On Mar 4, 2006, at 11:56 AM, Jamey Cribbs wrote:

> Thanks very much for the feedback on my overriding  
> NilClass#medthod_missing in KirbyBase.  I don't think the three  
> examples shown above would really be acceptable, because, could you  
> imagine having to do this for every query where there was a chance  
> that  a #method_missing could be thrown?  I think that would get  
> old very fast.

There are a few problems with this line of thinking, in my opinion:

1.  You change the semantics of the language to get around this.   
Overlooking the dangers of this for now, how is someone even suppose  
to know to write non-standard Ruby when using the Kirbybase library?

2.  If the normal Ruby behavior is bothering a user, they can add the  
one-line hack with the knowledge of the trade-off they are choosing.

3.  It's just too dangerous.  It's very possible you break other Ruby  
libraries with a hack like this.  We don't want to not be able to use  
Kirbybase for a project because it breaks library XYZ.

I'm really not trying to be mean.  I am very much liking what I have  
seen about Kirbybase, which is why I'm telling you about the barrier  
that is keeping me from using it.  ;)

James Edward Gray II