From: Christoph <chr_mail@...>
Date: 2003-11-28T06:45:30+09:00
Subject: Re: Method wrapping

Peter wrote:
... 
> > You realize that you on are speculative grounds claiming that these 
> > circumstances will be rare enough. One of the more common method 
> > redefining circumstances  are probably (this base on other evidence 
> > but my gut feeling:-) are of the form
> >
> > def meth(a,b,c,new_parm = some_default_value)
> > 	....
> > end
> 
> def meth:wrap(a,b,*args)
>   do_something(a, b)
>   super
> end

This will probably be illegal since wrapper arity differs from
the primary arity.

> 
> This WORKS for constructors. Really. And they are a kind of 
> wrappers as Tom pointed out. Unless you'd give b a default 
> value too...

...
> > an arity altering way would render the class unusable if the hooks 
> > weren't removed.  Being forced to use reflection features to remove 
> > the hooks is NOT suitable for beginners and I wouldn't want to be 
> > bothered (perhaps because I never grew nor ever will grow out of 
> > beginner-tum:-)  with this either.
> 
> There you've got a point. But removing the wrappers could 
> also break other code, no? Unless you only put code in those 

This breakage isn't as bad - it is  "only" a semantic one. 

> wrappers that are not needed for correct execution...

/Christoph