Hi,
I worry this change breaks Open Closed Principle....

Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
> |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).

I think it's better to keep private for that purpose.  How about to
introduce a new visibility for unoverridable methods instead?

Shugo