From: "Iñaki Baz Castillo" <ibc@...>
Date: 2008-04-25T19:18:15+09:00
Subject: Re: Is there any nomenclature for private methods?

2008/4/25, Trans <transfire@gmail.com>:


> I agree that these declarations are one of the "sore-eyes" of Ruby,
>  but what else can be done? Matz has always seemed against allowing:
>
>   private def foo()
>   end

Thanks, surely I'll use:

   def _private_method_1
      ...
   end
   private : _provate_mehtod_1


>  In many ways it's really not important though. A more Ruby-esque way
>  in my opinion is to just make them all public and document them
>  appropriately.

But if you do a framework other people to programme in it maybe is
neccesary to abstract the API and use private methods as security,
isn't?



> An initial underscore or double underscore basically indicates
>  "special/avoid overwrite" --meaning it's meant to reduce the
>  likelihood that someone else might define a method/attribute of the
>  same name. The most common occurrence is __send__.

Ok understood ;)

-- 
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc@aliax.net>