From: Sam Roberts <sroberts@...>
Date: 2005-02-17T08:56:34+09:00
Subject: Re: adding a dynamic method handler? (long post)

Wrote Robert Klemme <bob.news@gmx.net>, on Wed, Feb 16, 2005 at 06:19:50PM +0900:
> 
> "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.

I think I see what Mark was getting at. As I understand it, if I defined
a proxy object that used method_missing to forward all method calls to
an underlying object, I could call

  proxy.to_ary

and if the underlying object was an Array, this would work.

However, if I passed that into a library that was using duck-typing, and
that lib did

  proxy.responds_to? :to_ary

the answer would be false. So, my Array proxy doesn't look as much like
an Array as it needs to.

Do I understand correctly?

Cheers,
Sam

-- 
Sam Roberts <sroberts@certicom.com>