feat: add super() implementation

[ElectricalBoy]

Summary

This PR adds BaseClass.super().

How did you test this change?

included tests

[hjpalpha]

what are the perf implications of this?

[ElectricalBoy]

what are the perf implications of this?

negligible: see leagueoflegends:User:ElectricalBoy/Sandbox/PerfTest1 and leagueoflegends:User:ElectricalBoy/Sandbox/PerfTest2

[mbergen]

What's the usecase for this?
In case of single level inheritance like in the linked PR, you imported the Base anways, and could do

function Child:fun()
    return Base.fun(self)
end

to call an overridden function of the Base, right?

[ElectricalBoy]

What's the usecase for this? In case of single level inheritance like in the linked PR, you imported the Base anways, and could do

function Child:fun()
    return Base.fun(self)
end

to call an overridden function of the Base, right?

function Child:fun()
	return self:super():fun()
end

I think that this is more readable as it clearly shows with super that the method of parent class is called; I mean, it's a widely used keyword in OOP already.
Also, I think Base.fun(self) really is a workaround for absense of super in our Class implementation

[Rathoz]

Same as Salt, don't understand why this is needed? Other than maybe this?

instance.super = instance._base

[ElectricalBoy]

Same as Salt, don't understand why this is needed? Other than maybe this?

instance.super = instance._base

by our coding convention, anything starting with an underscore is considered private, so instance._base is bad in the first place

also, because _base is a class table, we cannot use : shorthand to call super methods in context of the current instance, i.e., instance.super:fun() is invalid and instance.super.fun(instance) is needed for it to work. Then again, self:super():fun() is just cleaner & more readable

[mbergen]

The issue i have with this is that it introduces a lot of code for very little gain.
Especially since it only supports single-level inheritance, no super():super() or similar.

Also self:super():fun() is questionable anyways, its not really clear what the content self in fun would be. I'd prefer the verbose style where you have to be obvious what gets passed instead of self.