On Friday 17 January 2003 03:28 pm, Martin DeMello wrote:
> <snip NackClass>
>
> > i actually like that one (someone suggested it earlier).  it's short and
> > ignores exceptions, but it would be patently clear to anyone reading the
> > code that missing methods do not throw exceptions.

i like it too, expcept too...

> That was mine. The problem, though, is that anyone writing their own
> method_missing has to explicitly remember to call super. I know it'd
> break Ruby's model, but there are times I think it'd be really
> convenient if method_missing was treated as a special case, and behaved
> more like, say, a multimethod.

indeed, but would super always be called first or last ?

def method_missing
	#super (auto super here?)
	...some code...
	#super (auto super here?)
end

and what it you really needed super somewhere in between? kind of a can of 
worms. it would just be much better if we had a real nack.

-- 
tom sawyer, aka transami
transami / transami.net


                                   .''.
       .''.      .        *''*    :_\/_:     .
      :_\/_:   _\(/_  .:.*_\/_*   : /\ :  .'.:.'.
  .''.: /\ :   ./)\   ':'* /\ * :  '..'.  -=:o:=-
 :_\/_:'.:::.  | ' *''*    * '.\'/.' _\(/_'.':'.'
 : /\ : :::::  =  *_\/_*     -= o =-  /)\    '  *
  '..'  ':::' === * /\ *     .'/.\'.   '._____
      *        |   *..*         :       |.   |' .---"|
        *      |     _           .--'|  ||   | _|    |
        *      |  .-'|       __  |   |  |    ||      |
     .-----.   |  |' |  ||  |  | |   |  |    ||      |
 ___'       ' /"\ |  '-."".    '-'   '-.'    '`      |_.
------------------------------------------------------------