"Austin Ziegler" <austin / halostatue.ca> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:2003516135649.886104 / PADD... > On Fri, 16 May 2003 23:33:21 +0900, Guillaume Marcais wrote: > > On Friday 16 May 2003 03:38 am, you wrote: > >> Can you explain that? What do you mean by "don't fit"? > > I find it more convenient when the scope of the method is directly > > readable from the declaration of the method. In Java, > > public/protected/private are qualifiers: > > > > private int dontcallme(); > > > > In ruby, I need a second line to specify the scope of the method. > > Or the default scope was change before the method declaration. In > > both cases I have to look around the code to find what the scope > > of the method is. > > Not really. Sure, you can do: > > class Foo > def meth1 ... > def meth2 ... > def meth3 ... > def meth4 ... > def meth5 ... > def meth6 ... > > private :meth3, :meth4 > protected :meth5, :meth6 > end > > Or you can do (C++ style): > > class Foo > def meth1 ... > def meth2 ... > > private > def meth3 ... > def meth4 ... > > protected > def meth5 ... > def meth6 ... > end And even (Java style): class Foo public def meth1 ... public def meth2 ... private def meth3 ... private def meth4 ... protected def meth5 ... protected def meth6 ... end :-) robert