From: William Djaja Tjokroaminata <billtj@...>
Date: 2002-09-29T05:29:09+09:00
Subject: Re: alias versus method_missing

Hi,

How about starting with the great-great-grandchild, and then 'eval'ing the
alias all the way up to the root?

Regards,

Bill
============================================================================
Lyle Johnson <lyle@knology.net> wrote:
>       class Base
>         alias bar foo
>       end

> that doesn't cut it; "bar" always invokes Base#foo. And I guess I
> understand why. But I was trying to figure out if there's an alternative
> that gets me what I really wanted (sort-of a "virtual alias").

> I think I can make it work using method_missing instead of alias, e.g.

(deleted)

> but this is obviously a lot more verbose (especially since I'll
> ultimately have lots of aliases, in lots of classes). Is there some more
> compact approach that I'm forgetting about?