# Method\_defined? does what exactly? **URL:** \ **Category:** Ruby\ **Created:** [June 4, 2010, 1:28pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/method-defined-does-what-exactly/189650 "2010-06-04T13:28:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![tcsnide](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/eb8c5e/32.png) [@tcsnide](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/tcsnide)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2010, 1:28pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/method-defined-does-what-exactly/189650/1 "2010-06-04T13:28:01Z")
Ruby 1.9.2-head p require\_relative(‘foo’) module Kernel p method\_defined?(:require\_relative) end produces true false Huh? ---
**Author:** ![tcsnide](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/eb8c5e/32.png) [@tcsnide](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/tcsnide)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2010, 2:04pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/method-defined-does-what-exactly/189650/2 "2010-06-04T14:04:55Z")
Hmm maybe I was not very clear in my last post 😉 require\_relative is defined in Object ruby -ve ‘p method( :require\_relative)’ ruby 1.9.1p378 (2010-01-10 revision 26273) [i686-linux] #\ ruby -ve ‘p Object.method( :require\_relative )’ ruby 1.9.1p378 (2010-01-10 revision 26273) [i686-linux] #\ However ruby -ve ‘p Object.methods.grep( /require/ )’ ruby 1.9.1p378 (2010-01-10 revision 26273) [i686-linux] [] ^^^^ ??? Maybe a tiny bug here? Cheers R. ---
**Author:** ![tcsnide](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/eb8c5e/32.png) [@tcsnide](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/tcsnide)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2010, 2:01pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/method-defined-does-what-exactly/189650/3 "2010-06-04T14:01:59Z")
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 1:27 PM, Intransition [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: ---
**Author:** ![tcsnide](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/eb8c5e/32.png) [@tcsnide](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/tcsnide)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2010, 2:18pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/method-defined-does-what-exactly/189650/4 "2010-06-04T14:18:58Z")
On Jun 4, 2010, at 8:04 AM, Robert D. wrote: > #\ > Cheers > R. > > – > The best way to predict the future is to invent it. > – Alan Kay No bug (in Ruby). The method is private. $ ruby -ve ‘p Object.private\_instance\_methods.select{|m| m.to\_s =~ / require/ }’ ruby 1.9.1p378 (2010-01-10 revision 26273) [i386-darwin9.8.0] [:require\_relative, :require] -Rob Rob B. [http://agileconsultingllc.com](http://agileconsultingllc.com) removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid > **[Launch Scout Custom Software Development & Software Consulting](https://launchscout.com/)** > > We solve digital problems through custom software development and design for the web—apps, mobile, desktop and devices. removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid ---
**Author:** ![tcsnide](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/eb8c5e/32.png) [@tcsnide](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/tcsnide)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2010, 3:24pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/method-defined-does-what-exactly/189650/5 "2010-06-04T15:24:31Z")
On Jun 4, 8:18 am, Rob B. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > No bug (in Ruby). The method is private. Damn it! I can’t tell you how many time I’ve been bitten by that. There REALLY needs to be a convenient way to check ALL methods, public, private and protected. Of course I’ve said this the last time this came up too, but you know, who cares. Array#repeated\_permutation is much more important. ---
**Author:** ![tcsnide](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/eb8c5e/32.png) [@tcsnide](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/tcsnide)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2010, 3:43pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/method-defined-does-what-exactly/189650/6 "2010-06-04T15:43:16Z")
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 3:24 PM, Intransition [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > On Jun 4, 8:18 am, Rob B. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > > > No bug (in Ruby). The method is private. > > Damn it! I can’t tell you how many time I’ve been bitten by that. > There REALLY needs to be a convenient way to check ALL methods, > public, private and protected. > > Of course I’ve said this the last time this came up too, but you know, > who cares. Array#repeated\_permutation is much more important. I agree with you and I would like to add that #method returns all kind of methods and there is no method #private\_method. Would be too nice to have #method(s), #private\_method(s), #public\_method(s) and #protected\_method(s) shrug. Consistency does not seem to be important to most, I have made this experience before, and that has to be accepted ☹ R. ---
**Author:** ![tcsnide](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/eb8c5e/32.png) [@tcsnide](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/tcsnide)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2010, 6:43am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/method-defined-does-what-exactly/189650/7 "2010-06-05T06:43:07Z")
On Jun 4, 9:42 am, Robert D. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > experience before, and that has to be accepted ☹ > Oh, and one more thing. a.product(a) == a.repeated\_permutation(2).to\_a a.product(a,a) == a.repeated\_permutation(3).to\_a a.product(a,a,a) == a.repeated\_permutation(4).to\_a … ---
**Author:** ![tcsnide](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/eb8c5e/32.png) [@tcsnide](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/tcsnide)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2010, 6:36am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/method-defined-does-what-exactly/189650/8 "2010-06-05T06:36:01Z")
On Jun 4, 9:42 am, Robert D. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > I agree with you and I would like to add that #method returns all > kind of methods and there is no method #private\_method. > Would be too nice to have > #method(s), #private\_method(s), #public\_method(s) and #protected\_method(s) > shrug. > > Consistency does not seem to be important to most, I have made this > experience before, and that has to be accepted ☹ I think it is more than that. I don’t see much evidence that there is a great deal of consideration going into these additions at all. I watched Dave T.'s “Ruby Sucks” talk yesterday, and he tried to paint a rosy picture around the whole thing. I agree with him to the extent that its cool that ruby is so flexible, but when he mentioned how they just throw methods in there, “Is it useful? Well I used it once. Okay!” That just struck a bad nerve. I do not see a whole lot of rational for what is getting into the language. But it’s also not just stuff getting thrown in there. It’s clearly selective, but on some esoteric, perhaps nepotist, or maybe it’s as simple as a C coders clique making all the choices --actually I do think that is part of the problem. The people who write Ruby are first and foremost C coders, not Ruby programmers. I think most of them use Ruby like others use Perl --as an admin and tools language; as opposed to an applications framework. Of course, I don’t know the actual reasons, but clearly something must explain it --I could easily name a dozen widely used extensions off the top of my head that make most of 1.9.2’s new methods look absolutely lonely. I think if there were a rational process of determining what would be best to add to the language, it would be a careful cross-comparison of the most popular gems out there today. Look at they have common, the methods, idioms and patterns. Then figure out the best way to support these things in Ruby proper to the benefit them all. trans.