From: "T. Onoma" <transami@...>
Date: 2003-11-27T03:06:01+09:00
Subject: Re: Controlled block variables

On Wednesday 26 November 2003 06:14 pm, ts wrote:
> >>>>> "T" == T Onoma <transami@runbox.com> writes:
>
> T> So ask, should it continue to do so with the addition of hooks?  (Not to
> T> mention there are some fundemental problems with this disallowing.)
>
>  Which problems ?
>
>
> Guy Decoux

First, small problem

  class A
    def dolittle
      print "duck"
    end
    def dolittle:hook   # where's the super? what do i do?
      print "rabbit"
    end
  end

A little bigger

  class A
    def dolittle
      print "duck"
    end
    def dolittle:hook
      super
      print "rabbit"
    end
  end

  class B < A
    def dolittle:hook   # am i replacing old hook? (there's no local dolittle)
      super               # or am i supering to old hook?
      print "fox"
    end
  end

Much bigger problem: a library the i don't know how it works, i'm just using 
it:

  class L
    def dolittle
      print "duck"
    end
    def dolittle:hook
      super
      print "rabbit"
    end
  end
  l = L.new
  l.dolittle  # => duckrabbit

no no i say, i want dolittle's "duckradditstew"!

  class L
    def dolittle:hook
      super
      print "stew!"
    end
  end
  l.dolittle  # => duckstew!

Yuk! I don't like plain duckstew.

But the worst problem of all is simply that not allowing multiple wraps, so 
severely limits the capabilities of this mechinism that it would actually 
have no general use whatsoever.

indeed it would actually be highly advisable NOT to ever use it b/c of the 
last example given above, and would only ever be really useful for 
devleopment/testing purposes alone.

(not to mention other issues with super)

-t0