On Apr 20, 2004, at 18:04, David Alan Black wrote:

> For what it's worth, I don't agree that it's very similar to
> redefinition in a subclass.  I would actually find it hard to find a
> unified way to explain both 'super's to someone, and I'm not sure why
> the same word is being reused.  I guess 'wrapee' is a bit too bizarre
> :-)  But I do wish it were something other than super, since the
> wrapped method is not 'above' the wrapper (the way a superclass's
> method is above the subclass's method).

The wrapper is really 'around' the method... so I like 'inner' myself.


Nathaniel
Terralien, Inc.

<:((><