From: Martin DeMello <martindemello@...>
Date: 2003-01-18T10:49:08+09:00
Subject: Re: quick: it responds, it evaluates, and is not empty

Tom Sawyer <transami@transami.net> wrote:
> On Friday 17 January 2003 03:28 pm, Martin DeMello wrote:
> 
>> That was mine. The problem, though, is that anyone writing their own
>> method_missing has to explicitly remember to call super. I know it'd
>> break Ruby's model, but there are times I think it'd be really
>> convenient if method_missing was treated as a special case, and behaved
>> more like, say, a multimethod.
> 
> indeed, but would super always be called first or last ?

Last, I'd say - by the semantics of 'method_missing', you'd want your
derived class to try and handle it, and kick it up the tree if it
couldn't, in much the same way that actual method resolution works.

martin