[#63592] [ruby-trunk - Bug #10009] IO operation is 10x slower in multi-thread environment — normalperson@...
Issue #10009 has been updated by Eric Wong.
3 messages
2014/07/08
[#63682] [ruby-trunk - Feature #10030] [PATCH] reduce rb_iseq_struct to 296 bytes — ko1@...
Issue #10030 has been updated by Koichi Sasada.
3 messages
2014/07/13
[#63703] [ruby-trunk - Feature #10030] [PATCH] reduce rb_iseq_struct to 296 bytes — ko1@...
Issue #10030 has been updated by Koichi Sasada.
3 messages
2014/07/14
[#63743] [ruby-trunk - Bug #10037] Since r46798 on Solaris, "[BUG] rb_vm_get_cref: unreachable" during make — ngotogenome@...
Issue #10037 has been updated by Naohisa Goto.
3 messages
2014/07/15
[#64136] Ruby 2.1.2 (and 2.1.1 and probably others) assumes a libffi with 3 version numbers in extconf.rb — "Jeffrey 'jf' Lim" <jfs.world@...>
As per subject.
4 messages
2014/07/31
[#64138] Re: Ruby 2.1.2 (and 2.1.1 and probably others) assumes a libffi with 3 version numbers in extconf.rb
— "Jeffrey 'jf' Lim" <jfs.world@...>
2014/07/31
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 6:03 PM, Jeffrey 'jf' Lim <jfs.world@gmail.com>
[ruby-core:63465] [ruby-trunk - Feature #9992] Access Modifiers (Internal Interfaces)
From:
e@...
Date:
2014-07-01 06:12:41 UTC
List:
ruby-core #63465
Issue #9992 has been updated by Zachary Scott.
I would suggest opening a feature request if you feel strongly about adding `internal` to Ruby.
See also: https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/projects/ruby/wiki/HowToRequestFeatures
On Jun 28, 2014, at 11:17 AM, Daniel da Silva Ferreira <danieldasilvaferreira@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I’m would like to discuss with you the concept of Internal Interfaces.
>
> Currently ruby offers three access modifiers choices to set methods visibility:
> - public
> - protected
> - private
>
> Public methods define what we may call the Public Interface.
> Private methods are private to the class and its subclasses.
> Protected methods are public for the subclasses.
>
> I would like to work with a new access modifier that would allow the creation of Internal methods.
>
> Internal methods would be object methods that could only be called within the namespace.
>
> Ex: module Foo; end
>
> class Foo::Bar
> def baz
> puts ‘baz’
> end
> internal :baz
> end
>
> class Foo::Qux
> def baz
> ::Foo::Bar.new.baz
> end
> end
>
> Is this something that we can think about in a future implementation of ruby?
> An extra feature that would not break backward compatibility.
>
> Cheers,
> Daniel
----------------------------------------
Feature #9992: Access Modifiers (Internal Interfaces)
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/9992#change-47505
* Author: Daniel Ferreira
* Status: Open
* Priority: Normal
* Assignee:
* Category:
* Target version:
----------------------------------------
Hi,
I’m would like to discuss with you the concept of Internal Interfaces.
Currently ruby offers three access modifiers choices to set methods visibility:
- public
- protected
- private
Public methods define what we may call the Public Interface.
Private methods are private to the class and its subclasses.
Protected methods are public for the subclasses.
I would like to work with a new access modifier that would allow the creation of Internal methods.
Internal methods would be object methods that could only be called within the namespace.
Ex:
~~~ruby
module Foo; end
class Foo::Bar
def baz
puts ‘baz’
end
internal :baz
end
class Foo::Qux
def baz
::Foo::Bar.new.baz
end
end
~~~
Is this something that we can think about in a future implementation of ruby?
An extra feature that would not break backward compatibility.
Cheers,
Daniel
--
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/