From: Claus Spitzer <DocBoobenstein@...>
Date: 2004-07-17T08:09:57+09:00
Subject: Re: Altering method lookup

Thanks to everyone who posted suggestions and links. They are quite
useful indeed, and give me some new ideas.

Regarding the following:

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 04:02:16 +0900, Martin DeMello
<martindemello@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Claus Spitzer <DocBoobenstein@gmail.com> wrote:
> > not what I intend it to do (eventually). What I thought would happen
> > is that when the object instance first gets the message for bar, bar
> > (which would be an instance of Method) would be still undefined, so
> > method_missing would get a message to look up bar, which is why I used
> > method_missing to start with.
> 
> I'm not sure I understand this - why would you expect bar to be
> undefined at this point?
> 
> martin
> 
> 


I was under the (probably incorrect) impression (due to other
documents read and a less than optimal memory on the subject) that an
object's instance first doesn't knwo which its methods are. Once they
are found (via, e.g., method_missing) they would be known and all
further references would act on the method, but the first call would
be to method_missing. By now I realize that it is not the way it is
doen in Ruby.

Finally, answering  Gabriele Renzi's question: yes, it is
doesNotUnderstand. It had slipped my mind and instead of going back to
the documentation I made up a name. My bad.

Let me again express my gratitude to all who answered. 
 -CWS