From: "T. Onoma" <transami@...>
Date: 2003-11-28T15:13:35+09:00
Subject: Re: pre/post question/idea

On Friday 28 November 2003 05:09 am, Chad Fowler wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Nov 2003, T. Onoma wrote:
>

> I don't see how these are the same idea.  And, yes, I read the "dang" RCR.

HUH?

  wrap
   ...
  end

is nothing like?

  pre
    ...
  end

Doh! What was I thinking!? Well, I don't care anyway. Obviously David is just 
ignoring my comment. Nor any mention of my RCR. His loss.

> In particular, your implicit method definition stacking looks like it
> would very quickly lead to some unmanagable knots of code.  When I look at
> it, my mind thinks overwrite.  The comparison to the usage of "super" in
> inheritance seems like a serious stretch.

Stretch? That's funny because singletons are essentially an implementation of 
wraps, the concpet of which being the foundation of my proposal, and I don't 
here any body claiminging their unmanagable.

> I fully understand what you are saying in the RCR, but I don't think it
> will make intuitive sense to Ruby users.  I think pre, post, and wrap need
> to be explicit (as matz has laid them out in his proposal).  Additionally,
> if we're going to stack method definitions, that should be explicit too.
> Inheritance, maybe only historically, is in my opinion a good place to
> draw the line between implicit feature addition and replacement.

Suit yourself, draw a line. But I think your just further complicating the 
language, which at this point could actually use some simplification. Sadly, 
it seems like Ruby's headed the way of Perl :(

-t0