From: ara.t.howard@...
Date: 2006-12-29T02:05:46+09:00
Subject: Re: override.rb

On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 dblack@wobblini.net wrote:

> Hi --
>
> On Fri, 29 Dec 2006, ara.t.howard@noaa.gov wrote:
>
> Whoops, it's one of those messages that won't quote back the text.  Oh
> well :-)  All I wanted to ask was: do you think 'override' is the best
> name for this?  The reason I ask is that "require 'override'" sounds
> like you're importing override ability into Ruby, without any
> indication of the enhancements that the package provides (i.e., the
> restoring ability).

i'm not attached to the name at all.  suggestions?  whatever you come up with
should imply:

   "the following block allows one to redefine methods in a functional way:
   which is to say 'super' will be scoped in any method re-definition so as to
   refer to the 'current' method of the same name"

the method can be used multiple time in a stack-like way with 'restore'
affecting the inverse operation.

i want to avoid any 'stack-like' names since the inability to un-include a
module in ruby and the fact that this impl is module inclusion based would be
misleading.  the impl sets up a sort of linked list of included/supered
modules to provide the call up stack for nested supers.

regards.

-a
-- 
if you find yourself slandering anybody, first imagine that your mouth is
filled with excrement.  it will break you of the habit quickly enough. - the
dalai lama