>Well, that code runs method_missing itself, so that should be correct then right? If that method_missing throws the name error, it is still correct.

Do you mean `const_missing`?

>You're right we need to figure out 1.8, but we should not add hacky solutions for problems like this but solve them properly in a good way.

Totally agree about it. I'll wrap my head around it a bit more in the coming days.