Issue #15574 has been updated by sawa (Tsuyoshi Sawada). sos4nt (Stefan Schler) wrote: > With the proposed change however, it becomes my responsibility. Almost every time I use `super(...)` I have to remember passing the block. The above code would become: > > ```ruby > class B < A > def initialize(foo, bar = nil, &block) > # ... > super(foo, &block) > end > end > ``` In such case, i.e., when you don't want to take the responsibility of managing the arguments and blocks, I think you should use `super`, not `super(foo, &block)`. Using `super()` is a way to explicitly take care of the arguments, and it is counter-intuitive and inconsistent to let only the block be passed automatically. ---------------------------------------- Feature #15574: Prohibit to pass a block on super() implicitly https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/15574#change-76825 * Author: ko1 (Koichi Sasada) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal * Assignee: matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto) * Target version: ---------------------------------------- As described in [Feature #15554], `super()` (not `super`) pass the given block. ``` class C def foo p block_given? end end class C1 < C def foo super #=> true super() #=> true end end C1.new.foo{} ``` `super` (without parameters) passes all passed parameters so it is no surprise to pass given block. However, `super()` (with parameters. In this case, it passes 0 parameters) also pass given block implicitly. I'm not sure who use this behavior, but I think it is simple to prohibit such implicit block passing. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/ Unsubscribe: <mailto:ruby-core-request / ruby-lang.org?subject=unsubscribe> <http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-core>