About class methods visibility (public/private)

ruby-talk
1

Hi all,
   
  Here are some questions regarding the visibility of class methods :
   
  1/ why public, protected, private methods cannot be used for defining the visibility of class methods in addition to defining the visibility of instance methods ? Is there a technical reason or a conceptual reason for this ?
   
  2/ why the protected_class_method is missing ?
  The only methods are private_class_method and public_class_method.
   
  3/ The naming of these methods are quite confusing. Each time I read them I understand "give me the private/public class method ...". The naming is too/very close to private_methods, public_methods, ...
  I would prefer something like class_private, class_protected, class_public.
   
  Thanks for any clarification.

···

---------------------------------
Need Mail bonding?
Go to the Yahoo! Mail Q&A for great tips from Yahoo! Answers users.

2

Is there anybody for answering my questions ?
   
  Thanks in advance.

···

Ruby Admirer <ruby_admirer@yahoo.com> wrote:

  >Hi all,

Here are some questions regarding the visibility of class methods :

1/ why public, protected, private methods cannot be used for defining the visibility of class methods in addition to defining the visibility of instance methods ? Is there a technical reason or a conceptual reason for this ?

2/ why the protected_class_method is missing ?
The only methods are private_class_method and public_class_method.

3/ The naming of these methods are quite confusing. Each time I read them I understand "give me the private/public class method ...". The naming is too/very close to private_methods, public_methods, ...
I would prefer something like class_private, class_protected, class_public.

Thanks for any clarification.

---------------------------------
It's here! Your new message!
Get new email alerts with the free Yahoo! Toolbar.

3

Hi,

1/ why public, protected, private methods cannot be used for defining the visibility of class methods in addition to defining the visibility of instance methods ? Is there a technical reason or a conceptual reason for this ?

I am not sure what you mean here by "defining the visibility of class
methods in addition to defining the visibility of instance methods".
Can you elaborate?

If you want to change class method visibility, use singleton class
notation, "class <<SomeClass".

2/ why the protected_class_method is missing ?
The only methods are private_class_method and public_class_method.

We don't have private_class_methods nor public_class_methods in Ruby.
Are confusing with something else?

3/ The naming of these methods are quite confusing. Each time I read them I understand "give me the private/public class method ...". The naming is too/very close to private_methods, public_methods, ...
I would prefer something like class_private, class_protected, class_public.

What do you confuse with what? For me, class_private etc. mean nothing.

Examining your questions before asking something is a tip to get
useful answers.

              matz.

···

In message "Re: About class methods visibility (public/private)" on Wed, 21 Mar 2007 22:46:07 +0900, Ruby Admirer <ruby_admirer@yahoo.com> writes:

4

Matz,
   
  First, I'm very glad that you answered my mail.
  
  >> 1/ why public, protected, private methods cannot be used for defining the visibility of class methods in addition to defining the visibility of instance methods ? Is there a technical reason or a conceptual reason for this ?

I am not sure what you mean here by "defining the visibility of class

methods in addition to defining the visibility of instance methods".
Can you elaborate?
  
  Sure. I wrote the following code a few days ago :
   
  class C
  def one
    puts "One"
  end

  def self.other_one
    puts "Other one"
  end
   
    private
    
  def two
    puts "Two"
  end
    
  def self.other_two
    puts "Other two"
  end
  # private_class_method :other_two # added later
end
  
  What I basically expected is that the private method will make the class method "other_two" private as it makes private the instance method "two".
  I realized later the usefulness of the private_class_method so I added the commented line afterwards.
  What I'd like if possible is that the private method (and its friend protected and public) works also for class methods.
  

If you want to change class method visibility, use singleton class

notation, "class <<
   
  I agree. But the public_class_method and private_class_method does the job without having to go into the singleton class.
   
  >>> 2/ why the protected_class_method is missing ?

The only methods are private_class_method and public_class_method.

We don't have private_class_methods nor public_class_methods in Ruby.
Are confusing with something else?
  
  Yes. I just mean that there is no method for making a class method protected like there are ones for making a class method private or public.
  What is missing is a protected_class_method similar as private_class_method and public_class_method.
   
  >>> 3/ The naming of these methods are quite confusing. Each time I read them I understand "give me the private/public class method ...". The naming is too/very close to private_methods, public_methods, ...

I would prefer something like class_private, class_protected, class_public.

What do you confuse with what? For me, class_private etc. mean nothing.

  You have methods like private_methods / private_instance_methods, ... returning the private methods / private instance methods of an object/class.
  private_class_method sounds like return me the private class method of ...
  This is a bit confusing.
   
  For my suggestion :
  like you have private, protected, public for defining the visibility of instance methods, you will have class_private, class_protected, class_public for the visibility of class methods.
  The prefix class_ is a hint for indicating that these methods work for class methods.
   

Examining your questions before asking something is a tip to get
useful answers.
matz.
   
  It seems that my questions were not clear initially.
  I hope that it is now more clear.

···

Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org> wrote:
   
---------------------------------
Finding fabulous fares is fun.
Let Yahoo! FareChase search your favorite travel sites to find flight and hotel bargains.

5

If I may attempt to be an interpreter, I think what the OP was saying
was if you look at this list...

# Return a method by name
Module#method
Module#instance_method

# Return array of method names
Module#methods
Module#singleton_methods
Module#instance_methods
Module#private_methods
Module#private_instance_methods
Module#protected_methods
Module#protected_instance_methods
Module#public_methods
Module#public_instance_methods

# Change method 'scope'
Module#private_class_method
Module#public_class_method

...you see that most methods with "method" in their name return
something about methods, but the last two cause a change to the method
'scope'. I can see the confusion in particular between the first two
and the last two:

Klass.method( :foo ) #=> find a method
Klass.public_class_method( :foo ) #=> change scope
Klass.instance_method( :foo ) #=> find a method

The other question of the OP was "I know about three scopes in Ruby:
'public', 'protected', and 'private'. However, I only see
#public_class_method and #private_class_method. For consistency,
shouldn't there also be #protected_class_method."

···

On Mar 22, 2:53 am, Yukihiro Matsumoto <m...@ruby-lang.org> wrote:

> 3/ The naming of these methods are quite confusing. Each time I read them I understand "give me the private/public class method ...". The naming is too/very close to private_methods, public_methods, ...
> I would prefer something like class_private, class_protected, class_public.

What do you confuse with what? For me, class_private etc. mean nothing.

6

You mean you want Java or C++ or something else.
It's Ruby.
All methods are either public, protected or private.
It's a very simple system. It doesn't need further complication.

7

I used to say to budding programmers "properties should be named as
nouns, methods should be named as verbs". With Ruby craftily making
all public access go through methods, I'd have to revise that to
something like:

"Methods with no side-effects whose purpose is to return a value
should be named as nouns. Methods whose purpose is to cause a side
effect should be named as verbs or imperatives."

So my suggestion would be to rename the two methods in question as
something like:

Module#public_class_method => Module#make_methods_public
                             => Module#publicize_methods

Module#private_class_method => Module#make_methods_private
                             => Module#privatize_methods

(I'm not sure if I like the method name to use "methods" or "method",
given that it can take more than one argument.)

···

On Mar 22, 10:21 am, "Phrogz" <g...@refinery.com> wrote:

On Mar 22, 2:53 am, Yukihiro Matsumoto <m...@ruby-lang.org> wrote:

> > I would prefer something like class_private, class_protected, class_public.

> What do you confuse with what? For me, class_private etc. mean nothing.

8

John Joyce <dangerwillrobinsondanger@gmail.com> wrote:
   
  >You mean you want Java or C++ or something else.
It's Ruby.
   
  I don't really understand what you mean.
  Please, read again my post.
  I love Ruby (my pseudo is Ruby Admirer) and public_class_method and private_class_method are already parts of Ruby !
   
  >All methods are either public, protected or private.
It's a very simple system. It doesn't need further complication.
   
  I completely agree. My first question was indeed why public, protected, private "statement" (they are in fact methods) does not work for class methods ?
   
  That's all.

···

---------------------------------
We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love
(and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list.

9

Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 9:29 AM

>You mean you want Java or C++ or something else.
>It's Ruby.

  I don't really understand what you mean.
  Please, read again my post.
  I love Ruby (my pseudo is Ruby Admirer) and public_class_method and
private_class_method are already parts of Ruby !

No, they're not:
C:\>irb
irb(main):001:0> Object.public_class_methods
NoMethodError: undefined method `public_class_methods' for
Object:Class
        from (irb):1
irb(main):002:0> Object.private_class_methods
NoMethodError: undefined method `private_class_methods' for
Object:Class
        from (irb):2

C:\>irb -v
irb 0.9.5(05/04/13)

C:\>ruby -v
ruby 1.8.5 (2006-08-25) [i386-mswin32]

Maybe you're thinking of some module or library in Ruby on Rails? (I
don't know if it includes those methods or not.)

I completely agree. My first question was indeed why public, protected,
private "statement" (they are in fact methods) does not work for class
methods ?

'Class' methods, like 'class' instance variables, are no different
from normal methods and instance variables. They are just defined in a
different scope.

···

From: Ruby Admirer [mailto:ruby_admirer@yahoo.com]

>John Joyce <dangerwillrobinsondanger@gmail.com> wrote:

10

...you see that most methods with "method" in their name return
something about methods, but the last two cause a change to the method
'scope'. I can see the confusion in particular between the first two
and the last two:

Klass.method( :foo ) #=> find a method
Klass.public_class_method( :foo ) #=> change scope
Klass.instance_method( :foo ) #=> find a method

Exactly !

The other question of the OP was "I know about three scopes in Ruby:
'public', 'protected', and 'private'. However, I only see
#public_class_method and #private_class_method. For consistency,
shouldn't there also be #protected_class_method."

This was my second question.

So my suggestion would be to rename the two methods in question as
something like:

Module#public_class_method => Module#make_methods_public

                             >=> Module#publicize_methods

Module#private_class_method => Module#make_methods_private

                             >=> Module#privatize_methods

My opinion is that the change of scope should be kept/indicated.
Your proposals should include 'class' somewhere.

(I'm not sure if I like the method name to use "methods" or "method",

>given that it can take more than one argument.)

In my opinion, class_private, class_public, and class_protected names have the following benefits :
- they are very close to the private, public and protected methods.
- they cover one or multiple arguments

But similar names will also be great !

···

Phrogz <gavin@refinery.com> wrote:

---------------------------------
Need Mail bonding?
Go to the Yahoo! Mail Q&A for great tips from Yahoo! Answers users.

11

My fault, I misread and thought I saw an extra 's' on the end there.
Of course Module#public_class_method is included in the core of Ruby.

Apologies for the noise.

···

On Mar 22, 9:51 am, "Phrogz" <g...@refinery.com> wrote:

From: Ruby Admirer [mailto:ruby_admi...@yahoo.com]

> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 9:29 AM
> >John Joyce <dangerwillrobinsondan...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >You mean you want Java or C++ or something else.
> >It's Ruby.

> I don't really understand what you mean.
> Please, read again my post.
> I love Ruby (my pseudo is Ruby Admirer) and public_class_method and
> private_class_method are already parts of Ruby !

No, they're not:
C:\>irb
irb(main):001:0> Object.public_class_methods
NoMethodError: undefined method `public_class_methods' for
Object:Class
        from (irb):1
irb(main):002:0> Object.private_class_methods
NoMethodError: undefined method `private_class_methods' for
Object:Class
        from (irb):2

12

Of course, public_class_methods and private_class_methods do not exist !
  BUT public_class_method and private_class_method DO exist !! Do not put an extra 's' !
   
  You can try within IRB :
  Module.private_class_method
  and it will work.
  Likewise, you will have an explanation for the method with :
  ri private_class_method
  See also the Pickaxe book.
   
  It seems that from the beginning, there is a lot of misunderstanding on my questions !

···

Phrogz <gavin@refinery.com> wrote:
   
  >> I don't really understand what you mean.

Please, read again my post.
I love Ruby (my pseudo is Ruby Admirer) and public_class_method and
private_class_method are already parts of Ruby !

  >No, they're not:

C:\>irb
irb(main):001:0> Object.public_class_methods
NoMethodError: undefined method `public_class_methods' for
Object:Class
from (irb):1
irb(main):002:0> Object.private_class_methods
NoMethodError: undefined method `private_class_methods' for
Object:Class
from (irb):2

---------------------------------
Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate
in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A.

13

wow. Good interpretation!
Explicitly typing names of things helps too.

14

Hi,

In my opinion, class_private, class_public, and class_protected names have the following benefits :
- they are very close to the private, public and protected methods.
- they cover one or multiple arguments

But similar names will also be great !

In my opinion, if you want to change the visibility, you'd better to
use singleton class notation, for class methods are singleton methods
for class objects after all.

  class Foo
    class <<Foo
       # class method foo
       def foo
       end
       # visibility private
       private :foo
    end
    # instance method foo
    def foo
    end
    # visibility private
    private :foo
  end

There's no need for new methods. private_class_method and others are
utility method for people who really love the term 'class methods'.

              matz.

···

In message "Re: About class methods visibility (public/private)" on Fri, 23 Mar 2007 02:34:51 +0900, Ruby Admirer <ruby_admirer@yahoo.com> writes:

15

I agree.
  But as I indicated with a previous post, there is one such utility method that is currently missing. There is no protected_class_method for making a class method protected.
   
  In addition, the current naming of the 2 existing utility methods (private_class_method and public_class_method) is very confusing.
  Please take a look at the post on this thread from Gavin who "interprets" my request and states more clearly the naming issue.
   
  So I do not request a lot of fresh new methods.
  I just request one new method and a renaming of 2 existing methods.

···

Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org> wrote:
   
  >There's no need for new methods. private_class_method and others are
utility method for people who really love the term 'class methods'.
   
---------------------------------
Don't pick lemons.
See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos.

16

Ick! When did those get in there? I'm almost glad I never noticed
before. Why bother? Just give us a method for singleton/eigenclass/
metaclass whatever you want to call the "context" and allow:

  context.public :foo

But if they've got to stay, please, at least consider renaming them
something like class_public and class_private.

t.

···

On Mar 23, 4:39 am, Yukihiro Matsumoto <m...@ruby-lang.org> wrote:

There's no need for new methods. private_class_method and others are
utility method for people who really love the term 'class methods'.

17

matz, your example was so elegantly simple that I want to say you have
my vote to just drop the methods in question--at least from core.
There is plenty of Java to go around already.

18

Hi,

Ick! When did those get in there? I'm almost glad I never noticed
before. Why bother? Just give us a method for singleton/eigenclass/
metaclass whatever you want to call the "context" and allow:

context.public :foo

(Unlike Java and such) visibility in Ruby are very trivial, so I don't
want to make things more complex for the sake of visibility. I'd
rather remove them altogether unless compatibility problem arise.

But if they've got to stay, please, at least consider renaming them
something like class_public and class_private.

if public/private/protected are called without method names, it
switches the default visibility. public_class_method and such does
not this trick. Renaming public_class_method to class_public does not
sound right for me, since it strongly suggest the changing the
default.

              matz.

···

In message "Re: About class methods visibility (public/private)" on Fri, 23 Mar 2007 18:34:22 +0900, "Trans" <transfire@gmail.com> writes:

19

Trans <transfire@gmail.com> wrote:

  >But if they've got to stay, please, at least consider renaming them

something like class_public and class_private.

  >matz, your example was so elegantly simple that I want to say you have

my vote to just drop the methods in question--at least from core.
There is plenty of Java to go around already.

  I totally agree. If the current two utility methods are to stay in the Ruby core, please :
  - add the missing one for protected visibility
  - change the naming of these methods for removing the confusion
  for the overall consistency.
   
  Otherwise, just remove the 2 existing methods.

···

Paul Stickney <pstickne@gmail.com> wrote:
   
---------------------------------
Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check.
Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta.

20

If you don't want to rename the 2 methods and if you can't remove them for compatibility reasons, you can at least make them deprecated.
This will be better for newcomers like me.

···

Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org> wrote:

(Unlike Java and such) visibility in Ruby are very trivial, so I don't
want to make things more complex for the sake of visibility. I'd
rather remove them altogether unless compatibility problem arise.

---------------------------------
8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time
with theYahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.