Method Missing Doc patch

One of the aspects of method_missing is what to do about methods you don't
want it to handle.  I found out from The Ruby Way 2nd Edition that you
are supposed to call super in such cases.  I forgot this yesterday, tried
to search the web to find out what to do and drew a blank.  The attached
doc patch (against recent snapshots) adds this information to doc comments.
They are reproduced below for ease of reading: they are short.
        HTH
        Hugh

::::::::::::::
ruby_1.8_method_missing_doc_patch
::::::::::::::
--- ./eval.c.orig	2007-10-01 14:44:21.000000000 +0100
+++ ./eval.c	2007-10-25 11:54:05.914780000 +0100
@@ -5563,6 +5563,9 @@
  *  are any arguments that were passed to it. By default, the interpreter
  *  raises an error when this method is called. However, it is possible
  *  to override the method to provide more dynamic behavior.
+ *  If it is decided that a particular method should not be handled, then
+ *  <i>super</i> should be called, so that ancestors can pick up the
+ *  missing method.
  *  The example below creates
  *  a class <code>Roman</code>, which responds to methods with names
  *  consisting of roman numerals, returning the corresponding integer
::::::::::::::
ruby_1.9_method_missing_doc_patch
::::::::::::::
--- ./eval.c.orig	2007-10-01 02:52:32.000000000 +0100
+++ ./eval.c	2007-10-25 11:42:01.966135000 +0100
@@ -1263,6 +1263,9 @@
  *  are any arguments that were passed to it. By default, the interpreter
  *  raises an error when this method is called. However, it is possible
  *  to override the method to provide more dynamic behavior.
+ *  If it is decided that a particular method should not be handled, then
+ *  <i>super</i> should be called, so that ancestors can pick up the
+ *  missing method.
  *  The example below creates
  *  a class <code>Roman</code>, which responds to methods with names
  *  consisting of roman numerals, returning the corresponding integer