From: David Alan Black <dblack@...>
Date: 2002-04-11T06:37:08+09:00
Subject: RE: OO/Ruby Terminology

On Thu, 11 Apr 2002 james@rubyxml.com wrote:

> > From: David Alan Black [mailto:dblack@candle.superlink.net]
> >
> > 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?

I didn't mean to sound prescriptive (proscriptive? well, neither :-)
I'm just looking at it specifically from the point of view of the
method/message relation, and the question of how to characterize
and/or explain that relation.  I think of #method_missing (however
it's used, in the program's structure) as a fall-through thing (though
not necessary a failure thing), which is why I mention exceptions in
the same breath.

Interesting that it isn't called #message_not_understood :-)


David

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