From: Guillaume Marcais <guslist@...>
Date: 2003-05-16T22:50:26+09:00
Subject: Re: public/protected/private syntax

On Thursday 15 May 2003 05:26 pm, you wrote:
> Guillaume Marcais wrote:
> > I tend to find the public/protected/private keywords in Ruby a little
> > odd. They don't seem to fit the Ruby syntax. What about the following
> > syntax (for Ruby 3.0 :)? The scope of the method would be known by the
> > first caracters of its name, the same way as the scope of a variable is
> > determined by $, @, @@ or nothing. So:
> >
> > class Test
> >   def method1; end   # public method
> >   def _method2; end  # protected method
> >   def __method3; end # private method
> > end
>
> But, in ruby, many methods that you can use without a receiver are in
> fact private methods of all objects. For example, #puts, #gsub,
> #require, #fork, ... (most if not all of these are actually inherited
> from Kernel).
>
> That means you would have to type
>
> __require 'mylib'
>
> all the time.

Agreed that is not convenient. Didn't think of that one.

Guillaume.