From: itsme213 <itsme213@...>
Date: 2005-01-13T23:51:20+09:00
Subject: Re: Duck Typing as Pattern Matching


"ts" <decoux@moulon.inra.fr> wrote in message

> p txn.respond_to?(:create_modify)
> p txn.create_modify

Oh oh, even more Ruby experts join the chorus ? :-)

My claim is this: If you redefine #method_missing so your object handles
x.foo as the caller would expect, then you _should_ define
x.respond_to?(:foo) to return true. I do not claim that Ruby should prohibit
code that does not do this.

I am interested in your thoughts on this claim.

p.s. I know it is possible to redefine #send so that x.send :foo works, but
x.foo does not. I think this a practice to be actively discouraged. But
let's leave that out for now.