Daniel Berger wrote:
> What do people think of the idea of private (and protected) taking a
> block?
> 
> This wouldn't really be any different than the current behavior for
> methods, but it would (in theory) allow you to make constants, class
> variables and class instance variables private.
Hrm... I have no opinion on private constants, but I'm going to borrow 
this thread to ask a related question. (Feel free to yell at me.)

What do people think of 'def' returning the name of the method? Then you 
could do:
   private def foo
     blahblahblah
   end
For those one-off private methods.

Devin
*turns on noise-cancelling headphones*