From: ruby-core@...
Date: 2019-02-04T18:25:05+00:00
Subject: [ruby-core:91394] [Ruby trunk Feature#15574] Prohibit to pass a block on super() implicitly

Issue #15574 has been updated by marcandre (Marc-Andre Lafortune).


I agree with Eregon that it would be a compatibility nightmare.

Moreover I rather like this quirk.

Is there an actual use case for thinking about removing it (besides it being quirky)?

I would bet that there are way more methods calling super with the block intact than the reverse. I will frequently prepend a method that intercepts a parameter, for example, deals with it and call `super` with the rest:

``` ruby
def foo(*args, **options, extra_opt: nil)
  puts "extra!" if extra_opt
  super(*args, **options)
end
```

 I don't recall passing a different (or no) block to `super`, but my memory isn't very good ;-)

In short, I'm against this proposal.

----------------------------------------
Feature #15574: Prohibit to pass a block on super() implicitly
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/15574#change-76651

* Author: ko1 (Koichi Sasada)
* Status: Open
* Priority: Normal
* Assignee: matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
* Target version: 
----------------------------------------
As described in [Feature #15554], `super()` (not `super`) pass the given block.

```
class C
  def foo
    p block_given?
  end
end

class C1 < C
  def foo
    super   #=> true
    super() #=> true
  end
end

C1.new.foo{}
```

`super` (without parameters) passes all passed parameters so it is no surprise to pass given block. 

However, `super()` (with parameters. In this case, it passes 0 parameters) also pass given block implicitly.

I'm not sure who use this behavior, but I think it is simple to prohibit such implicit block passing.




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

Unsubscribe: <mailto:ruby-core-request@ruby-lang.org?subject=unsubscribe>
<http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-core>