We use this via modules not via lets, which makes it syntactically simpler. -- Matthias
On May 11, 2011, at 9:35 PM, Mark Engelberg wrote: > I played around briefly with define-local-member-name but it seemed > like a rather awkward way to achieve "protected"-ness. From the > example in the help desk, it seems like the classes need to have some > sort of let wrapped around them to share a non-public method between > them. It seems like to set things up so that each class shares fields > and methods with subclasses but no outsiders would be quite unwieldy > with many levels of wrapping and scopes that match the inheritance > hierarchy, which would be hard to read and hard to keep track of. Is > it cleaner than I realize to achieve this? > _________________________________________________ > For list-related administrative tasks: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
