Dnia 2017-05-17, śro o godzinie 15:24 -0400, Sam Steingold pisze: > > * Didier Verna <qvq...@yeqr.rcvgn.se> [2017-05-17 17:33:40 +0200]: > > > > Does anyone know why the non-standard built-in method combinations do > > not support before and after methods? > > If you are defining the method combination, you have way more freedom > and flexibility than mere before and after. > Basically, you can do it yourself. >
But Didier is asking about BUILT-IN method combinations. Possibly it was hard to define reasonable agreed semantics for before an after methods in the case of something like AND or APPEND (technical troubles aside). Regards ZJ
