Private include

ruby-talk
1

Is there a simple way to include a module such that all the included methods
are private?

Thanks,
T.

2

Is there a simple way to include a module such that all the included methods
are private?

If you can change the module definition itself, just add ``private''
before defining any methods.

If not, perhaps this would work:

class Module
  def privately_include(mod)
    self.class_eval {include(mod)}
    mod.instance_methods.each do |m|
      self.class_eval {private m.to_sym}
    end
    nil
  end
end

An example:

irb(main):001:0> module Foo; def bar() end end
=> nil
irb(main):002:0> class Baz; privately_include Foo end
=> nil
irb(main):003:0> Baz.new.bar
NoMethodError: private method `bar' called for #<Baz:0x402d4610>
        from (irb):3

Note that this won't make future public methods defined in the module
private in the including class.

Thanks,
T.

Sam

···

On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 07:56:27 +0900, trans. (T. Onoma) <transami@runbox.com> wrote:

3

If not, perhaps this would work:

Sorry, that was pretty ugly. Make that:

class Module
  private
  def privately_include(mod)
    self.class_eval do
      include mod
      private *mod.instance_methods
    end
  end
end

Sam

···

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 17:26:43 -0600, Sam Stephenson <sstephenson@gmail.com> wrote:

4

> Is there a simple way to include a module such that all the included
> methods are private?

If you can change the module definition itself, just add ``private''
before defining any methods.

Nope. It's FileUtils that I want to include.

If not, perhaps this would work:
> class Module
> def privately_include(mod)
> self.class_eval {include(mod)}
> mod.instance_methods.each do |m|
> self.class_eval {private m.to_sym}
> end
> nil
> end
> end

Thanks.

Note that this won't make future public methods defined in the module
private in the including class.

Right. Hmm... Module#method_added could do it.

T.

···

On Sunday 28 November 2004 06:26 pm, Sam Stephenson wrote:

On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 07:56:27 +0900, trans. (T. Onoma) > > <transami@runbox.com> wrote: