From: Trans <transfire@...>
Date: 2007-09-13T01:39:53+09:00
Subject: Re: before, after and around Ruby 1.9



On Sep 11, 7:39 pm, "Rick DeNatale" <rick.denat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/11/07, Pit Capitain <pit.capit...@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?

A possibility:

 class B
   redef m
     puts "And now a word from my superclass!"
     super
   end
 end

T.