Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> In message "Re: inspect question/request"
>     on 03/03/31, nobu.nokada / softhome.net <nobu.nokada / softhome.net> writes:
> 
> |> I don't think so.  There's Object#inspect defined, so that it would
> |> not happen unless somebody "undef" inspect explicitly.
> |
> |But it were happen, it might be hard to detect, I guess.  Or
> |even it is the desired result when undefines inspect?
> 
> Who wants to undef "inspect"?
> 
> 							matz.
> 

If something, no matter how stupid, is possible, then someone, somewhere 
  will do it.

Perhaps in the absence of an inspect method (for whatever reason), a 
fall-back to the original behavior is in order?