From: "jeremyevans0 (Jeremy Evans)" <noreply@...>
Date: 2022-07-14T20:27:55+00:00
Subject: [ruby-core:109212] [Ruby master Bug#18887] documentation for protected methods

Issue #18887 has been updated by jeremyevans0 (Jeremy Evans).


I don't think it is correct before or after the change, though after comes closer.

Before:

```
When calling a protected method the
sender must be a subclass of the receiver or the receiver must be a subclass of
the sender.  Otherwise a NoMethodError will be raised.
```

After:

```
When calling a protected method the
receiver must inherit the Class or Module which defines the method.  Otherwise a
NoMethodError will be raised.
```

The problems with the before case:

* receiver and sender may not be a class, in which case it makes no sense as stated.
* If `subclass of the (receiver|sender)` means `subclass of the (receiver|sender)'s class`, it is still wrong.

Consider this example:

```ruby
module M
  protected def x; 1 end
end

c1 = Object.new
c2 = Object.new
c1.extend(M)

def c2.y(c)
  c.x
end

c2.y(c1) rescue (p $!) # NoMethodError: protected method `x' called
c2.extend(M)
p c2.y(c1) # => 1
```

`c1` and `c2` are both instances of `Object`. The first call to `c2.y` raises because it calls `c1.x`, a method defined in `M`, which `c1` extends but `c2` does not.  However, after `c2` extends `M`, the protected call works.

So the new language is closer.  The bug in the new language is `receiver` should be changed to `sender`.  If the `receiver` didn't inherit the class or module that defined the method, you couldn't call the method on the receiver (undefined method error, or it would call a different method).

Here's another example with more traditional subclassing:

```ruby
class A
  def x1(b)
    b.x
  end
  def y1(b)
    b.y
  end
  protected def x; 0 end
  protected def y; 1; end
end

class B < A
  protected def x; 1; end
end

a = A.new
b = B.new

p a.x1(b) rescue (p $!) # NoMethodError: protected method `x'
p a.y1(b) rescue (p $!) # 1
p b.x1(a) rescue (p $!) # 0
p b.y1(a) rescue (p $!) # 1
```

This shows that a superclass instance cannot call a protected method on a subclass instance, but a subclass instance can call a protected method on a superclass instance.  Superclass instance cannot call subclass protected method because superclass instance does not inherit the class/module defining the method.  Subclass instance can call superclass protected method because subclass instance does inherit the class/module defining the method.  This again shows the before language was incorrect, but the after language is better.

I'll switch `receiver` to `sender` to fix the issue in the current language.

----------------------------------------
Bug #18887: documentation for protected methods
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/18887#change-98347

* Author: znz (Kazuhiro NISHIYAMA)
* Status: Open
* Priority: Normal
* Backport: 2.7: UNKNOWN, 3.0: UNKNOWN, 3.1: UNKNOWN
----------------------------------------
I think it is correct before the change.
Which is correct?

https://github.com/ruby/ruby/commit/962a3247b1b76770930200bcce7470a54dfb25c9




-- 
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

Unsubscribe: <mailto:ruby-core-request@ruby-lang.org?subject=unsubscribe>
<http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-core>