From: Nat Pryce <nat.pryce@...13media.com>
Date: 2002-03-13T02:17:28+09:00
Subject: Re: Method type 'abstract'

From: "Peter Hickman" <peter@semantico.com>
> At present I have to insert a normal method in the class that raises an
> exception which will then cause the subclass to fall over if it did not
> override it. It works but it isn't clean, to my mind abstract is just as
> fundemental as public or private and therefore should be marked as such.

Why not just *not* implement the method at all and let method_missing throw
the exception for you?

That's what I meant when I said that in Ruby all methods are abstract unless
explicitly implemented.

Cheers,
            Nat.