Re: new method dispatch rule (matz' proposal)

David Flanagan <[e-mail]> writes:
> Daniel DeLorme wrote:
>> How is this hidden from subclasses? Or did I miss something?
>>
>
> Sorry, everyone!  As Daniel and others have pointed out my analogy of
> non-inheritable local methods to instance variables makes no sense
> since instance variables are inheritable.  I'm feeling pretty
> embarassed by that.
>
> However, I do stand by my argument that it would be good to have some
> kind of non-inheritable really-private kind of method in Ruby.  And I
> think that distinguishing those methods with punctuation in their
> names would be an easy way to get there without having to jigger with
> the existing method dispatch rules.
>
> 	David

Maybe I'm confused, which of these are you talking about?

class A
  def m; @f(); end
  def @f; true; end
end

class B < A
end

B.new.m  #=> Error: The mighty class author requires that you
             reimplement @f.

or

class B < A
  def @f; false; end
  #=> Error: The mighty class author forbids you to reimplement @f
end

Steve