Please keep Pharo simple, why do you need private methods...you can include then in a protocol named private...other language have it...yes...next addition will be namespaces...other...I don't know...at last we have Java
El jue., 19 ago. 2021 9:00, Richard O'Keefe <rao...@gmail.com> escribió: > Many years ago there was a proposal in the Squeak mailing list about > enforcing > a naming convention, "pvt", I implemented that in my Smalltalk system. > The > compiler enforces the rule that pvt.[A-Z].* message can only be sent to > (self|super) (basicNew|basicNew: n|new|new: n|pvtNew: n)? > in a class method or > (self|super) ((class (new|new: n)|pvtSpeciesNew: n|pvtClone)? > in an instance method. > There are currently > 9412 public selectors > 793 pvt* selectors and > 23 private* selectors, > where the last group is methods that I *want* to be private in some sense > but > cannot do with this machinery. (For example, calling a "private" method on > another object known to be of the same class.) > > I think the evidence shows that this works well enough to be useful, even > if it > isn't quite as expressive as I'd like. And what *that* means is that > this can be > done with a style check, using the machinery Pharo already has for style > checks. > > > > On Wed, 18 Aug 2021 at 08:14, Craig Johnson <cr...@hivemind.net> wrote: > > > > Hi All, > > > > > > Just a newb off-the-wall question. > > > > Is there any good reason why we can't create a true private method in a > > Pharo class by putting that method inside an instance or class variable > > as a lambda (block). > > > > > > This would reduce one of my biggest bugbears with Pharo, namely the > > pollution of the global namespace with every single message name in the > > entire system. > > > > > > > > Craig >
