From: ts <decoux@...>
Date: 2003-11-18T01:39:03+09:00
Subject: Re: Yet Another Rite Thought: method combination

>>>>> "R" == Robert Klemme <bob.news@gmx.net> writes:

R> I find the "super" a bit strange here.  It looks like it was implied that
R> for all methods "foo" there is an implicit "foo:wrap" defined by the Ruby
R> runtime in a super class of the actual class.  

 well, I've not understood

 super is in Foo#foo:wrap : this mean that if ruby call foo:wrap
 then it exist at least the method Foo#foo which will be called latter 

 super, in this case, just assume that it exist another wrapper or the
 original method.

R>                                                I'd prefer another keyword,
R> such as "previous", "original" or so since the semantics differ.  

 call-next-method :-)))

R>                                                                 Or did I
R> get the meaning of "super" in this context wrong?

 probably,


Guy Decoux