On 25/05/2012, at 1:10 PM, Doug Jolley wrote:

>> And it *is* actually called overriding:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Method_overriding
> 
> I read the wikipedia link.  As a reader who knows nearly nothing, it 
> would seem to me that the methodology that I described would not qualify 
> as "overriding" according to the definition contained in the wikipedia 
> post because the wikipedia post (like other posts I have read) says that 
> in order to qualify as "overriding" the method in the child class has to 
> *replace* the method in the super class.  In my example, I don't see the 
> method in the child class *replacing* the method in the super class 
> because the method in the child class actually uses the method in the 
> super class.  I don't see how one can say that a method has been 
> *replaced* if it is being used.  

From the point of view of the caller you have 'replaced' the method with your custom (sub class) version. The fact that you are calling super is an implementation detail that the caller is blissfully unaware of.

Henry