If you ever looked at the available methods on some objects in Ruby, you might have noticed that there seems to be two different ways to cast an object to string: to_s and to_str . However, most people only use to_s … is it because it’s shorter or is to_str functionally different?

Short answer: they are indeed different.

Note that this article focuses on to_s vs to_str , but the logic applies as well to to_int , to_ary , to_hash , to_regexp and to_sym .

Difference In Scope Of Definition

First of, to_s is defined on a lot of elements. To demonstrate this, let’s create a new class Demo and call to_s on a new instance of this class:

class Demo end puts Demo . new . to_s

This returns:

#<Demo:0x007fc49b05a408>

We could also call to_s directly on the class and get a valid result as well since the Class class is also an object:

> Class.to_s => "Class" > Class.new.to_s => "#<Class:0x007f8f5c02f5b0>"

However if we try to do the same with to_str , it won’t work because it’s not defined on a higher level class:

puts Demo . new . to_str

This will return undefined method to_str for #<Demo:0x007fea8204e290> (NoMethodError) , meaning that we have to define it ourselves when creating a new class.

Difference In Behavior

Alright, so the methods are not defined in the same way… but this is just a minor detail compared to the main difference between the two:

to_s returns a string representation of an object

returns a string representation of an object to_str is actually stating that the object behaves like a string!

String Representation Of An Object

When calling to_s , it will return some form of string representation of the object. Something easy to display.

When creating a new class you can keep the default behaviour or build your own. For instance here’s how to_s behaves on an integer:

100 . to_s ( 2 ) # returns "1100100" 100 . to_s # returns "100" 100 . to_s ( 8 ) # returns"144"

Here’s what it could look like if you were defining it yourself:

class User def initialize ( name ) @name = name end def to_s "User: #{ @name } " end end

It’s basically just a way to have a quick and nice way to display your objects that is going to be called when needed, for instance when using puts or when interpolating with #{} :

puts "Here is #{ User . new ( "Bob" ) } " # Returns "Here is User: Bob"

Behaving Like A String

Calling to_str should return a string-like object, behaving just like a String .

On the other hand when an object implements to_str , it has way more consequences as it means that it will return something that behaves like a string. It’s basically saying that the class is not necessarily a String , but it can be used in the same way.

Because of this, the only class in Ruby core implementing to_str is String :

rb_str_to_s ( VALUE str ) { if ( rb_obj_class ( str ) != rb_cString ) { return str_duplicate ( rb_cString , str ); } return str ; }

Exception used to implement to_str as well but is was removed in Ruby 1.9, which is why it’s often mentioned as an example. The Ruby documentation was even wrong at the time of writing this article, so I wrote a PR to fix it that was merged.

There are a lot of discussions regarding if a class should implement to_str or not, since it’s a strong signal that the class is really similar to a string and should behave as such. If this sounds interesting, you should take a look at this Symbol#to_str discussion on the Ruby core tracker, or at this example in Rails of when to_str is useful by Aaron Patterson.

Example 1: Fixnum

Fixnum does not define to_str , so when we do this:

puts "150" + 42

We get '+': no implicit conversion of Fixnum into String (TypeError) . This makes sense, but what would happen if we were to define to_str on the Fixnum class?

class Fixnum def to_str self . to_s end end

The when we call:

puts "150" + 42

We get "15042" , which is quite surprising! It’s because 42 was implicitly converted to a String .

Example 2: User

Going back to our other example, we could add to_str to the User class and get the ability to use + to concatenate an instance of User with a string:

class User def initialize ( name ) @name = name end def to_str @name end end puts "Say hello to " + User . new ( "Bob" ) # Displays "Say hello to Bob"

Note On Implicit / Explicit Conversion

We can also say that to_s is an explicit conversion and to_str is an implicit conversion. I’m not going into the details of this, if you’d like to get more information I recommend reading Confident Ruby.

Quoting directly from the book:

to_s is an explicit conversion method. Explicit conversions represent conversions from classes which are mostly or entirely unrelated to the target class. to_str , on the other hand, is an implicit conversion method. Implicit conversions represent conversions from a class that is closely related to the target class. Confident Ruby by Avdi Grimm

Summing It Up

That’s a lot of information, but let me sum it up quickly before finishing the article:

to_s and to_str are very different .

and are . to_s is defined on most objects and returns a string representation of this object.

is defined on most objects and returns a string representation of this object. Defining to_str on an object is very much like saying “this object behaves like a string”.

on an object is very much like saying “this object behaves like a string”. Calling to_str should return a string-like object, not juste a representation of the object as a string.