From: matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
Date: 2003-11-27T18:28:31+09:00
Subject: Re: Method wrapping

Hi,

In message "Re: Method wrapping"
    on 03/11/27, "T. Onoma" <transami@runbox.com> writes:

|I would like to point out that their is some inconsistentcy in this behavior, 
|in that def behaves differently depending on whether it is defined in class 
|augmentation or a subclass.
|
|  class A < X
|    def riot
|      super
|      print "P"
|    end
|  end
|
|  class A
|    def riot          # this redifines
|      super
|      print "R"
|    end
|  end
|
|  class B < A
|    def riot
|      super           # this wraps
|      print "W"
|    end
|  end
|
|The def syntax is the same but each has different semantic meaning (effects 
|code readability/code maintainence).

I don't get your point.  Perhaps your example should be:

  class A < X
    def riot
      print "P"
    end
  end

  class A
    def riot          # this redifines
      print "R"
    end
  end

  class B < A
    def riot
      super           # this wraps
     print "W"
    end
  end

Right?

|It is important to understand that Ruby already has a wrapping facility using 
|subclasses. And singletons act similiarly. So it would be more consistent to 
|naturally extend that to in-class wraps. We can do this without having to add 
|special syntax sugar (the colon).

But how?  I don't see concrete syntax you are saying.

							matz.