What is this double-colon ::
? E.g. Foo::Bar
.
I found a definition:
The :: is a unary operator that allows: constants, instance methods and class methods defined within a class or module, to be accessed from anywhere outside the class or module.
What good is scope (private, protected) if you can just use ::
to expose anything?
::
is basically a namespace resolution operator. It allows you to access items in modules, or class-level items in classes. For example, say you had this setup:
module SomeModule
module InnerModule
class MyClass
CONSTANT = 4
end
end
end
You could access CONSTANT
from outside the module as SomeModule::InnerModule::MyClass::CONSTANT
.
It doesn't affect instance methods defined on a class, since you access those with a different syntax (the dot .
).
Relevant note: If you want to go back to the top-level namespace, do this: ::SomeModule – Benjamin Oakes
This simple example illustrates it:
MR_COUNT = 0 # constant defined on main Object class
module Foo
MR_COUNT = 0
::MR_COUNT = 1 # set global count to 1
MR_COUNT = 2 # set local count to 2
end
puts MR_COUNT # this is the global constant: 1
puts Foo::MR_COUNT # this is the local constant: 2
Taken from http://www.tutorialspoint.com/ruby/ruby_operators.htm
::
Lets you access a constant, module, or class defined inside another class or module. It is used to provide namespaces so that method and class names don't conflict with other classes by different authors.
When you see ActiveRecord::Base
in Rails it means that Rails has something like
module ActiveRecord
class Base
end
end
i.e. a class called Base
inside a module ActiveRecord
which is then referenced as ActiveRecord::Base
(you can find this in the Rails source in activerecord-n.n.n/lib/active_record/base.rb)
A common use of :: is to access constants defined in modules e.g.
module Math
PI = 3.141 # ...
end
puts Math::PI
The ::
operator does not allow you to bypass visibility of methods marked private or protected.
class MyClass < ActiveRecord::Base
, does that mean that MyClass only inherits methods from the class base and not anything inside the ActiveRecord module?
class Foo; Baz = 42; def self.Baz; "Baz method!"; end; end
(perfectly valid) Foo::Baz # => 42
and Foo.Baz # => "Baz method!"
. Note that Foo::Baz()
(with parentheses) would also call the method though.
What good is scope (private, protected) if you can just use :: to expose anything?
In Ruby, everything is exposed and everything can be modified from anywhere else.
If you're worried about the fact that classes can be changed from outside the "class definition", then Ruby probably isn't for you.
On the other hand, if you're frustrated by Java's classes being locked down, then Ruby is probably what you're looking for.
attr_accessor
merely makes methods that modify the variable. (Then again there's instance_eval
)
instance_eval
. But there's also instance_variable_get
and instance_variable_set
. Ruby is just too dynamic for constraints.
Adding to previous answers, it is valid Ruby to use ::
to access instance methods. All the following are valid:
MyClass::new::instance_method
MyClass::new.instance_method
MyClass.new::instance_method
MyClass.new.instance_method
As per best practices I believe only the last one is recommended.
Surprisingly, all 10 answers here say the same thing. The '::' is a namespace resolution operator, and yes it is true. But there is one gotcha that you have to realize about the namespace resolution operator when it comes to the constant lookup algorithm. As Matz delineates in his book, 'The Ruby Programming Language', constant lookup has multiple steps. First, it searches a constant in the lexical scope where the constant is referenced. If it does not find the constant within the lexical scope, it then searches the inheritance hierarchy. Because of this constant lookup algorithm, below we get the expected results:
module A
module B
PI = 3.14
module C
class E
PI = 3.15
end
class F < E
def get_pi
puts PI
end
end
end
end
end
f = A::B::C::F.new
f.get_pi
> 3.14
While F inherits from E, the B module is within the lexical scope of F. Consequently, F instances will refer to the constant PI defined in the module B. Now if module B did not define PI, then F instances will refer to the PI constant defined in the superclass E.
But what if we were to use '::' rather than nesting modules? Would we get the same result? No!
By using the namespace resolution operator when defining nested modules, the nested modules and classes are no longer within the lexical scope of their outer modules. As you can see below, PI defined in A::B is not in the lexical scope of A::B::C::D and thus we get uninitialized constant when trying to refer to PI in the get_pi instance method:
module A
end
module A::B
PI = 3.14
end
module A::B::C
class D
def get_pi
puts PI
end
end
end
d = A::B::C::D.new
d.get_pi
NameError: uninitialized constant A::B::C::D::PI
Did you mean? A::B::PI
No, it is not to access every method, it is a "resolution" operator, that is, you use it to resolve the scope (or location you can say) of a constant/static symbol.
For example in the first of your line, Rails use it to find the Base class inside the ActiveRecord.Module, in your second one it is used to locate the class method (static) of the Routes class, etc, etc.
It is not used to expose anything, its used to "locate" stuff around your scopes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scope_resolution_operator
Ruby on rails uses ::
for namespace resolution.
class User < ActiveRecord::Base
VIDEOS_COUNT = 10
Languages = { "English" => "en", "Spanish" => "es", "Mandarin Chinese" => "cn"}
end
To use it :
User::VIDEOS_COUNT
User::Languages
User::Languages.values_at("Spanish") => "en"
Also, other usage is : When using nested routes
OmniauthCallbacksController
is defined under users.
And routed as:
devise_for :users, controllers: {omniauth_callbacks: "users/omniauth_callbacks"}
class Users::OmniauthCallbacksController < Devise::OmniauthCallbacksController
end
It is all about preventing definitions from clashing with other code linked in to your project. It means you can keep things separate.
For example you can have one method called "run" in your code and you will still be able to call your method rather than the "run" method that has been defined in some other library that you have linked in.
module Amimal
module Herbivorous
EATER="plants"
end
end
Amimal::Herbivorous::EATER => "plants"
:: Is used to create a scope . In order to access Constant EATER from 2 modules we need to scope the modules to reach up to the constant
In simple it is a namespace, now namespace is container for modules, classes, function and other. and it also help to solve the problem name conflict. and in ruby you can access namespace by module like
module A
class Article
def Base
end
module B
end
end
so to access the class Article we use A::Article. and in some cases you see that A::Article
Reviving this thread a little. Can we create a 'ruby' name for this operator :: Surprised that we haven't already since we have splats, spreads, hash rockets etc.
Surely we can come up with something more fun than 'double colon' or 'unary operator'
Thinking
quad dot
four eyes
tetra dot
Nibble (half a byte - 4 bits)
Success story sharing
::
for namespace resolution such asstd::cout << "Hello World!";
::SomeModule