I was always pet peeved that Array#second didn't exist when Array#first and Array#last do wouldn't this be fun? haha

array_pet_peeve.rb

# gem install numbers_in_words
require 'numbers_in_words'
require 'numbers_in_words/duck_punch'

class Array
  def method_missing(m)
    self[m.to_s.gsub(/\_/, ' ').in_numbers - 1]
  end
end

nums = (1..100).to_a

puts nums.first        #=> 1
puts nums.second       #=> 2
puts nums.third        #=> 3
puts nums.fourth       #=> 4
puts nums.thirty_five  #=> 35
puts nums.thirty_fifth #=> 30 (bug)


# I just want to acknowledge that I'm using `#=>` incorrectly. That's supposed to indicate the return value, but I'm using it to indicate the output.

@cjlwired I'll double check later but ... I'm pretty sure I'm not using active support. unless active support is a dependency of numbers_in_words

oh, I see now that you said that

so that means I can use .second in my rails apps, who knew?

but I maintain that it's a bug because the interface is inconsistent. I don't mean it's a bug in that gem, I mean a bug in my implementation. if I can do [].second then I should be able to do [].thirty_fifth

Yes, if you're tying the bug to your interface, then I agree completely. We both now know that the numbers_to_words gem cannot handle "-nd" || "-th processing, so that's something you'll have to account for.

Either way, this is a cool implementation and was a good excuse to pry into someone else's code.
GET IT?! ❤️ ❤️ ❤️

@cjlwired thanks for breaking it down btw, I never would have thought it was leaning on active support if you hadn't dug into the source <3