From: Mark Hubbart <discordantus@...>
Date: 2005-02-17T05:53:05+09:00
Subject: Re: adding a dynamic method handler? (long post)

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 18:19:50 +0900, Robert Klemme <bob.news@gmx.net> wrote:
> 
> "Mark Hubbart" <discordantus@gmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:de63abca0502152303763354f7@mail.gmail.com...
> > Hi,
> >
> > I've been using method_missing overly much in my code lately, and it's
> > prompted me to think a lot about it's limitations.
> 
> <snip/>
> 
> > So, any thoughts?
> 
> I'm wondering in which situation you need this.  Although I understand the
> benefits of your approach I don't see the use case for this.

Basically this is for any time that you want the code re-use and ease
of implementation afforded by method_missing, but the benefits of
still having the methods behave mostly as if they were actually
defined, rather than handled dynamically. This is useful for quickly
defining wrapper objects, or objects that delegate to multiple other
objects.

The idea is that this would be a way of dynamically creating methods
for an object, without resorting to relatively permanent methods like
"class << self; define_method(:foo){...}; end".

cheers,
Mark