On 5/30/07, James Edward Gray II <james / grayproductions.net> wrote:
> On May 30, 2007, at 7:53 AM, dblack / wobblini.net wrote:
>
> > You could of course shoehorn find_by_* into respond_to? for AR
> > objects, if you don't mind, essentially, writing method_missing twice
> > (once for real, once as a kind of pseudo-static twin).
>
> I don't really understand this stance.  My opinion is that providing
> a method_missing() implementation is a convenient way for a
> programmer to define a lot of dynamic methods.  This increases the
> messages an object responds to.

I have always felt that dynamic method creation and dynamic message
interception are not quite the same beast. But I guess you have some
thoughts behind your claim of which I fail to grasp the concept. Would
you mind to elaborate?

To be honest, with my lack of imagination, right now I really do not
like the idea to tweak #respond_to? .

Am I right that in the following case

class A
   def method_missing name, *args, &blk
      return whatever(name, *args, &blk)
   end
end

A.new.respond_to(x) would be true for whatever x - if it were for your idea.

Is this really a good idea?

Cheers
Robert

<snip>
> Those are just my opinions though.
Same here :)
>
> James Edward Gray II
>
>
>
Robert

-- 
You see things; and you say Why?
But I dream things that never were; and I say Why not?
-- George Bernard Shaw