From: Paul Mckibbin <pmckibbin@...>
Date: 2009-04-22T07:57:25+09:00
Subject: Re: Is there a better way to do this?

Robert Dober wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 11:40 PM, Robert Klemme
> <shortcutter@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> data. �If you have classes already for storing all this, I'd probably write
>>> or alternatively
>>>
>> def method_missing(sym,*args,&blk)
>> �self[sym] || self[sym.to_s] || super
> the following line will work for all potential hash values
> 
>     fetch( sym ) { fetch( sym.to_s ) { super } }
> 
> HTH
> Robert

Cool and will generate the same error type, I've used a modification of 
it to make the stack look the same, and give a debugging hint if it does 
go wrong....


begin
  fetch( sym ) { fetch( sym.to_s ) { super }}
rescue
  raise NoMethodError,"undefined method #{sym} for 
#{self.inspect}:#{self.class} overridden by Mac's redefinition of 
Hash::method_missing in #{__FILE__}"
end

Thanks again,

Mac
-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.