Yes, I understand your proposed approach.

I think your approach is better than the one I was playing with, because 
it's a
bit lazier and more permissive, for example, in the case the child does
not override every method 'required' by the parent, they could still use
it to some desired effect.

Yet, under the alternative approach I propose, not even that is required
-- the documentation suggests it or shared tests require it.

I don't know, though, I think it best to let the code express the full
intention of the programmer and not augment with optional struts like
documentation or even tests...

Grar

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