> 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.

Maybe I'm a bit biased, having seen the underlying implementation. Method 
knows about its container, and in the end privacy is determined by both 
the class and the method, and part of a Method (bound or unbound) IMHO 
represents the combination of these two. And maybe this is because I'm not 
quite content with the alternative where Module#private checks if the 
class of the Method passed to it matches its own and raises an error if it 
is not so. This is related again to Method being the combination of class 
and method.

Peter