From: itsme213 <itsme213@...>
Date: 2006-01-05T01:47:57+09:00
Subject: Re: Potential RCR: method_missing convention, opinions?


"Jim Weirich" <jim@weirichhouse.org> wrote in message
> Logan Capaldo wrote:
>> Pros:
>> - No more worrying about your custom dispatching in potentially 3
>> different places, you just write the code once.
>> Cons:
>> - Increased complexity of method calling semantics
>> - Not backwards-compatible at all. (This is a biggee).
>>
>> So any thoughts? Anything wrong with this that I missed?
>
> Hmmmm ... an interesting idea.  It is possible to provide this in a
> backwards compatible fashion too.

+1.

Given Jim's way of retaining backward compatibility this would be good.

Which methods are affected? method_missing, respond_to?, method ...

I guess things that enumerate methods (e.g. #methods, #instance_methods) 
could not be covered.