Yoshiki wrote: 

>  At Mon, 5 May 2003 23:10:43 -0700 (PDT),
>  Anthony Adachi wrote:

>  >  Derek Brans wrote:
>  >  >  I think 'super new initialize' runs the risk
of initializing the objectmore than once

>  > If that is the case is there any reason in
particular
>  > that an author might wish to use 'super new
>  > initialize' rather than 'self basicNew'?
 
>  There is a resistance to *use* #basic... in your
code. It sometimes
>  means that your code is not well-factored so it has
to bypass a
>  standard mechanism. 

Yes, I recognize that the question might be whether
one should be overriding a standard mechanism in the
first place and that one's code may be asking to be
refactored. 

However, what I am not clear on is why someone would
choose an implementation of 'super new' over 'self
basicNew'? Especially, when one is aware that the
latter is less risky, as Derek indicated?

>  By the way, Aoki-san once suggested that a
definition something like
>  
>  new
>  ^ (super new) initialize; yourself
>  
>  is more intention revealing because it clearly
shows that the object
>  to be returned is the one which is newly created.
At least, if you
>  want to initialize your object with a method that
returns something
>  other than self, this is a solution.

So, is an expression of clarity is the reason for
choosing 'super new' as opposed to 'self basicNew'
despite a potential future risk?

Thanks,

Anthony

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com