From: Tom Sawyer <transami@...>
Date: 2002-09-17T02:48:39+09:00
Subject: Re: private variables

a private instance variable is one that is not inheritable. is that the
only difference?

using _@, or anyhting like that is pretty ugly. it would also make me
want to use _ in front of all my local variables, which take me back to
my old idea of using % for regular locals: then all variables would have
a puncutation mark in front of them.

  $ - global
  @@ - class
  @ - instance
  %@ - local instance
  % - local

but % smacks of code breakage, unless it were optional.

what about using parentheticals instead? since currently it is pointless
to write: (@local). this may be a better notation.

just a thought.

-tom


On Mon, 2002-09-16 at 10:51, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> In message "Re: private variables"
>     on 02/09/17, James F.Hranicky <jfh@cise.ufl.edu> writes:
> 
> |Are we dead set against "attr_private" ?
> |
> |   class Foo
> |	attr_private :bar
> |   end 
> |
> |?
> 
> I'm not going to choose attr_private (unless someone put some idea in
> my brain), because
> 
>   a) we need static information about class local instance variable at
>      compile time.  Dynamic attr_priate at run time is too late.
> 
>   b) if we choose attr_private (by making it a syntax), we need to
>      search for declaration to distinguish whether a instance variable
>      is class local or not.  I don't feel it's a Ruby Way (tm).
> 
> 							matz.
> 
-- 
tom sawyer, aka transami
transami@transami.net