From: benjohn@...
Date: 2006-03-15T00:45:47+09:00
Subject: Re: abstract method in Ruby

> I've been following the discussion on abstract method declaration with
> some interest.  It seems to me that the ideal implementation should not
> only throw an exception on unimplemented methods, but also must pass
> Matz's example (implementation provided by base classes) and the
> method_missing example.

:) I like your approach, and I think it's extremely close. I'd change
one of your tests a little though:

>   # Here we make sure that not implementing the abstract method in the
>   # child class will cause an exception when the method is invoked on
>   # the child object.  We don't particularly care what exception is
>   # thrown, but the exception message must mention the missing method
>   # by name.
>   def test_unimplemented_abstract_method_throws_exception
...

It would be preferable I think, if a more helpful error message were
given, instead of simply the method being missing.

And while I suspect you're being a little flipant, I like your
implementation - it does do nearly everything that's desired.