From: Sean Chittenden <sean@...>
Date: 2002-09-25T04:15:09+09:00
Subject: Re: private variables

> |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).

Hrm, this thread has been so huge that I've been in skim mode. I
understand that attr_private wouldn't work because its dynamic and
determined at runtime, but I'm wondering if there isn't another single
character that could be used in the grammar to designate a private
instance variable.  I couldn't think of any without there being some
kind of compile time declaration of a symbol...  but there doesn't
seem like there's any way of providing compile time hints outside of
the special characters that get prepended to a symbol name.  Just a
thought, but would it be possible to introduce a compile time syntax
for providing hints to the compiler?  If so, then that'd likely open
up possibilities for other naming schemes.  ::shrug:: Just my $0.02.
-sc

-- 
Sean Chittenden