Change the Binding of a Proc in Ruby

Change the binding of a Proc in Ruby

You can try the following hack:

class Proc
  def call_with_vars(vars, *args)
    Struct.new(*vars.keys).new(*vars.values).instance_exec(*args, &self)
  end
end

To be used like this:

irb(main):001:0* lambda { foo }.call_with_vars(:foo => 3)
=> 3
irb(main):002:0> lambda { |a| foo + a }.call_with_vars({:foo => 3}, 1)
=> 4

This is not a very general solution, though. It would be better if we could give it Binding instance instead of a Hash and do the following:

l = lambda { |a| foo + a }
foo = 3
l.call_with_binding(binding, 1)  # => 4

Using the following, more complex hack, this exact behaviour can be achieved:

class LookupStack
  def initialize(bindings = [])
    @bindings = bindings
  end

  def method_missing(m, *args)
    @bindings.reverse_each do |bind|
      begin
        method = eval("method(%s)" % m.inspect, bind)
      rescue NameError
      else
        return method.call(*args)
      end
      begin
        value = eval(m.to_s, bind)
        return value
      rescue NameError
      end
    end
    raise NoMethodError
  end

  def push_binding(bind)
    @bindings.push bind
  end

  def push_instance(obj)
    @bindings.push obj.instance_eval { binding }
  end

  def push_hash(vars)
    push_instance Struct.new(*vars.keys).new(*vars.values)
  end

  def run_proc(p, *args)
    instance_exec(*args, &p)
  end
end

class Proc
  def call_with_binding(bind, *args)
    LookupStack.new([bind]).run_proc(self, *args)
  end
end

Basically we define ourselves a manual name lookup stack and instance_exec our proc against it. This is a very flexible mechanism. It not only enables the implementation of call_with_binding, it can also be used to build up much more complex lookup chains:

l = lambda { |a| local + func(2) + some_method(1) + var + a }

local = 1
def func(x) x end

class Foo < Struct.new(:add)
  def some_method(x) x + add end
end

stack = LookupStack.new
stack.push_binding(binding)
stack.push_instance(Foo.new(2))
stack.push_hash(:var => 4)

p stack.run_proc(l, 5)

This prints 15, as expected :)

UPDATE: Code is now also available at Github. I use this for one my projects too now.

Changing the `Proc` binding during invocation

You can use instance_eval:

class Bar
  def do_something
    validator = AllValidator.new.age_validator

    # Evaluate validator in the context of self.
    instance_eval &validator
  end
end

If you want to pass arguments (as mentioned in the comment below), you can use instance_exec instead of instance_eval if you use Ruby 1.9 or Ruby 1.8.7:

class Bar
  def do_something
    validator = AllValidator.new.age_validator

    # instance_exec is like instance_eval with arguments.
    instance_exec 5, &validator
  end
end

If you have to make it work with Ruby 1.8.6 and below as well, your best bet is to bind the proc as a method of Bar:

class Bar
  def do_something
    self.class.send :define_method, :validate, &AllValidator.new.age_validator
    self.validate 5
  end
end

An alternative is to implement instance_exec older Ruby versions (example here). All it does is define a method before calling it, and undefining it after you're done.

Binding of Procs

foo.instance_eval &proc

instance_eval can take a block instead of a string, and the & operator turns the proc into a block for use with the method call.

How can I call a Proc that takes a block in a different context?

To solve this, you need to re-bind the Proc to the new class.

Here's your solution, leveraging some good code from Rails core_ext:

require 'rspec'

# Same as original post

class SomeClass
  def instance_method(x)
    "Hello #{x}"
  end
end

# Same as original post

class AnotherClass
  def instance_method(x)
    "Goodbye #{x}"
  end

  def make_proc
    Proc.new do |x, &block|
      instance_method(block.call(x))
    end
  end
end

### SOLUTION ###

# From activesupport lib/active_support/core_ext/kernel/singleton_class.rb

module Kernel
  # Returns the object's singleton class.
  def singleton_class
    class << self
      self
    end
  end unless respond_to?(:singleton_class) # exists in 1.9.2

  # class_eval on an object acts like singleton_class.class_eval.
  def class_eval(*args, &block)
    singleton_class.class_eval(*args, &block)
  end
end

# From activesupport lib/active_support/core_ext/proc.rb 

class Proc #:nodoc:
  def bind(object)
    block, time = self, Time.now
    object.class_eval do
      method_name = "__bind_#{time.to_i}_#{time.usec}"
      define_method(method_name, &block)
      method = instance_method(method_name)
      remove_method(method_name)
      method
    end.bind(object)
  end
end

# Here's the method you requested

def change_scope_of_proc(new_self, proc)
  return proc.bind(new_self)
end

# Same as original post

describe "change_scope_of_proc" do
  it "should change the instance method that is called" do
    some_class = SomeClass.new
    another_class = AnotherClass.new
    proc = another_class.make_proc
    fixed_proc = change_scope_of_proc(some_class, proc)
    result = fixed_proc.call("Wor") do |x|
      "#{x}ld"
    end
    result.should == "Hello World"
  end
end

Proc.new binding change and loops logic abstraction

You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want return from the proc to abort the method, it must be in the method's lexical scope* (which is another way to say "it must be defined within the same method").

An alternative is to have proc/lambda return a "stop" value, which caller will use to abort its execution.

(Your experiments with instance_eval/instance_exec were misdirected, sadly. Those methods only change current self. This problem has nothing to do with current self, but rather current lexical scope, in which return is executed.)

---

^{* The error you're getting, it is caused by return trying to return from a method that is no longer running (proc_exec).}

To which level returns a return inside a Proc Object in Ruby?

As a general rule, return always returns from the closest lexically enclosing method definition expression.

In this case, the closest lexically enclosing method definition expression is def a, therefore, return returns from a.

It does not actually matter that the return is inside a block in this case. The general rule is, well, general, so it applies regardless of where the return appears.

If we look more specifically at blocks, though, we can see that it still makes sense: in blocks, local variables are captured lexically, self is captured lexically, so it makes sense that return also behaves lexically. It is a general property of blocks that if you want to understand what is going on in a block, you only need to look lexically outwards.

And if we get even more specific, first going from the general rule to blocks, and now from blocks to Procs, the behavior still makes sense: a Proc is essentially a reified block, so it makes sense for a Proc to behave like a block.

There are some exceptions, though, to the general rule, and one important one are lambdas. Talking about lambdas in Ruby is always a little bit weird because lambdas are Procs but they behave differently from Procs. IMO, lambdas should have a separate class alongside Procs. Since lambdas are Procs, it makes it weird to talk about the differences between lambdas and Procs which are not lambdas (which don't have a standardized name and thus are confusingly also called Procs).

The behavior of a lambda differs from the behavior of a non-lambda Proc in two ways, one of which is relevant to your question:

• Parameter binding in non-lambda Procs has the same semantics as parameter binding in blocks, whereas parameter binding in lambdas has the same semantics as parameter binding in message sends / method invocations.
• In non-lambda Procs, return returns from the closest lexically enclosing method definition expression, just like in blocks, whereas in lambdas, return returns from the lambda itself, just like return in methods.

So, in both of these aspects, non-lambda Procs behave like blocks and lambdas behave like methods. I memorize it like this: "Proc" rhymes with "block" and both "lambda" and "method" are Greek.

As you probably know, there are some methods which also alter the behavior of blocks that are passed to them. E.g. instance_eval and instance_exec change the value of self, and define_method actually does change the behavior of return.

But since you didn't ask about blocks in general, and also didn't ask about lambdas specifically, and there are no reflective methods in your question, the general rules still applies to non-lambda Procs like the one shown in your question: return returns from the closest lexically enclosing method definition expression.

---

Related Topics