From: "trans.  (T. Onoma)" <transami@...>
Date: 2005-01-17T21:17:46+09:00
Subject: Re: Passive Arguments

On Monday 17 January 2005 06:46 am, benny wrote:
| trans.  (T. Onoma) wrote:
| > In other words:
| >
| > def w
| > puts "Advising"
| > super  # calls the advised method
| > end
| >
| > were exactly the same as doing:
| >
| > def w(*args, &blk)
| > puts "Advising"
| > super(*args, &blk)  # calls the advised method
| > end
|
| I think this would be too much magic behind the scenes.
| At the moment super ist behaving like just another method, i.e.
| you can imagine how it behaves.

Yes, well almost -- 'super' without args will pass on method args.

| what if super may have arguments but you don't want to give any to it?
| making super != super() is not an option.

Hmm...maybe I was not clear enough on this point (or I misunderstand) using 
'super()' would NOT pass args to parent method, but just 'super' does pass 
arguments --just as it is now. The change only comes in the 'def w', where no 
arguments passes them through unchanged too.

| in the most cases where I passed the same arguments to super that are given
| to the method itself I figured out (after a while :) ) that I could have
| made a better class design. IMHO it is more logical and usual to have no
| equality in arguments.

Interesting thought, but it seems Matz thought it was common enough to have 
special behavior on super, so I'm not sure.