dblack / wobblini.net wrote:
> Hi --
> 
> On Fri, 26 Jan 2007, Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:
> 
>> I'm coming at it from a Java perspective, and I think we reasonably 
>> mimic Java's private behavior with these altered rules.
> 
> Is that specifically the goal?  I'm not a Java programmer (I come at
> it from a Ruby perspective :-) so I don't know the specifics -- just
> curious whether you actually see mimicking Java in this area as a good
> thing in and of itself.  I hadn't heard it expressed quite that way
> before.

Maybe not matz's goal, but it's the visibility model that makes the most 
sense to me. I just wanted to say what perspective I'm coming from since 
Java is undoubtedly the most widely-used OO language these days. Perhaps 
there's a good reason to make the visibility model drastically different 
from the way Java does it, but I haven't seen it yet. I've also heard 
fewer complaints about Java's model in my ten years using it than 
complaints or confusion about Ruby's model in the past two. So I agree 
with matz that there's room for improvement here.

- Charlie