From: "ara.t.howard" <ara.t.howard@...>
Date: 2007-08-02T06:40:50+09:00
Subject: Re: redefining methods


On Jul 31, 2007, at 3:51 PM, Pit Capitain wrote:

> 2007/7/31, ara.t.howard <ara.t.howard@gmail.com>:
>> i played some cannot seem to come up with a way to avoid having the
>> stack of modules and also maintain super semantics across multiple
>> invocations - anyone else have a go?
>
> Ara, I didn't mean you don't need a stack of modules, but you don't
> need to store the modules in an array (yet).
>
>> just playing now.  patches welcome! ;-)
>
> Not a patch, but a slightly different implementation based on your  
> idea:
>
> class C

<snip>

>
> I used the old way of getting at the original method (storing it
> somewhere), because I'm not sure whether the garbage collector could
> remove it if you only remember it's object_id.
>
> Regards,
> Pit
>

updated (and new commenting finally ;-) )

   http://drawohara.tumblr.com/post/7241442

nice work pit!

a @ http://drawohara.com/
--
we can deny everything, except that we have the possibility of being  
better. simply reflect on that.
h.h. the 14th dalai lama