Hi,

In message "Re: new method dispatch rule (matz' proposal)"
    on Wed, 24 Jan 2007 11:35:06 +0900, Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter / sun.com> writes:
|
|Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
|> I understand the principles that you care.  But visibility are not
|> that fragile for most of the cases.  Is there any way that addresses
|> name conflict issue AND has no strange visibility issue?
|
|I believe that Rule 4 itself is good and correct, and it mimics how 
|private methods are dealt with in most other languages. It allows those 
|private methods to be used as "local" utility functions, like you want, 
|without inflicting more complicated dispatch logic on all child classes.
|
|I do not understand the need for Rule 3 if Rule 4 is put in place. Rule 
|3 seems too far-reaching without much benefit.

Rule 4 without rule 3, ... hmm.  That means you cannot override any
methods that are called via functional style.  Isn't that too big
change in the invocation semantics?  Or maybe it's not THAT bad.
Well, let me think about it.

							matz.