On Monday, March 31, 2003, 2:30:09 PM, Yukihiro 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"?

A thread some time ago discussed the creation of absolutely plain
objects with no methods or anything defined.  I don't know if anyone
is still interested in that but it would be a shame if an error failed
to print while they were experimenting.

Gavin