On Sun, 25 Mar 2018 04:49:21 -0700, Rick Johnson wrote:
>> - with no arguments, using the parenthesis-free syntax,
>> Ruby automagically forwards the same arguments to the (single)
>> parent;
>
> Which is merely a natural result of Ruby's function/method call syntax.
> Not allowing a parenthesis-free super call would not only be
> inconsistent, it would be foolishly inconsistent.
I never said anything about not allowing it. But since you've gone on the
defence about parens-free function calls, how is this for "consistency"
in Ruby?
[steve@ando ruby]$ ruby ws-example.rb
a + b => 7
a+b => 7
a+ b => 7
a +b => 3
Here's the source code:
# --- cut ---
def a(x=4)
x+2
end
b = 1
print "a + b => ", (a + b), "\n"
print "a+b => ", (a+b), "\n"
print "a+ b => ", (a+ b), "\n"
print "a +b => ", (a +b), "\n"
# --- cut ---
>> So there's weird magic going on where `super` and `super()` both call
>> the method but with different arguments. Ewww.
>
> It's only weird because you are judging through a Python lens. Ruby is
> not Python. And Python is not Ruby.
No, its weird because in *both cases* there are no arguments given, but
in one case there are no arguments passed, but in the other case, some
unknown number of invisible arguments are passed.
Consider a bunch of Ruby function calls:
f() # calls f with no arguments
f # calls f with no arguments
foo() # calls foo with no arguments
foo # calls foo with no arguments
bar() # calls bar with no arguments
bar # calls bar with no arguments
super() # calls the superclass method with no arguments
super # MAGIC HAPPENS! calls the superclass method with
some unknown number of arguments!
If you want to argue that's a useful feature, okay, I'll give you the
benefit of the doubt. But useful or not, it's still weird and surprising.
And deeply, fundamentally inconsistent.
--
Steve
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
