Forum: Ruby ruby/smalltalk: method_missing/doesNotUnderstand

Announcement (2017-05-07): www.ruby-forum.com is now read-only since I unfortunately do not have the time to support and maintain the forum any more. Please see rubyonrails.org/community and ruby-lang.org/en/community for other Rails- und Ruby-related community platforms.
Ce8b03e5750097942c58e12b46724312?d=identicon&s=25 Giles Bowkett (Guest)
on 2007-06-11 03:14
(Received via mailing list)
Hi all - this is for the Smalltalkers and the people interested in
Ruby's genealogy, as it were. Is it fair for me to tell people that
method_missing is a Ruby translation of Smalltalk's doesNotUnderstand?
Or is it more a totally unique feature? I was going to say the first,
but now I think it's the latter. I don't think you can rewrite
doesNotUnderstand the way you can rewrite method_missing - or,
actually, I think you **can**, but I think in practice it happens much
less. Anyway, help me out if you know the answer to this one.

--
Giles Bowkett

Blog: http://gilesbowkett.blogspot.com
Portfolio: http://www.gilesgoatboy.org
8f6f95c4bd64d5f10dfddfdcd03c19d6?d=identicon&s=25 Rick Denatale (rdenatale)
on 2007-06-11 17:27
(Received via mailing list)
On 6/10/07, Giles Bowkett <gilesb@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all - this is for the Smalltalkers and the people interested in
> Ruby's genealogy, as it were. Is it fair for me to tell people that
> method_missing is a Ruby translation of Smalltalk's doesNotUnderstand?
> Or is it more a totally unique feature? I was going to say the first,
> but now I think it's the latter. I don't think you can rewrite
> doesNotUnderstand the way you can rewrite method_missing - or,
> actually, I think you **can**, but I think in practice it happens much
> less. Anyway, help me out if you know the answer to this one.

Actually overriding doeNotUnderstand: in Smalltalk is rather common
for much the same reasons it's used in Ruby.

For example, when I wrote the Smalltalk distributed feature for IBM
Smalltalk about 10 years ago, doesNotUnderstand was a key underpinning
of the implementation.

As to where Matz got the idea you'd have to ask him, but it's very
much the same mechanism.

--
Rick DeNatale

My blog on Ruby
http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/
Ce8b03e5750097942c58e12b46724312?d=identicon&s=25 Giles Bowkett (Guest)
on 2007-06-12 23:55
(Received via mailing list)
> Actually overriding doeNotUnderstand: in Smalltalk is rather common
> for much the same reasons it's used in Ruby.
>
> For example, when I wrote the Smalltalk distributed feature for IBM
> Smalltalk about 10 years ago, doesNotUnderstand was a key underpinning
> of the implementation.
>
> As to where Matz got the idea you'd have to ask him, but it's very
> much the same mechanism.

Gracias! That's kind of what I suspected.

--
Giles Bowkett

Blog: http://gilesbowkett.blogspot.com
Portfolio: http://www.gilesgoatboy.org
5a837592409354297424994e8d62f722?d=identicon&s=25 Ryan Davis (Guest)
on 2007-06-14 19:04
(Received via mailing list)
On Jun 11, 2007, at 08:26 , Rick DeNatale wrote:

> Actually overriding doeNotUnderstand: in Smalltalk is rather common
> for much the same reasons it's used in Ruby.
>
> For example, when I wrote the Smalltalk distributed feature for IBM
> Smalltalk about 10 years ago, doesNotUnderstand was a key underpinning
> of the implementation.

seconded.
This topic is locked and can not be replied to.