David Vallner wrote:
> Dna Utorok 14 FebruŠ” 2006 01:08 Adam P. Jenkins napý‘al:
> > So I don't see the point of drawing the protection boundary
> > around *instances* of the class, rather than the code which implements
> > the class.
> >
>
> And I don't see the point of drawing a restriction in Java's private /
> protected smack-dab across an inheritance hierarchy. I accuse the whole
> thread of having degenerated into pure religion.
>

Private/protected meaning of Ruby is unique, and I believe some kind of
elaboration on that point is needed. What method is accessible from the
outer space is quite important in learning a language, isn't it?

Let me put this way. On one hand, ruby allows me to redefine or add
methods to a class which I've not defined. Also, it is possible to
redefine or add methods to a instance of class. Subclasses can access
parent classes. Moreover, there's no notion of 'final(Java)/sealed(C#)'
class in ruby. From this point of view, ruby's objects are quite
dynamic because they can be changed anytime. If these are the only
characteristics in ruby, I would just happy with it.

However, on the other hand, ruby does not allow an instance to access
other instance even if they are the instance of the same class. In this
case, an object is something that can not be easily accessed.

I feel that these two conflict, and need justification. 

Minkoo Seo