"ts" <decoux / moulon.inra.fr> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:200311171638.hAHGcvO07164 / moulon.inra.fr...
> >>>>> "R" == Robert Klemme <bob.news / gmx.net> writes:
>
> R> I find the "super" a bit strange here.  It looks like it was implied
that
> R> for all methods "foo" there is an implicit "foo:wrap" defined by the
Ruby
> R> runtime in a super class of the actual class.
>
>  well, I've not understood
>
>  super is in Foo#foo:wrap : this mean that if ruby call foo:wrap
>  then it exist at least the method Foo#foo which will be called latter
>
>  super, in this case, just assume that it exist another wrapper or the
>  original method.

Yeah, but "super" generally refers to the same method defined in another
class up the inheritance hierarchy.  That's a chain different from the
wrapping chain.

> R>                                                I'd prefer another
keyword,
> R> such as "previous", "original" or so since the semantics differ.
>
>  call-next-method :-)))

or the even more typing friendly "invoke-next-wrapper-or-original-method"
:-)))

(Sorry, I couldn't find something more longish.)

> R>                                                                 Or
did I
> R> get the meaning of "super" in this context wrong?
>
>  probably,

Not from what you wrote: "super" invokes whatever is next in the wrapping
chain at whose end the original method resides.  Thanks anyway.

Cheers

    robert