From: Robert Klemme <bob.news@...>
Date: 2003-11-28T18:32:10+09:00
Subject: Re: pre/post question/idea


"Peter" <Peter.Vanbroekhoven@cs.kuleuven.ac.be> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0311280359580.3918-100000@merlin.cs.kuleuven.ac.be...
> > which to me has a bit of a "spliced onto the language" feel (which
> > perhaps it is, but it would still be nice to avoid that feel :-)  I
> > like the simplicity and symmetry of separate def/pre/post.
>
> You've got my vote for looks. But it means two extra keywords which
breaks
> extra stuff, and I'm not fond of that. But 2.0 is allowed to break stuff
> :-) so my vote stands.

matz wrote:

> That's the point.  Hooking method is a part of metaprogramming, which
> should be handled with care, even in the future.  x:*** are a good
> signs for it.

Then how about introducing new keywords that are unlikely to break other
code?

def foo
def:pre foo
def:post foo
def:wrap foo

It's visible significant enough to ring a bell and it doesn't change the
method name, which IMHO better matches the semantics: this is a "def" of
an ordinary method, but the definition of a method wrapper.

Kind regards

    robert