Peter <Peter.Vanbroekhoven / cs.kuleuven.ac.be> wrote:
> 
> But maybe an extra clarification: in the end I settled for the solution 
> with Method#private! instead of looking further for the bug that plagued 
> my other approach. The reason was that in a way it made sense to have 
> those methods as well because even though "private def a ; end" looks 
> nicer, it is IMO less OO than Method#private! . The downside of these 

I'd disagree with this - privacy is done at the class level rather than
the method level. Method#private! smacks too much of having a contained
object know about the container.

martin