Gregory Seidman wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 03:39:12AM +0900, Joel VanderWerf wrote:
> } To extend Austin's point a little: In ruby, it really has to be this 
> } way. What if an object responds to a message by way of method_missing? 
> } There's no easy way to validate that.
> 
> Actually, it is the developer's responsibility to override respond_to? when
> overriding method_missing. To do one and not the other is just sloppy.
> 

An interesting point, and tentatively it seems reasonable (though there
are probably exceptions).

Along those lines, you might also want to add the method to the
instance_methods list so that reflection works as expected.

One interesting variation on the use of method_missing that I've used
once or twice is: When method_missing is called, *create* the method
and make it do the "right thing." Then respond_to? and reflection
will henceforth work as expected.


Hal