C
def foo = :C
alias bar foo
$mfoo = instance_method(:foo)
$mbar = instance_method(:bar)
end
p $mfoo, $mbar
#=> #<UnboundMethod: C#foo() t.rb:2>
#=> #<UnboundMethod: C#bar(foo)() t.rb:2>
p $mfoo == $mbar #=> true
Updated by sawa (Tsuyoshi Sawada) over 2 years ago
Did you mean:
p $mc.owner == $md.owner #=> true
p $mc.source_location == $md.source_location #=> true
I think the proposal is a good idea.
Updated by jeremyevans0 (Jeremy Evans) over 2 years ago
I'm not against this change (for UnboundMethod, I think Method should remain different), but it seems more like a feature request than a bug fix to me.
Updated by Eregon (Benoit Daloze) over 2 years ago
+1. @ko1 (Koichi Sasada) I guess you meant this as a feature request?
Updated by Eregon (Benoit Daloze) over 2 years ago
Regarding Method#==, I think it should also respects the simple rule "point to a same method definition" + ensure the receiver is the same object for both Method instances.
Updated by ko1 (Koichi Sasada) over 2 years ago
- Tracker changed from Bug to Feature
- ruby -v deleted (
ruby 3.2.0dev (2022-01-14T04:46:12Z gh-4636 c613d79f9b) [x64-mswin64_140]) - Backport deleted (
2.7: UNKNOWN, 3.0: UNKNOWN, 3.1: UNKNOWN)
Ah, yes, it is a feature request.
Updated by Eregon (Benoit Daloze) over 2 years ago
- Has duplicate Feature #18969: Compare only method definitions for Method#== and UnboundMethod#== added
Updated by Eregon (Benoit Daloze) over 2 years ago
I think we should do this, because I think the main purpose of UnboundMethod#== is to find out if two methods have the same definition (or in other words, are equivalent in behavior).
I filed #18969 which is a duplicate.
That issue also suggests that if changing UnboundMethod#== is not acceptable, then a new method could do that e.g. {Method,UnboundMethod}#same_definition?(other)
.
Updated by joel@drapper.me (Joel Drapper) about 2 years ago
This would be really helpful for checking if a class has redefined a method inherited form a superclass.
As an example, I’m working on a compiler that replaces certain method calls with their inlined expected behaviour from an abstract superclass. Because it's possible for the subclass to override these abstract methods, the compiler should check if instance_method(name) == AbstractClass.instance_method(name)
before folding it. While this wouldn't cover the method being overridden in the singleton class, that's a reasonable concession for my specific use case.
Updated by matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto) about 2 years ago
I don't think UnboundMethod needs the reference to the class that generates the object, so that UnboundMethod#==
works.
Matz.
Updated by Eregon (Benoit Daloze) about 2 years ago
UnboundMethod#inspect
currently shows the class used for lookup:
irb(main):001:0> String.instance_method(:object_id)
=> #<UnboundMethod: String(Kernel)#object_id()>
Without it we can't show String
here, it'd have to be #<UnboundMethod: Kernel#object_id()>
.
We might also need it for #super_method
(when the method entry is defined on a module and not a class), although in CRuby it seems the iclass field is used for that.
The iclass field can already change the result of super_method
but does not affect #== or #hash.
I'm not sure this incompatibility is OK, it seems easier to only change #== (UnboundMethod#hash already ignores the class).
On the upside, removing that class from #inspect and as a field means there is only one module/class shown per UnboundMethod
(well, except there is a hidden iclass which does matter for #super_method
).
Updated by Eregon (Benoit Daloze) about 2 years ago
In code terms:
module M
def foo
end
end
class A
prepend M
def foo
end
end
class B
prepend M
def foo
end
end
a = A.instance_method(:foo)
b = B.instance_method(:foo)
p a
p b
p a == b
p [a.super_method, b.super_method]
Currently:
#<UnboundMethod: A(M)#foo() umethod_iclass.rb:2>
#<UnboundMethod: B(M)#foo() umethod_iclass.rb:2>
false
[#<UnboundMethod: A#foo() umethod_iclass.rb:8>, #<UnboundMethod: B#foo() umethod_iclass.rb:14>]
Proposed (just changing UnboundMethod#==):
#<UnboundMethod: A(M)#foo() umethod_iclass.rb:2>
#<UnboundMethod: B(M)#foo() umethod_iclass.rb:2>
true
[#<UnboundMethod: A#foo() umethod_iclass.rb:8>, #<UnboundMethod: B#foo() umethod_iclass.rb:14>]
No class field anymore:
#<UnboundMethod: M#foo() umethod_iclass.rb:2>
#<UnboundMethod: M#foo() umethod_iclass.rb:2> (no visual difference)
true
[#<UnboundMethod: A#foo() umethod_iclass.rb:8>, #<UnboundMethod: B#foo() umethod_iclass.rb:14>]
Updated by mame (Yusuke Endoh) about 2 years ago
No class field anymore:
#<UnboundMethod: M#foo() umethod_iclass.rb:2> #<UnboundMethod: M#foo() umethod_iclass.rb:2> (no visual difference) true [#<UnboundMethod: A#foo() umethod_iclass.rb:8>, #<UnboundMethod: B#foo() umethod_iclass.rb:14>]
This understanding is correct.
Discussed at the dev meeting. To the best of our knowledge, the receiver of instance_method is now only used in UnboundMethod#inspect
(and #to_s
). At the dev meeting, no one saw the significance of keeping track of this receiver. So @matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto) wants to discard the information and to change #==
, #eql?
, #hash
(if needed), #inspect
, and #to_s
as you said.
Updated by Eregon (Benoit Daloze) about 2 years ago
Thanks for confirming. It sounds good to me.
Does @ko1 (Koichi Sasada) or anyone else plan to work on this? Otherwise I can give it a try when I have some time.
Updated by matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto) almost 2 years ago
LGTM.
Matz.
Updated by matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto) almost 2 years ago
- Related to Bug #18751: Regression on master for Method#== when comparing public with private method added
Updated by ko1 (Koichi Sasada) almost 2 years ago
- Status changed from Open to Closed
https://github.com/ruby/ruby/pull/6855 was merged.
p String.instance_method(:object_id) == Array.instance_method(:object_id) #=> true