From: Pit Capitain <pit.capitain@...>
Date: 2007-09-11T16:05:08+09:00
Subject: Re: before, after and around Ruby 1.9

2007/9/11, Rick DeNatale <rick.denatale@gmail.com>:
> Yes, my concern is that because there's been so much clever use of
> dynamic loading of code in Ruby, and particularly in Rails, that such
> constructs might lead to bedlam.

This is a valid concern. Integrating AOP in the language can be seen
as one more way to shoot you in the foot. But many of us (I'm sure you
too) like Ruby for the possibilities it gives to the developer, and I
would be very happy to get a standard and efficient AOP
implementation.

> And at least I think that it's an argument for not repurposing super
> which has a meaning which depends strictly on the class
> inheritance/module inclusion chain and not on how that chain happened
> to get to a particular state.

The module inclusion chain is already dependent on the sequence in
which the code is executed, especially if you use super. What I like
about Matz's proposal is that there is still only one of these chains
and one way to walk them: super. Having a different way to call the
next method would make things more complicated, IMO. Anyway, I'm
looking forward to 2.0.

Regards,
Pit