From: matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
Date: 2003-11-28T09:28:24+09:00
Subject: Re: Method wrapping

Hi,

In message "Re: Method wrapping"
    on 03/11/28, "Christoph" <chr_mail@gmx.net> writes:

|> > 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.

I didn't say anything about arity matching of method combination.
Personally, I feel like there's no need to add explicit arity match.

							matz.