Yes. However, this is something currently implemented *in* Rails already
(e.g., `SomeModel#find_by_foo_and_bar_and_baz`). Rails itself could benefit
from the abstraction being put into ActiveSupport.
On Thursday, August 9, 2012 5:42:16 PM UTC-4, Ryan Bigg wrote:
>
> -1
>
> I don't think this feature would be useful to the majority of Rails
> developers out there, sorry.
>
> You could always release it as a separate gem and get people to use it
> that way.
>
> --
> Ryan Bigg
>
> On Friday, 10 August 2012 at 0:59, Stephen Touset wrote:
>
> In several places in Rails (e.g., ActiveRecord
> `find_by_#{attr2}_and_#{att2}` methods), you override `method_missing` to
> provide functionality. In all of those places, you follow the sane approach
> of handling `respond_to?` as well as actually defining the method body for
> future callers.
>
> I've abstracted this logic out into a project called
> def_method_missing[1]. Examples:
>
> class Foo
> # regexp matchers yield the MatchData to the block, so you can modify the
> method
> # body based on the regexp
> def_method_missing /bar/ do |match|
> -> { match.pre_match }
> end
>
> # without a regexp matcher, the name of the method is passed to the block,
> allowing
> # you to decide whether or not to implement the method
> def_method_missing do |name|
> -> { name } if name.length == 4
> -> { "bang!" } if name[-1] == '!'
> end
> end
>
> foo = Foo.new
>
> # regexp-based method_missing
> foo.respond_to?(:bazbar) # => true
> foo.bazbar # => "baz"
> foo.methods.include? /bazbaz/ # => true
>
> # arbitrary Ruby method_missing
> foo.respond_to?(:wat) # => false
> foo.respond_to?(:what) # => true
> foo.what # => :what
> foo.methods.include?(:what) # => true
>
> foo.bang # => :bang # matches four-character method name
> foo.bang! # => "bang!" # matches last-character bang
> foo.wat! # => :wat! # matches four-character method name first
>
> Is this something you'd be willing to consider including in ActiveSupport?
> Obviously, I'll have to put the logic into its own Module to avoid
> polluting default `Object`s and `Module`s. Plus documentation/tests. The
> current implementation was just a concept I threw together a few months
> back and promptly forgot about.
>
> [1]: https://github.com/stouset/def_method_missing
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Ruby on Rails: Core" group.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rubyonrails-core/-/ICy42NxOSOAJ.
> To post to this group, send email to rubyonra...@googlegroups.com<javascript:>
> .
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> rubyonrails-co...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en.
>
>
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby
on Rails: Core" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rubyonrails-core/-/UQmIuqwXMlwJ.
To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-core+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en.
