From: Robert Klemme <bob.news@...>
Date: 2005-02-17T17:19:54+09:00
Subject: Re: adding a dynamic method handler? (long post)


"Mark Hubbart" <discordantus@gmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:de63abca050216125273686a45@mail.gmail.com...
> 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".

I'm sorry if I am being stubborn (or dump), but this is still pretty much
abstract.  I'd like to know which concrete use case made this behavior
necessary.

Kind regards

    robert