before and after methods

[zbyszek]

Dnia 2017-05-17, śro o godzinie 15:24 -0400, Sam Steingold pisze:
> > * Didier Verna <qvqvre at 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