Bug #6434: Block passed implicitly via super

• Status: Rejected
• Assignee: -
• Target version: 1.9.3
• ruby -v: ruby 1.9.3p125 (2012-02-16 revision 34643) [x86_64-linux]

[trans (Thomas Sawyer)]

=begin
Block is being passed via super implicitly even though the method is explicit and does not pass the block when calling super.

class H < Hash
  def initialize(default=nil, &block)
    super(default)
  end
end
H.new(0){}

ArgumentError: wrong number of arguments
from (pry):3:in `initialize'

Hash#initialize doesn't allow both a default argument and a default_proc, which is the cause of this error. Which means the block is being passed up even though it should not be.
=end

[trans (Thomas Sawyer)]

Crap, could an admin please fix the use of RD in my post. And while I am on the subject, can we just make RD mode always on and be done with it?

[shyouhei (Shyouhei Urabe)]

• Description updated (diff)

[nobu (Nobuyoshi Nakada)]

• Status changed from Open to Rejected

=begin
It's a spec.

(({super})) inherits the given block if it's not given directly.

You can call (({super(default, &nil)})) not to pass it.
=end

[trans (Thomas Sawyer)]

I see. It's not intuitive, obviously, but I suppose it makes sense for how Ruby handles implicit yield in general. Nonetheless, wouldn't it be better if this did not apply when a explicit block argument is used?

would pass block implicitly

def foo
super
end

would NOT pass block implicitly

def foo(&block)
super
end

In any case I discovered the use of &nil as a work around prior to posting this and that does the trick. Thanks.

[alexeymuranov (Alexey Muranov)]

Just a note: super without arguments is documented to pass all arguments, so to not pass a block can only be expected from super()

[trans (Thomas Sawyer)]

@alexey I thought that was no longer true for 1.9.

[alexeymuranov (Alexey Muranov)]

@thomas (Thomas Fritzsche), i didn't know it could change. In fact, i do not know where to find an up to date documentation about basic Ruby keywords.