[#5218] Ruby Book Eng tl, ch1 question — Jon Babcock <jon@...>

13 messages 2000/10/02

[#5404] Object.foo, setters and so on — "Hal E. Fulton" <hal9000@...>

OK, here is what I think I know.

14 messages 2000/10/11

[#5425] Ruby Book Eng. tl, 9.8.11 -- seishitsu ? — Jon Babcock <jon@...>

18 messages 2000/10/11
[#5427] RE: Ruby Book Eng. tl, 9.8.11 -- seishitsu ? — OZAWA -Crouton- Sakuro <crouton@...> 2000/10/11

At Thu, 12 Oct 2000 03:49:46 +0900,

[#5429] Re: Ruby Book Eng. tl, 9.8.11 -- seishitsu ? — Jon Babcock <jon@...> 2000/10/11

Thanks for the input.

[#5432] Re: Ruby Book Eng. tl, 9.8.11 -- seishitsu ? — Yasushi Shoji <yashi@...> 2000/10/11

At Thu, 12 Oct 2000 04:53:41 +0900,

[#5516] Re: Some newbye question — ts <decoux@...>

>>>>> "D" == Davide Marchignoli <marchign@di.unipi.it> writes:

80 messages 2000/10/13
[#5531] Re: Some newbye question — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2000/10/14

Hi,

[#5544] Re: Some newbye question — Davide Marchignoli <marchign@...> 2000/10/15

On Sat, 14 Oct 2000, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#5576] Re: local variables (nested, in-block, parameters, etc.) — Dave Thomas <Dave@...> 2000/10/16

matz@zetabits.com (Yukihiro Matsumoto) writes:

[#5617] Re: local variables (nested, in-block, parameters, etc.) — "Brian F. Feldman" <green@...> 2000/10/16

Dave Thomas <Dave@thomases.com> wrote:

[#5705] Dynamic languages, SWOT ? — Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng <hgs@...>

There has been discussion on this list/group from time to time about

16 messages 2000/10/20
[#5712] Re: Dynamic languages, SWOT ? — Charles Hixson <charleshixsn@...> 2000/10/20

Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng wrote:

[#5882] [RFC] Towards a new synchronisation primitive — hipster <hipster@...4all.nl>

Hello fellow rubyists,

21 messages 2000/10/26

[ruby-talk:5378] Re: Object method scope

From: "Morris, Chris" <ChrisM@...>
Date: 2000-10-10 12:30:03 UTC
List: ruby-talk #5378
> Private methods may not be called with an explicit receiver: they are
> always called with 'self'. This enforces privacy: they have to be
> called within the context of the current object.
> 
> At the top level, methods are added to Object. However, they 
> are added 
> as private methods. This means that they may not be called with a
> receiver: they always have a receiver of 'self'. Partly this is a
> practical thing: these methods are probably intended to be called as
> functions, and so adding a receiver would be silly. Putting them in
> Object also makes them global, so they're available
> everywhere. Finally, stopping them from being called with a receiver
> stops you doing strange things by mistake. 

Thanks for all the sample code -- that helps a lot.

My assumption coming into this was as follows: if I add a method to Object,
it must be public because I can now call it from anywhere. So if I add self
as the receiver, that should be an equivalent call, but now it's suddenly
private. If it's private how am I able to make the call without the self
receiver?

Because Object is the root Object, right? It's private, but I'm within
Object so I have access to it. Is this correct?


> See you Wednesday?

Yep. I'll be there.

Chris

In This Thread

Prev Next