From: "duerst (Martin Dürst)" <duerst@...>
Date: 2012-11-26T09:54:15+09:00
Subject: [ruby-core:50141] [ruby-trunk - Bug #6832][Closed] Module#instance_method and Module#method_defined? act inconsistently w.r.t #respond_to_missing?


Issue #6832 has been updated by duerst (Martin D��rst).

Status changed from Assigned to Closed

Closed on request of myronmarston.
(I'm not totally sure, but I think only people in the Assignee list can close issues.)
----------------------------------------
Bug #6832: Module#instance_method and Module#method_defined? act inconsistently w.r.t #respond_to_missing?
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/6832#change-33929

Author: myronmarston (Myron Marston)
Status: Closed
Priority: Normal
Assignee: matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
Category: 
Target version: 2.0.0
ruby -v: 1.9.3p194


It's awesome that #respond_to_missing? allows Object#method to work for messages handled by #method_missing.  However, I was surprised to discover that Module#instance_method and Module#method_defined? don't similarly take #respond_to_missing? into account.  It seems very inconsistent.

Here's the behavior I'm seeing:

https://gist.github.com/3255162

In this example, I would expect Foo#method_defined?(:foo_bar) to return true, and I would expect Foo#instance_method(:foo_bar) to return an UnboundMethod that, when bound to a Foo instance, would use #method_missing to perform the method.


-- 
http://bugs.ruby-lang.org/