From: Robert Dober <robert.dober@...>
Date: 2007-05-31T06:22:11+09:00
Subject: Re: #respond_to? not working for dynamically generated metho

On 5/30/07, James Edward Gray II <james@grayproductions.net> wrote:
> On May 30, 2007, at 3:31 PM, Robert Dober wrote:
>
> > This is very interesting, I just imagine that dynamic_finder does not
> > give consistent results depending on events outside the Ruby
> > program(*). Are you still happy with the semantics, instead of
> > respond_to? giving false negatives it gives false positives now.
>
> Well, if it can't be made accurate, that's a different thing.  First,
> we would probably need to document that it can't be trusted in such a
> case.
>
> > You have created a dependency between method_missing and respond_to? I
> > really feel bad about this.
>
> I guess that means that I made it so that respond_to?() needs to be
> updated if method_missing() is?  Yes, I guess that's right.
>
> David says that's bad.  OK.
And so do I, well that sounds quite prepotent, I know.
>I thought respond_to?() lying to me was
> bad.  So I guess we just chose to care about different things.
>
> I guess each person needs to decide what is more important to them.
Well I was hoping to convince you, sure I was, but I see now that
after having discussed things we just have different opinions and that
is that of course.

The most important point I wanted to make - and I probably failed - is
that I am not sure if it really lies for me, but this is a tricky
issue and I can understand what you dislike about it.

Cheers
Robert
>
> James Edward Gray II
>
>


-- 
You see things; and you say Why?
But I dream things that never were; and I say Why not?
-- George Bernard Shaw