From: james@...
Date: 2002-04-11T06:29:15+09:00
Subject: RE: OO/Ruby Terminology

> From: David Alan Black [mailto:dblack@candle.superlink.net]
> >
> > With Ruby, I can have
> > #-----------------
> > class Foo
> >   def method_missing(methID, args=nil)
> >      methID.id2name
> >   end
> > end
> >
> > my_foo = Foo.new
> > puts my_foo.bar   # Acts as if there is a bar method
> > #-----------------
> >
> >
> > I'm inclined to think it incorrect to say that that the code is calling
> > my_foo's bar method.
> > Am I being pedantic, or wrong?
>
> I guess I'd tend to think of it as *trying* to call my_foo's bar
> method -- as opposed to being a case of message-sending that has no
> connection to method-calling.  #method_missing is sort of in the
> exception-handler family, at least in spirit.  If in every other
> respect it were the case that message == method, then I wouldn't think
> the existence of method_missing would change that.

Does that suggest that (generally) one shouldn't define object behavior
using a dynamic response to messages, but should better define specific
methods, and use method_missing to gracefully fail?



James

>
> David
>
> --
> David Alan Black
> home: dblack@candle.superlink.net
> work: blackdav@shu.edu
> Web:  http://pirate.shu.edu/~blackdav
>
>