Hi,

In message "Re: new method dispatch rule (matz' proposal)"
    on Tue, 23 Jan 2007 23:26:17 +0900, Hugh Sasse <hgs / dmu.ac.uk> writes:

|Interesting.  Doesn't this mean more care will be needed to develop
|private interfaces prior to them becoming public?

I don't think so.  Polymorphism wouldn't happen for private methods by
the new look-up scheme, so that we need less care for method name
conflict.  We have to care only for methods tried to share same name
in the same class/module.

|Also, to get the redefined bar method in a call to foo in the above
|example, class B would have to have its own implementation of foo.
|I see this as leading to code duplication, which breaks DRY.

I am not sure what you meant.  Do you want private AND overridable
methods?  I am vaguely thinking of changing protected for that
purpose (or introducing a new visibility).

							matz.