On 9/10/07, Pit Capitain <pit.capitain / gmail.com> wrote:
> 2007/9/8, Rick DeNatale <rick.denatale / gmail.com>:
> > Just to try to crystalize my own thoughts about this in general. I'm
> > concerned that because of the dynamic nature of "assembling" the
> > pieces of a Ruby program, some of these proposals might lead to
> > indeterminate  (or at best mysterious) results because of the
> > difficulties in figuring out the order of code parsing/execution. (...)
>
> Rick, I don't see a way to solve this problem. If you add around
> methods to an existing method, the order in which you do this is
> always important, regardless of the syntax or the implementation,
> isn't it?

Yes, my concern is that because there's been so much clever use of
dynamic loading of code in Ruby, and particularly in Rails, that such
constructs might lead to bedlam.

And at least I think that it's an argument for not repurposing super
which has a meaning which depends strictly on the class
inheritance/module inclusion chain and not on how that chain happened
to get to a particular state.




-- 
Rick DeNatale

My blog on Ruby
http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/