From: Nick Green Date: 2009-09-04T07:47:28+09:00 Subject: Re: Type checking function parameters OK... I see the idea, and it is tempting. For code written for me to be used by me it is in fact ideal. However, I guess I have two follow up questions, both about failing gracefully: What is the "right" way to make sure the errors these functions report are nice to people who may use the functions/libraries I code? "Foo.bar takes a Duck, not a Cow" would be a very helpful error message. object of type Cow does not have method of type quack, is also not a bad error message, but it would be nice to let the user know which type of object in fact does have the method "quack" (presumably it would not always be as obvious as "quack"==>"duck"). Or is the ruby way, since its an interpereted language, for a user of my library to crack open the ruby or rdoc/ri and look? What is the "right" way to make sure that, if my libraries or functions are misused by someone (possibly me :p), the user of the script/program receives a non-programmer-targeted friendly error message like "Whoops, we sent a Cow to do a Ducks job. Feel free to report the bug to cows.and.ducks.sorting.co@notarealemail.com. Make sure to include the following: "? -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.