From: Christoph <chr_mail@...>
Date: 2003-11-28T07:20:43+09:00
Subject: Re: Method wrapping

Peter wrote:
...
> > This will probably be illegal since wrapper arity differs from the 
> > primary arity.
> 
> Oh... Is there any specific reason for that? But now you got 
> me wondering, are you saying then that the signatures must 
> match exactly (like the number of arguments with default 
> values, whether it's variable-length, ...)? That sounds 

That was my reading of Matz announcement at least for
the arity part.  Personally I don't see a need for matching
default arguments (in fact any default arguments) since 
they could be automatically supplied by the primary method
but you have ask Matz for the definite opinion.

> restrictive... But then again, what's the intention of those wrappers?

/Christoph