From: Yossef Mendelssohn <ymendel@...>
Date: 2007-09-25T01:53:52+09:00
Subject: Re: best way to 'hide' a method when method_missing is in town

On Sep 24, 10:42 am, Yossef Mendelssohn <ymen...@pobox.com> wrote:
> On Sep 24, 9:53 am, vinbarnes <vinbar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 24, 9:33 am, Paul Brannan <pbran...@atdesk.com> wrote:
>
> > > There probably is a better solution to your problem, but it depends on
> > > *why* you desire this behavior.
>
> > I'm trying to hide attributes in a Rails model. ActiveRecord::Base has
> > method_missing defined to build getter/setter methods for attributes
> > on the fly. But the problem is more general in nature as I described.
>
> > Kevin
>
> As you said, this problem can be solved with method_missing in Sub.
>
> class Sub
>   def method_missing(method, *args)
>     if private_methods.include?(method.to_s)
>       send(method, *args)
>     else
>       puts "#{method} caught in sub"
>     end
>   end
> end
>
> This isn't a solution for your problem, but a comment on the
> (possible?) root of it: IMO, method_missing shouldn't fire on private/
> protected method calls. My opinion goes further, that calling a
> private or protected method shouldn't raise the same exception as
> calling a method that doesn't exist. If for some reason one wants to
> track attempted access to private methods, rescuing NoMethodError and
> checking text is somewhat unsavory. It would be nicer to rescue
> MethodAccessLevelError (or something with an even better name), which
> could be related to NoMethodError based on use cases (right now, I see
> them as children of the same parent).
>
> --
> -yossef
>
> --
> -yossef

Wow, excellent double-sig there.  To balance it all out, I won't put a
sig on this.