From: eregontp@... Date: 2020-09-16T21:13:12+00:00 Subject: [ruby-core:100027] [Ruby master Feature#17171] Why is the visibility of constants not affected by `private`? Issue #17171 has been updated by Eregon (Benoit Daloze). mame (Yusuke Endoh) wrote in #note-3: > I did not introduce `private_constant` with no receiver because I wanted to avoid a new module state (as I recall, matz now dislikes the module state), but I agree that it is redundant. Interesting, is `private` implemented as state on the module? (but then would need to be thread-local when concurrently loading or so) I always thought it's part of the state stored in the frame. Regarding the issue, I agree it would be nice. Maybe we can make an experiment and gather feedback from gems testing against ruby-head? ---------------------------------------- Feature #17171: Why is the visibility of constants not affected by `private`? https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/17171#change-87578 * Author: marcandre (Marc-Andre Lafortune) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal ---------------------------------------- ```ruby class Foo def call_me # ... end private SOME_DATA = %i[...].freeze # is public, why not private? def calc_stuff # is private, ok. # ... end end ```ruby It's probably a naive question, but why shouldn't `SOME_DATA`'s visibility be private? When writing gems, more often than not the constants that I write are not meant for public consumption. I find it redundant (and tiresome) to explicitly write `private_constant :SOME_DATA`. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/ Unsubscribe: