From: Alexandru Popescu <the.mindstorm.mailinglist@...>
Date: 2006-06-02T00:58:39+09:00
Subject: Re: OO / Private verse Protected

Thanks Joel and Jim. I was aware that there are differences between
Ruby private/protected and Java private/protected, that's the reason
why I have said it load: "at least in Java these modifiers....". I
know how these are working for Java and I was commenting about their
usability. Indeed, considering that I am on the Ruby ML, I should have
probably prefix my messages with a little offtopic, so I apologize for
this.

BR,

./alex
--
.w( the_mindstorm )p.


On 6/1/06, Jim Weirich <jim@weirichhouse.org> wrote:
> Alexandru Popescu wrote:
> > At least in Java these modifiers are quite usefull: a protected method
> > is one that offers extensibility/polymorphic behavior for hierarchies,
> > without exposing it as public API. So the behavior may vary according
> > to the implementation, and the exposed API/public methods are a
> > completely different thing.
>
> Keep in mind that Ruby protected and private have slightly different
> meanings than in Java.  Private protection in Ruby is instance based.
> That means that private methods are callable only within the object
> instance, but (unlike Java) that instance need not be a direct instance
> of the class.
>
> Ruby protected seems to be pretty close to the Java concept of
> protected, AFAICT (minus the package exposure in Java).  However, I
> almost never use Ruby protected so I am probably missing some
> subtleties.
>
> -- Jim Weirich
>
> --
> Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
>
>