[ruby-core:64161] [ruby-trunk - Feature #9781] Feature Proposal: Method#super_method

Issue #9781 has been updated by Aleksandrs 鳥edovskis.


Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
> OK, accepted.
> 
> The name should be 'super_method', since 'super' make me feel invocation of a mehtod in super class.
> The 'super_method' should return nil when there's no method in superclasses.
> 
> Matz.

Wouldn't it be more consistent to name this method `supermethod`, i.e. without "_" in the middle?
Thus it would be logical extension to `super<something>` family, which now consists of `Class#superclass`


----------------------------------------
Feature #9781: Feature Proposal: Method#super_method
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/9781#change-48164

* Author: Richard Schneeman
* Status: Closed
* Priority: Normal
* Assignee: okkez _
* Category: core
* Target version: current: 2.2.0
----------------------------------------

When `super` is called in a method the Ruby VM knows how to find the next ancestor that has that method and call it. It is difficult to do this manually, so I propose we expose this information in Method#super_location.

Ruby Method class (http://www.ruby-doc.org/core-2.1.1/Method.html) is returned by calling Object.method and passing in a method name (http://www.ruby-doc.org/core-2.1.1/Object.html#method-i-method). This is useful for debugging:

```ruby
# /tmp/code.rb
class Foo
  def bar
  end
end

puts Foo.new.method(:bar).source_location
# => ["/tmp/code.rb", 3]
```

The Object#method allows a ruby developer to easily track the source location of the method and makes debugging very easy. However if the code is being invoked by a call to `super` it is difficult to track down:

```ruby
# /tmp/code.rb

class BigFoo
  def bar
  end
end

class Foo < BigFoo
  def bar
    super
  end
end
```

In this code sample it is easy to find the method definition inside of Foo but it is very difficult in large projects to find what code exactly `super` is calling. This simple example is easy, but it can be hard when there are many ancestors. Currently if I wanted to find this we can inspect ancestors

```ruby
Foo.ancestors[1..-1].map do |ancestor|
  next unless ancestor.method_defined?(:bar)
  ancestor.instance_method(:bar)
end.compact.first.source_location
```

To make this process simpler I am proposing a method on the Method class that would return the result of `super`


It could be called like this:

```ruby
Foo.new.method(:bar).super_method
```

I believe adding Method#super_method, or exposing this same information somewhere else, could greatly help developers to debug large systems easily.




-- 
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/