From: Gavin Kistner <gavin@...>
Date: 2004-01-27T08:14:53+09:00
Subject: Re: def foo[](x)

Joel VanderWerf wrote:
>> I'm glad I'm not the only one. I have now added this as an RCR:
>> http://www.wobblini.net/rcr/RCR/RCR201
> 
> 
> Question: in this method call:
> 
>   x.foo[1]
> 
> what is the search order? First for #foo, and then for #foo[]? Or the 
> other way around?

I addressed this in the RCR.

Currently the following are equivalent:
	x.foo[1]
	(x.foo)[1]
	(x.foo)[](1)

I propose that it try:
	x.foo[](1)
first, and if that method does not exist, then default to the current:
	(x.foo)[](1)

> Suppose it's #foo, then #foo[]. What if #foo is implemented in the 
> superclass, but #foo[] is implemented in the class of x itself? In other 
> words, depth-first search or breadth-first search?

Hrm...this is a good point. You're saying that with the following, the 
syntax would allow both, but there would be ambiguity:

	class Foo
		def initialize
			@beernuts=[]
			@peanuts=[]
		end
		def bar
			return @peanuts
		end
		def bar[](x)
			return @beernuts[x]
		end
	end

x = Foo.new
puts x.bar[0] #Is this @peanuts[0] or @beernuts[0]


Adding both would be foolish as a developer (perhaps even throwing a 
warning about them at compile time), but as long as the search order was 
clearly defined, I personally wouldn't be too worried.