unknown wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Feb 2007, Stefan Rusterholz wrote:
> 
>> Care to explain why you chose defining a method with the sole purpose of
>> raising an exception over removing the method instead?
> 
> yes - for illustration  ;-)

And in a real situation, why would you chose to do so? What would be the 
reasoning to justify that?

> this is a side effect of strong dynamic type systems

I am well aware of that. I used ruby for over a year ;-)
But you in this situations you have two options, define a method whichs 
only code is "raise Exception" or not define the method at all.
Or in your example the choice is between redefining the method with one 
whichs only code is "raise Exception" or undefine the existing one.
In both situations: why would you chose one over the other?
I'm sorry if I'm obnoxious with that :)

My regards

-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.