Hi --

On Wed, 30 May 2007, Tim Hunter wrote:

> James Gray wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Following from that logic, I believe you should also override
>> respond_to?() to reflect those new messages.  It's my opinion
>> therefore that this thread has exposed a bug in Rails that should be
>> patched.
>>
>
> FWIW, there's an entry about this in the Ruby Style Guide on
> rubygarden.org:
> http://wiki.rubygarden.org/Ruby/page/show/RubyStyleGuide/RespondToGoesWithMethodMissing

Hmmm... perhaps there needs to be a second entry explaining why it's
better not to put oneself in the position of having to maintain two
almost identical methods in parallel instead of one :-)


David

-- 
Q. What is THE Ruby book for Rails developers?
A. RUBY FOR RAILS by David A. Black (http://www.manning.com/black)
    (See what readers are saying!  http://www.rubypal.com/r4rrevs.pdf)
Q. Where can I get Ruby/Rails on-site training, consulting, coaching?
A. Ruby Power and Light, LLC (http://www.rubypal.com)