On Fri, 28 Nov 2003, T. Onoma wrote:

# On Friday 28 November 2003 03:32 am, David A. Black wrote:
# > As we're still pre-2.0, and talking about pre and post, I thought I'd
# > throw in a bit of possible syntax for this that occurred to me, namely
# > this:
# >
# >   class C
# >     def x
# >       puts "how are you?"
# >     end
# >
# >     pre x
# >       puts "hello"
# >     end
# >
# >     post x
# >       puts "goodbye"
# >     end
# >   end
# >
# > It's possible that there are problems with doing it this way that I'm
# > not seeing, but personally I like the way it looks better than
# >
# >   def x:pre
# >
# > which to me has a bit of a "spliced onto the language" feel (which
# > perhaps it is, but it would still be nice to avoid that feel :-)  I
# > like the simplicity and symmetry of separate def/pre/post.
# 
# Sorry David, your a little late to make claims on that one. If you read my AOP 
# RCR (which by the way I think I've plugged like six times now) you would 
# notice that I offer:


I don't see how these are the same idea.  And, yes, I read the "dang" RCR.

In particular, your implicit method definition stacking looks like it 
would very quickly lead to some unmanagable knots of code.  When I look at 
it, my mind thinks overwrite.  The comparison to the usage of "super" in 
inheritance seems like a serious stretch.

I fully understand what you are saying in the RCR, but I don't think it 
will make intuitive sense to Ruby users.  I think pre, post, and wrap need 
to be explicit (as matz has laid them out in his proposal).  Additionally, 
if we're going to stack method definitions, that should be explicit too.  
Inheritance, maybe only historically, is in my opinion a good place to 
draw the line between implicit feature addition and replacement.

Chad