From: Lionel Thiry <lthiryidontwantspam@...>
Date: 2005-03-18T08:54:56+09:00
Subject: Re: Feature or bug ??

Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> In message "Re: Feature or bug ??"
>     on Fri, 18 Mar 2005 03:39:45 +0900, Lionel Thiry <lthiryidontwantspam@skynetnospam.be> writes:
> 
> |If even Matz does mistakes when explaining something about ruby, then how can 
> |normal people avoid confusion about that feature?
> 
> It's not uncommon for me to make mistakes.  This case I forgot you
> were expecting a block not to be passed.
> 
> |"super(&nil)"? IMHO it is ugly and really unnatural. Why not planning a change 
> |about this for ruby2?
> 
> No.  "super" is a delegation to the superclass method so that a block
> should also be delegated if a block is passed to the method, unless
> explicitly specified.  Changing it forces "super(&block)" for common
> case.  IMHO it is ugly and unnatural.
> 
> 							matz.

Mmm, I realize I haven't truly looked at this problem from the other potential 
points of view. So, "super" is not a method call but a delegation to another 
method? This looks strange for me... but I'll try to adapt.

--
Lionel Thiry