gabriele renzi wrote:

> I guess the point would be to avoid breaking something when 
> inheriting, i.e. if you have an helper method named #foo which you 
> don't publish since it's just used internally, a subclass in the need 
> for a method #foo could redefine it and cause breakage of inherited 
> methods that used to rely on the former behaviour.
> Thus, everyone subclassing would need to know the internals of evry 
> ancestor class to avoid problems.

Ah. Right. Hehe, I program Java* for a living, but couldn't recognize a 
"private" method from the definition. Silly me.

Thanks,
Devin

*Well, honestly, most of my time programming has been in JSP, since we 
have a little business-logic-in-the-JSPs problem, and, well, the past 
few months have been spent largely in introducing CVS and Ant to our 
little project, so I guess I can be forgiven for forgetting the 
traditional definition of private, eh?