From: "Mauricio Fernández" <batsman.geo@...>
Date: 2004-04-20T18:14:25+09:00
Subject: Re: proposal: call_up() for use in redefined methods

On Tue, Apr 20, 2004 at 08:04:54AM +0900, Hal Fulton wrote:
> Mark Hubbart wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> 
> >
> >Comments? Questions? Flames? :)
> >
> 
> I think this is essentially the same as my suggestion in
> http://ruby-talk.org/38136

It seems nobody saw this posting of mine:
http://blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-talk/97440

That code allows you to do

class A
    def foo(*a)
        puts "A#foo #{a.inspect}"
    end
end
a = A.new
a.foo

class A
    def_advice(:foo) do |prior, *a|
        puts "before"
        prior[*a]
        puts "after"
    end
end
a.foo

i.e. the previous definition is available as  prior  (or whatever name
you care to give it :). The most important drawback is that it is
still impossible to propagate blocks that way (until matz implements
{|&block|...}).

> The answer then was basically: Something like this will come
> later.
> 
> In fact, I believe that Matz's plans for pre/post/wrap would make
> this sort of thing easy (and far more generalized).

matz' advices will be more powerful, see the references in [97440]
for more info.

-- 
Running Debian GNU/Linux Sid (unstable)
batsman dot geo at yahoo dot com

'Ooohh.. "FreeBSD is faster over loopback, when compared to Linux
over the wire". Film at 11.'
	-- Linus Torvalds