Fixed inconsistency between Mash#respond_to? and #method_missing. Added Hashie::Extensions::Mash::ActiveModel for compatibility with Rails 4 Strong Parameters.

[dblock]

I would appreciate comments on the README and the implementation. Maybe there's a way to do this automatically via Railtie or something like that (I don't know how)?

class Mash
  include Hashie::Extensions::Mash::ActiveModel
end

Closes #146 and #89.

[7even]

The implementation seems great (though there is a slightly better way with #respond_to_missing). But I also don't really know how to hook Mash.include Hashie::Extensions::Mash::ActiveModel in rails.

[dblock]

@7even I was trying to keep method_missing and respond_to? in sync. Want to suggest better?

[dblock]

Note #143, which is fixed with this. I am going to merge and we can continue improving the code in subsequent PRs. @7even feel free to add.

[Maxim-Filimonov]

@dblock uh oh :\ Sorry for introducing the issue. To enable it automatically you can probably do something like this

if const_defined?('ActiveModel')
  include Hashie::Extensions::Mash::ActiveModel
end

I'll look at doing PR for this later today

[7even]

@dblock well, that way was nearly the same except you define #respond_to_missing instead of #respond_to. I think it would be more correct because #respond_to_missing is designed exactly for #method_missing-powered methods. But it will work either way so you decide.

[dblock]

Oh I see. It's a lot better, implemented in 953edec.