From: "David A. Black" <dblack@...>
Date: 2005-10-05T23:25:16+09:00
Subject: Re: On NullClass or FalseClass#method_missing

Hi --

On Wed, 5 Oct 2005, TRANS wrote:

> On 10/5/05, David A. Black <dblack@wobblini.net> wrote:
>> Well, you could do:
>>
>> irb(main):001:0> def nil.method_missing(m); nil; end
>> => nil
>> irb(main):002:0> nil.x.y.z
>> => nil
>>
>> but I'm not a big fan of messing with nil.  Its behavior is
>> standardized and heavily depended upon.
>
> Right. That's wahy I thought
>
>  def false.method_missing(m) ; false ; end
>
> Might be an acceptable alternative. What do you think of that?

Personally I'd rather not see singularities like false changed at all.
It also runs up against the usual "prisoner's dilemma"-style issues
about changing core functionality: either we all have to agree on who
gets to do it, or no one should do it.


David

-- 
David A. Black
dblack@wobblini.net