Issue #17171 has been updated by Eregon (Benoit Daloze).


mame (Yusuke Endoh) wrote in #note-3:
> I did not introduce `private_constant` with no receiver because I wanted to avoid a new module state (as I recall, matz now dislikes the module state), but I agree that it is redundant.

Interesting, is `private` implemented as state on the module? (but then would need to be thread-local when concurrently loading or so)
I always thought it's part of the state stored in the frame.

Regarding the issue, I agree it would be nice.
Maybe we can make an experiment and gather feedback from gems testing against ruby-head?

----------------------------------------
Feature #17171: Why is the visibility of constants not affected by `private`?
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/17171#change-87578

* Author: marcandre (Marc-Andre Lafortune)
* Status: Open
* Priority: Normal
----------------------------------------
```ruby
class Foo
  def call_me
    # ...
  end

  private
 
  SOME_DATA = %i[...].freeze  # is public, why not private?

  def calc_stuff  # is private, ok.
    # ...
  end
end
```ruby

It's probably a naive question, but why shouldn't `SOME_DATA`'s visibility be private?

When writing gems, more often than not the constants that I write are not meant for public consumption. I find it redundant (and tiresome) to explicitly write `private_constant :SOME_DATA`.



-- 
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

Unsubscribe: <mailto:ruby-core-request / ruby-lang.org?subject=unsubscribe>
<http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-core>