From: "David A. Black" <dblack@...>
Date: 2005-07-24T21:37:26+09:00
Subject: Re: Local Instance Methods

Hi --

On Sun, 24 Jul 2005, Trans wrote:

> 2. If a _def_ mechinism, then it must either declared or via a syntax
> variant. An example of declared:
>
>  class A
>    def f
>      g
>    end
>    def g
>      "in g"
>    end
>    local :g
>  end
>
> Here's an example of a syntax variant derived from the private instance
> vars proposal (eg. @_x):
>
>  class A
>    def f
>      _g
>    end
>    def _g
>      "in _g"
>    end
>  end

Please... no creeping punctuation :-)  I think this concept of local
is clearly in the same group as private/protected/public, and it would
therefore make sense to have it declared.

I'm actually unconvinced of the desireability of it.  While it's
reasonable to assume that people may not know every instance variable
that's been used, I think if you're inheriting from a class the burden
is on you to know what that class's instance methods are.  It's hard
to imagine a case where it would be otherwise.  (Or is there some
other scenario where you would want this?)


David

-- 
David A. Black
dblack@wobblini.net