Marc Siegel

@PragTob this is tricky because it's at the intersection of a couple different behaviors of `docile`, isn't it? Observing that `wanna_be_custom` is only defined on `CustomParent`, but **NOT** defined on...

In this case, `docile` has a feature which is called "falling back to block context", which is to go back to where the block was defined, and see if the...

The intent of the code working this way, is that it's possible to extract "helper methods" from the call site of a DSL block, if that makes sense. Are you...

Or is the feature request here: ``` Given a block context and a DSL object which BOTH implement the same method foo (in this case #add_child) When we call a...

Thanks @PragTob. Ok, I understand the feature request. This issue is ONLY when a **helper method defined in the block's context** calls an instance method which is available in **both...

Also: I would like for Docile to be useful for what you are attempting to build in matestack - a powerful multi-level DSL - so I am motivated to dig...

@PragTob The challenge to this feature request is that our current implementation of falling back from helper methods in the block's context, back into the DSL object, is based on...

I vaguely plan for a future Docile 2.0 to be based on **never instrumenting method_missing, or in any way mutating the contexts**, and instead to use the technique of purely...

Tagging this issue as a feature request intended for Docile 2.0

@michaeldiscala As a baseline "simplest possible" solution to thread-safety in this context, would it be sufficient to document that: - IF multiple threads are using Docile to call methods on...