On 9 May 2010 19:39, Peter De Berdt <[email protected]> wrote: > About your implementation, I prefer the syntax from the post above, simply > because it reads more natural. Other than that, yours does seem a viable > solution (only skimmed it, but seems fine) :-)
It's an interesting pure Ruby implementation, but it's not a great Rails implementation, because it's overloading "method_missing" without a call to super. To be a bit more resilient, I'd add a check that @decorated responds to the method before sending, and then call super to let Rails get on with any of its magic that you might be fubaring otherwise. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
