"Austin Ziegler" <halostatue / gmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag 
news:9e7db91104092805256250c78d / mail.gmail.com...
> On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 16:49:21 +0900, Robert Klemme <bob.news / gmx.net> 
> wrote:
>>
>> "trans. (T. Onoma)" <transami / runbox.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>> news:200409272111.15070.transami / runbox.com...
>>
>>
>> > On Monday 27 September 2004 08:09 pm, David A. Black wrote:
>> > > If so, I hope it won't have the boolean flag.  I think those flags,
>> > > such as instance_methods(false), etc., are the most obscure, cryptic
>> > > thing in Ruby.  I'd like to see them disappear.
>> >
>> > Actually, I agree with you too. Since it's just a flag, perhaps using
>> > meaningful symbols would be better?
>> >
>> >   methods(:public)
>> >   methods(:private)
>> >   methods(:protected)
>> >
>> >   methods(:no_ancestors)
>> >   methods(:ancestors_only)
>> >
>> >   methods(:class)        # same as self.class.methods ?
>> >   methods(:singleton)
>> >
>> > And they could be combined:
>> >
>> >   methods(:private, :protected)
>> >   methods(:singleton, :private)
>> >   methods(:private, :no_ancestors)
>>
>> Combining the results is the only advantage of this approach. Still I
>> prefer simple and short method implementations (which are less error 
>> prone
>> and often more efficient).  So if you use symbols, change method names:
>>
>> public_methods()
>> private_methods()
>> protected_methods()
>>
>> local_methods()
>> inherited_methods()
>>
>> drop:  methods(:class)        # same as self.class.methods ?
>>
>> singleton_methods()
>>
>> You can still combine these by concatenating invocation results.  I think
>> usually this is not necessary
>
> This sounds like a lovely RCR candidate, Robert :)

.... with auto rejection?  Nah, thanks, no DOA needed.
:-)

    robert