From: "Mauricio Fernández" <batsman.geo@...>
Date: 2003-11-30T18:38:20+09:00
Subject: Re: Underpinnings of Method Wrapping

On Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 11:53:25AM +0900, T. Onoma wrote:
> But I'm getting ahead of myself. I need to explain the point. Lets take this 
> example:
> 
>   class Classic
>     def x
>       print "X"
>     end
>   end
>   c = Classic.new
>   def c.x
>     print "("
>     super
>     print ")"
>   end
>   c.x; puts  # => (X)

This works fine with singletons, but there is a problem if you want to
do it for "normal" instance methods (i.e. wrapping the method for all
objects of a given class), see [ruby-talk:75334] for an explanation and
[ruby-talk:75290] for an implementation using an explicit indication
"plz make this method available with super after redefinition".

-- 
 _           _                             
| |__   __ _| |_ ___ _ __ ___   __ _ _ __  
| '_ \ / _` | __/ __| '_ ` _ \ / _` | '_ \ 
| |_) | (_| | |_\__ \ | | | | | (_| | | | |
|_.__/ \__,_|\__|___/_| |_| |_|\__,_|_| |_|
	Running Debian GNU/Linux Sid (unstable)
batsman dot geo at yahoo dot com

Never make any mistaeks.
	-- Anonymous, in a mail discussion about to a kernel bug report