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>