From: "T. Onoma" <transami@...>
Date: 2004-08-20T13:00:00+09:00
Subject: Re: Obtaining object in const_missing

On Thursday 19 August 2004 06:11 pm, David A. Black wrote:
> So it becomes a pretty general role: the object that received a
> message that resulted in a method call during the course of which some
> class or module's missing constant was referenced.  I'm not sure that
> much history and context is really the business of the class or module
> whose constant it is.

Unless that constant needs to be lazily set to an object in that context. In 
other words, the Constant itself is being called from that context, so its 
value ought to have the potential of being from that context as well. 
Shouldn't it? If it weren't for the auto-instantiation that I require, I 
could just as easily define a constant manually in that context.

So, while I understand the inclination of thought you present, I do not think 
that such a "business" barrier is truly warrented.

T.