From: mail@...
Date: 2019-02-15T11:46:08+00:00
Subject: [ruby-core:91567] [Ruby trunk Feature#15574] Prohibit to pass a block on super() implicitly

Issue #15574 has been updated by sos4nt (Stefan Sch����ler).


sawa (Tsuyoshi Sawada) wrote:
> [...] it is inconsistent that you want to take care of the arguments but not the block.

When overriding a method, I try to preserve its signature. Therefore, I usually use `super` and I sometimes use `super(...)` with *optional* arguments as shown above. But having to unset a block via `super(&nil)` happens once in a blue moon.

My point is: it might be inconsistent, but it is a good inconsistency. It does what you almost always want.

And since `super` is a *keyword*, I think it can get away with it.

----------------------------------------
Feature #15574: Prohibit to pass a block on super() implicitly
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/15574#change-76830

* 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>