From: Rick DeNatale <rick.denatale@...>
Date: 2007-09-12T11:39:52+09:00
Subject: Re: before, after and around Ruby 1.9

On 9/11/07, Pit Capitain <pit.capitain@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.

Here's the sequence dependency I'm concerned about.

class A
  def m
     puts "Hi from A"
  end
end

class B < A
  def m
     puts "And now a wird from my superclass.!"
    super
  end

class B < A
  #fix the typo
  def m
     puts "And now a word from my superclass!"
  end
end

B.new.m

With the current semantics, this will produce:

And now a word from my superclass!
Hi from A

whereas Matz' proposal would produce:

And now a wird from my superclass!
And now a word from my superclass!
Hi from A

How do you REPLACE a method implementation which invokes super in this
brave new world?
-- 
Rick DeNatale

My blog on Ruby
http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/