On 11/1/06, Rune Hammersland <rune@[...].com>  wrote:
> 
>  Robert Dober wrote:
>  > On 10/31/06, ara.t.howard@[...].gov <ara.t.howard@[...].gov> wrote:
>  >    <Ara's version of code snipped>
>  >>      harp:~ > ruby a.rb
>  >>      LOL: superclass method `lol' disabled
>  >
>  >
>  > It does the same as OP's code, I really feel this is strange.
>  > Rune, on philiosophical grounds, I prefer the second behavior the
>  > super
>  > method being available again, can you elaborate on why you prefer the
>  > first?
> 
>  I don't necessarily prefer the first, I prefer them to behave the
>  same way.
>  Actually having the super method available makes more sense.


I agree, I think consistent behavior would be  preferable, not losing the
super method seems also  more POLS to me.
Now after all that talk ;)

Great You Came Up With This , Rune!!!
=======================

Might this go away?


The reason I stumbled upon this is because I'm writing about
>  sandboxing and
>  would like to explain how you can supply "safe" versions of classes
>  in the
>  sandbox by "disabling" unsafe methods (of course it doesn't help if
>  you can
>  simply redefine the method yourself, but it's a first step). When
>  playing
>  around with undef_method and remove_method I found that remove_method
>  only
>  removes method defined in the class it self (and not derived
>  methods),


there was a thread about that, if you are interested it might pay to search
the archives
<SNIP> 

>  --
>  Vennlig Hilsen / Regards
>  Rune Hammersland
> 
> 


-- 
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress
depends on the unreasonable man.

- George Bernard Shaw