From: Joel VanderWerf <vjoel@...>
Date: 2004-01-27T08:29:17+09:00
Subject: Re: def foo[](x)

Gavin Kistner wrote:
...
> 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]

Your rule above, as I read it, would resolve the ambiguity: @beernuts[0].

Trying #bar[] before #bar, as you propose, makes sense because if you 
really want #bar, you can easily force it with parens: (x.bar)[0], 
whereas there's no way to force #bar[], short of using #send.

But what I had in mind was something involving inheritance:

class Base
   def bar[](x)
     "base"
   end
end

class Sub < Base
   def bar(x)
     ["sub"]
   end
end

Sub.new.bar[0]

Would this return "base" or "sub"?