It might be a little helpful ONLY if we are defining constants dynamically.

On Fri, Apr 3, 2020, 12:43 AM <sawadatsuyoshi / gmail.com> wrote:

> Issue #16752 has been updated by sawa (Tsuyoshi Sawada).
>
>
> To be precise, actually,
>
> ```ruby
> class A
>   FOO = 1
>   private_constant :FOO
> end
> ```
>
> is not two method calls; it is one assignment and one method call.
>
> Besides that, I don't see that writing:
>
> ```ruby
> class A
>   const_set :FOO, 1, private: true
> end
> ```
>
> is any more concise than writing:
>
>
> ```ruby
> class A
>   FOO = 1; private_constant :FOO
> end
> ```
>
> ----------------------------------------
> Feature #16752: :private param for const_set
> https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/16752#change-84883
>
> * Author: bughit (bug hit)
> * Status: Open
> * Priority: Normal
> ----------------------------------------
> Defining a private constant should not require two method calls.
>
> You want to encourage private declarations because they communicate intent
> better and are easier to refactor, two statements discourage it.
>
> Ideally there should be compact syntax for direct private declarations,
> but that's probably a difficult change.
>
> But `const_set :FOO, 1, private: true` or `const_set :FOO, 1, :private`
> should be trivial
>
>
>
> --
> https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/
>
> Unsubscribe: <mailto:ruby-core-request / ruby-lang.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> <http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-core>
>
(supressed text/html)
Unsubscribe: <mailto:ruby-core-request / ruby-lang.org?subject=unsubscribe>
<http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-core>