[ruby-core:117318] [Ruby master Bug#20392] Delegate super calls with a block

26 Mar 2024

      Issue #20392 has been updated by nobu (Nobuyoshi Nakada).

Description updated

https://github.com/ruby/ruby/pull/10361

----------------------------------------
Bug #20392: Delegate super calls with a block
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/20392#change-107458

* Author: tenderlovemaking (Aaron Patterson)
* Status: Open
* ruby -v: ruby 3.4.0dev (2024-03-15T18:08:39Z master e3a82d79fd) [arm64-darwin23]
* Backport: 3.0: UNKNOWN, 3.1: UNKNOWN, 3.2: UNKNOWN, 3.3: UNKNOWN
----------------------------------------
I'm seeing strange behavior with calls to `super` when combined with `...` and a block.  I'm not sure if this is expected behavior or not, so I'm filing this ticket.

Using delegate `...` with an explicit block will cause an error:

```ruby
# Example 1
def foo ...
  yield
end

def bar ...
  foo(...) { } # test.rb: test.rb:6: both block arg and actual block given (SyntaxError)
end
```

However, calling `super` and passing a block works:

```ruby
# Example 2
class A
  def foo
    yield(3)
  end
end

class B < A
  def foo(...)
    super do |x|
      yield(2 + x)
    end
  end
end

p B.new.foo { |x| x } # 5
```

In the above code, I imagine the bare `super` to basically be equivalent of `super(...)` since I defined the method `foo` as `foo(...)`.

However, if I explicitly pass `...` to super, there is no syntax error, just the block I provided is ignored:

```ruby
# Example 3
class A
  def foo
    yield(3)
  end
end

class B < A
  def foo(...)
    super(...) do |x|
      raise "should I be called?"
    end
  end
end

p B.new.foo { |x| x } # 3
```

I'd expect Example 3 to raise an exception like Example 1.  Additionally, I think the behavior in Example 2 is odd, but zsupers are "special" so I can understand if it is intended behavior.

Is Example 3 intended behavior?  If not, how should it behave?

Thanks.

-- 
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/