From: Hal Fulton <hal9000@...>
Date: 2003-11-18T10:09:06+09:00
Subject: Re: Yet Another Rite Thought: method combination

gabriele renzi wrote:
> il Mon, 17 Nov 2003 23:47:31 +0100, Simon Strandgaard
> <qj5nd7l02@sneakemail.com> ha scritto::
> 
> 
> 
>>How about something like ?
> 
> 
> there was already a working implementation of method wrapping.. google
> for 
> 'how I'd like method $x to work'
> $x is something like 'wrapping' 'hook' 'decoration'
> 
> Just this is ruby code and not interprter level..
> 

I started that thread: http://ruby-talk.org/71948

Here are my comments on Matz's plan:

1. First of all, I will be happy with whatever Matz
decides. I will never flame the one who gave us Ruby.

2. I'm a little bothered by the use of 'super' also.
I once suggested 'prior'; but I can (now) see that
using super does not introduce ambiguity.

3. It strikes me that wrap is really the only one
necessary. It could do all the work of pre and post.
Yet I suppose the others are good from the standpoint
of clarity.

4. I'm a little bothered that 'post' is not able to
know the return value of the method even though the
method has returned. (In theory we could use a call
to super that simply accessed the return value rather
than making a real call.) This is a motivation for
me to use wrap more often than post.

Just my thoughts.

Hal