matz
11/28/2003 12:28:00 AM
Hi,
In message "Re: Method wrapping"
on 03/11/28, "Christoph" <chr_mail@gmx.net> writes:
|> > This will probably be illegal since wrapper arity differs from the
|> > primary arity.
|>
|> Oh... Is there any specific reason for that? But now you got
|> me wondering, are you saying then that the signatures must
|> match exactly (like the number of arguments with default
|> values, whether it's variable-length, ...)? That sounds
|
|That was my reading of Matz announcement at least for
|the arity part. Personally I don't see a need for matching
|default arguments (in fact any default arguments) since
|they could be automatically supplied by the primary method
|but you have ask Matz for the definite opinion.
I didn't say anything about arity matching of method combination.
Personally, I feel like there's no need to add explicit arity match.
matz.