From: kwatch@... (kwatch)
Date: 2002-03-13T12:59:16+09:00
Subject: Re: Method type 'abstract'

"Nat Pryce" <nat.pryce@b13media.com> wrote in message news:<00e001c1c9e8$18a97940$0700000a@backpack>...
> 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.

Would you mind explaining it more friendly?
What you say seems to be interesting, but I cannot understand.
If you are a busy man and have no time to explain, please ignore
my request.  
# I hope you have enough time.


Regards,
kwatch