From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 97589 invoked by alias); 1 Apr 2019 18:59:06 -0000 Mailing-List: contact kawa-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: kawa-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 97567 invoked by uid 89); 1 Apr 2019 18:59:05 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_05,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy=H*Ad:U*kawa, referring, H*r:sk:kawa@so, HX-Languages-Length:778 X-HELO: mail-lf1-f54.google.com Received: from mail-lf1-f54.google.com (HELO mail-lf1-f54.google.com) (209.85.167.54) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 01 Apr 2019 18:59:04 +0000 Received: by mail-lf1-f54.google.com with SMTP id m13so7091189lfb.6 for ; Mon, 01 Apr 2019 11:59:04 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=Bbb0724H6lYBTyq21oxBmPWi1gjvvDBi2Fv92xdIpNA=; b=vaCrHF/yNKwAbwRgkvXhpJncZUAOF5Wr5sQkAMluppSgKHavrZ/+98vLxbUhYP430C lYl+tE6alYlOKuwrZI2qUh3u9H7Wwzec+d/B6z228XmWtUE9KVbtiD6n5CHXIu1qKGL0 0LDnBzJ6ie7Nj/Gg0xp6K8vtam49JFO8Xa7XeOS2G1TuIlv95NCi7MtsNCJka/R42yG+ dSLmQAdtoxi843Ov98x/V1LWV7BytB4BaFrMGsjsAg8jNSQucq2InjX00Z1uMkLm9FnS RKj6h6CYVEi+m4EIRnN1l4whR32mImyWyv8j0072IZrBEM1TUjZWqpV8xooYK4EH9N5E EQ/Q== MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Duncan Mak Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2019 18:59:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Syntax for calling super implementation when overriding a method To: kawa mailing list Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2019-q2/txt/msg00000.txt.bz2 Hello Per, I see that there's syntax (this) for referring to the current instance. When I'm defining a class hierarchy, and I'd like to override a method in a subclass, is there a similar syntax, i.e. (super)? For now, I'm doing this (superclass:method instance ...), but it'd be nice not having to explicitly name the superclass. Thanks! -- Duncan.