"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