From: Trans <transfire@...>
Date: 2006-07-23T11:05:05+09:00
Subject: Re: when I say method_defined? I mean it!


Dumaiu wrote:
> I think Mr. Veenstra's approach is fine--either allow the exception
> from instance_method() to percolate up, or rescue it and throw your
> own.  As far as a comprehensive check goes, wouldn't 'unless
> method_defined? || private_method_defined?' suffice?  Or you could, I
> guess, use
>
> 	unless Object.new.extend(self).respond_to?(sym, true)
>
> which seems more amusing.

I think my point is being missed. Forget my last example, it has
nothing to do with it --it was just a special case --one in which I
didn't end up needing to check if the method existed b/c it was going
to do what I was telling it do anyway. I could just as easily taken a
different route.

My point is about the semantic meaning of important methods about
methods. Think about it like Dr. Suess. Let's say I have these methods:

  big_fish  #=> [ "tuna", "saw" ]
  small_fish  #=> [ "trout", "croaker" ]
  tiny_fish #=> [ "beta" ]

So what woud expect from just:

  fish  #=> ?

T.