David A. Black wrote:
>
> I think that any time you do:
>
>    def f
>      f
>    end
>
> or equivalent, you've decided you want an infinite loop.  I don't
> think any language design feature that intervenes and "fixes" that for
> you would be a good one.  (It would make recursion difficult, among
> other things.)

Agreed.

> It sounds like you want multiple levels of super, so that you can get
> at an arbitrary previously-defined version of a given method (not just
> the next one up in the lookup chain).  I'm not sure whether this can
> be done in an elegant and scaleable way, or whether it's too specific
> a use-case for that.

Hmm...not so much. I mean that's nice to have I think, but mainly I
just want to encapsulate methods and reuse them elsewhere in such a way
as I don't have to fret so much over name clash. You know, some fine
grain control over interfacing.

T.