Hi,

At Mon, 31 Mar 2003 11:15:06 +0900,
Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
> |When Ruby stumbles upon an object with a missing method, it says something
> |like this:
> |
> |  undefined method `foo' for #<Object:0x28091a0>
> |
> |However, that is *not* what inspect returns for that object.  It would be
> |really helpful to me if I could tell Ruby to call inspect like it normally
> |does, rather than just telling me what class it's in.
> 
> Yeah, right.  It's been like that from the beginning, but I don't
> remember why I did so.  OK, I will change to use "inspect" and see how
> it work.

If the object doesn't have "inspect", it will cause infinite
recursion.  Isn't this the reason?

-- 
Nobu Nakada