On 09 May 2010, at 20:54, Michael Pavling wrote:
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.
Agreed.
Best regards
Peter De Berdt
--
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.
