[#11439] comments needed for Random class — "NAKAMURA, Hiroshi" <nakahiro@...>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

15 messages 2007/06/12

[#11450] Re: new method dispatch rule (matz' proposal) — David Flanagan <david@...>

This is a late response to the very long thread that started back in

17 messages 2007/06/13

[#11482] Ruby Changes Its Mind About Non-Word Characters — James Edward Gray II <james@...>

Does this look like a bug to anyone else?

10 messages 2007/06/16

[#11505] Question about the patchlevel release cycle — Sylvain Joyeux <sylvain.joyeux@...4x.org>

1.8.6 thread support was broken in bad ways. It stayed for three months

20 messages 2007/06/20
[#11512] Re: Question about the patchlevel release cycle — Urabe Shyouhei <shyouhei@...> 2007/06/20

Hi, I'm the 1.8.6 branch manager.

[#11543] Re: Apple reportedly to ship with ruby 1.8.6-p36 unless informed what to patch — James Edward Gray II <james@...>

On Jun 27, 2007, at 4:47 PM, Bill Kelly wrote:

10 messages 2007/06/27

Re: new method dispatch rule (matz' proposal)

From: David Flanagan <david@...>
Date: 2007-06-13 21:55:19 UTC
List: ruby-core #11452
Meinrad,

I favor leaving private methods exactly as they currently are, but 
adding a new mechanism or visibility level that a class writer can use 
to ensure that local helper methods are not overwritten.  Surely the 
author of a class ought to have the right to decide whether subclassers 
are allowed to meddle!

     David

Meinrad Recheis wrote:
> I strongly disagree here. While I think it is good to protect private
> methods against inadvertently overriding them, I consider it harmful
> to completely hide them from subclasses. If I really want to change
> something I should be able to do so (i.e. via reflection). In
> languages with strict privacy concepts like Java it is a pain to
> extend a class in ways other than intended by the author of that
> class.
> 
> -- henon

In This Thread