before and after methods

zbyszek zbyszek at
Thu May 18 07:19:36 UTC 2017

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



More information about the pro mailing list