From: Daniel DeLorme <dan-ml@...42.com>
Date: 2007-09-12T13:19:51+09:00
Subject: Re: before, after and around Ruby 1.9

Rick DeNatale wrote:
> 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

Actually it will only produce "And now a word from my superclass!" I 
assume you just forgot the super in there.

> whereas Matz' proposal would produce:
> 
> And now a wird from my superclass!
> And now a word from my superclass!
> Hi from A

My understanding of Matz' proposal is that you would need to specify 
"class B" to get that result. By specifying "class B < A" you would get 
the same result as current ruby.

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

By defining the method in "regular mode" as opposed to "re-open mode"
  regular: class A < Object
  re-open: class A
At the risk of repeating myself I really prefer the previous suggestion:
  regular: class A
  re-open: class A < A

Daniel