Trans wrote:
> Sure. I realize. I'm only pointing out that this -> operator is
> equivalent to a rescue NoMethodError,

So how can I explain to you that it *isn't*?

> Another possibility... perhaps we can add a feature to #tap (which has
> already been added to Ruby 1.9) so that:

Somebody else here on the list uses a method 'ergo' to do what -> would 
do. Similar disadvantages as the ._methods solution.

Regards
Stefan

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