Liskov Substitution Principle and the Ruby Core Libraries

There is a spirited discussion happening now on the ruby-talk list called >Oppinions on RCR for dup on immutable classes (sic).

In the core Ruby classes, the Kernel module, which is the root of everything, even Object, defines a method called dup, for duplicating objects. (There is also a clone method with slightly different behavior that I won’t discuss here.)

The problem is that some derived core classes throw an exception when dup is called.

Specifically, as the ruby-talk discussion title says, it’s the immutable classes (NilClass, FalseClass, TrueClass, Fixnum, and Symbol) that do this. Consider, for example, the following irb session:

irb 1:0> 5.respond_to? :dup
=> true
irb 2:0> 5.dup
TypeError: can't dup Fixnum
        from (irb):1:in `dup'
        from (irb):1
irb 3:0> 

If you don’t know Ruby, the first line asks the Fixnum object 5 if it responds to the method dup (with the name expressed as a symbol, hence the). The answer is true, becuase this method is defined by the module Kernel, which is included by the top-level class Object, an ancestor of Fixnum.

However, when you actually call dup on 5, it raises TypeError, as shown.

So, this looks like a classic Liskov Substitution Principle violation. The term for this code smell is Refused Bequest (e.g., see here) and it’s typically fixed with the refactoring Replace Inheritance with Delegation.

The email thread is about a proposal to change the library in one of several possible ways. One possibility is to remove dup from the immutable classes. This would eliminate the unexpected behavior in the example above, since 5.respond_to?(:dup) would return false, but it would still be an LSP violation, specifically it would still have the Refused Bequest smell.

One scenario where the current behavior causes problems is doing a deep copy of an arbitrary object graph. For immutable objects, you would normally just want dup to return the same object. It’s immutable, right? Well, not exactly, since you can re-open classes and even objects to add and remove methods in Ruby (there are some limitations for the immutables…). So, if you thought you actually duplicated something and started messing with its methods, you would be surprised to find the original was “also” modified.

So, how serious is this LSP issue (one of several)? When I pointed out the problem in the discussion, one respondent, Robert Dober, said the following (edited slightly):

I would say that LSP does not apply here simply because in Ruby we do not have that kind of contract. In order to apply LSP we need to say at a point we have an object of class Base, for example. (let the gods forgive me that I use Java)

void aMethod(final Base b){
   ....
}

and we expect this to work whenever we call aMethod with an object that is a Base. Anyway the compiler would not really allow otherwise.

SubClass sc;  // subclassing Base od course
aMethod( sc ); // this is expected to work (from the type POV).

Such things just do not exist in Ruby, I believe that Ruby has explained something to me:

• OO Languages are Class oriented languages
• Dynamic Languages are Object oriented languages.

Replace Class with Type and you see what I mean.

This is all very much IMHO of course but I feel that the Ruby community has made me evolve a lot away from “Class oriented”.

He’s wrong that the compiler protects you in Java; you can still throw exceptions, etc. The JDK Collection classes have Refused Bequests. Besides that, however, he makes some interesting points.

As a long-time Java programmer, I’m instinctively uncomfortable with LSP violations. Yet, the Ruby API is very nice to work with, so maybe a little LSP violation isn’t so bad?

As Robert says, we approach our designs differently in dynamic vs. static languages. In Ruby, you almost never use the is_a? and kind_of? methods to check for type. Instead, you follow the duck typing philosophy (“If it acts like a duck, it must be a duck”); you rely on respond_to? to decide if an object does what you want.

In the case of dup for the immutable classes, I would prefer that they not implement the method, rather than throw an exception. However, that would still violate LSP.

So, can we still satisfy LSP and also have rich base classes and modules?

There are many examples of traits that one object might or should support, but not another. (Those of you Java programmers might ask yourself why all objects support toString, for example. Why not also toXML...?)

Coming from an AOP background, I would rather see an architecture where dup is added only to those classes and modules that can support it. It shouldn’t be part of the standard “signature” of Kernel, but it should be present when code actually needs it.

In fact, Ruby makes this sort of AOP easy to implement. Maybe Kernel, Module, and Object should be refactored into smaller pieces and programmers should declaratively mixin the traits they need. Imagine something like the following:

irb 1:0> my_obj.respond_to? :dup
=> false
irb 2:0> include 'DupableTrait'  
irb 2:0> my_obj.respond_to? :dup
=> true
irb 4:0> def dup_if_possible items
irb 5:1>  items.map {|item| item.respond_to?(:dup) ? item.dup : item}
irb 6:1> end
...

In other words, Kernel no longer “exposes the dup abstraction”, by default, but the DupableTrait module “magically” adds dup to all the classes that can support it. This way, we preserve LSP, streamline the core classes and modules (SRP and ISP anyone?), yet we have the flexibility we need, on demand.