From: David Alan Black <dblack@...>
Date: 2002-02-18T11:43:09+09:00
Subject: Re: LocalJumpError when defining each

Hi --

On Mon, 18 Feb 2002 nobu.nokada@softhome.net wrote:

> Hi,
>
> At Mon, 18 Feb 2002 10:32:57 +0900,
> David Alan Black <dblack@candle.superlink.net> wrote:
> > > I noticed that the block does propogate automatically when super is
> > > called.
> >
> > > Does anyone know if this behavior will also be "fixed"?  The
> > > following script works in both 1.6.5 and 1.6.6.
> >
> > I don't think that will change -- super passes along all the original
> > arguments too (unless told otherwise with (arglist)).  It's a special
> > case: repeat the call to this method, but skip the current method in
> > the method search-chain.  It's rather as if the current method has
> > steamed the envelope open, peeked inside, and then resealed it.
>
> Almost agree.  But I'm not sure whether it's "correct" that
> super() with (arglist) doesn't propagate the original arguments
> but does the block.

Yeah, I was sort of wondering about that too.  We have:

  + args + block
  - args + block

but no

  + args - block
  - args - block


But I don't think super() should be "- args - block", because then we
would still need "- args + block", and you'd have to capture the block
and send it.  That seems sort of awkward to me.


David

-- 
David Alan Black
home: dblack@candle.superlink.net
work: blackdav@shu.edu
Web:  http://pirate.shu.edu/~blackdav