In message "Re: new method dispatch rule (matz' proposal)"
    on Fri, 26 Jan 2007 03:40:28 +0900, Joshua Haberman <joshua / reverberate.org> writes:

|Could you also summarize the intent behind these schemes?  Rules are
|just the means for achieving a goal -- what is the goal itself?  What
|deficiencies of the status quo will these proposals address?

It's in [ruby-core:10022].  To rephrase:

  The point is that, as Ruby grows, the requirement for managing name
  conflict is raising.  I think we need something that can safely used
  to define utility _functions_, without affecting public method set,
  nor worrying about name conflict.  But the current "private" nor one
  you've described above cannot address this issue.

Does this make sense?

							matz.