[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software
Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

comp.lang.ruby

Is there any nomenclature for private methods?

Iñaki Baz Castillo

4/24/2008 11:50:00 PM

Hi, I don't like the way of declaring publi and private methods since it's =
not=20
really clear. AFAIK there are you ways:

1)
class C
def public_1
end

def public_2
end

private:
def private_1
end

public:
def public_3
end

or:

2)
class C
def public_1
end

def public_2
end

def private_1
end

def public_3

private :private_1
end



I prefer 2) but until the end of class it's not easy to know if a method is=
=20
public or private/protected. So i'm thinking about use a special nomenclatu=
re=20
for private methods, for example:

def _private_1


Is there any "standar" for this? I've seen lost of ethods called "__xxxx__"=
=20
or "_xxxxx" but not sure the reason of that name.

Thanks a lot.

=2D-=20
I=C3=B1aki Baz Castillo
9 Answers

Trans

4/25/2008 1:21:00 AM

0



On Apr 24, 7:49 pm, I=F1aki Baz Castillo <i...@aliax.net> wrote:
> Hi, I don't like the way of declaring publi and private methods since it's=
not
> really clear. AFAIK there are you ways:
>
> 1)
> class C
> def public_1
> end
>
> def public_2
> end
>
> private:
> def private_1
> end
>
> public:
> def public_3
> end
>
> or:
>
> 2)
> class C
> def public_1
> end
>
> def public_2
> end
>
> def private_1
> end
>
> def public_3
>
> private :private_1
> end

One way is do it immediately after the method. E.g.

def private_1
end
private :private_1

def public_3
end

I've seen other coders use the declarations before every single method
regardless

public
def public_2
end

private
def private_1
end

public
def public_3
end


I agree that these declarations are one of the "sore-eyes" of Ruby,
but what else can be done? Matz has always seemed against allowing:

private def foo()
end

In many ways it's really not important though. A more Ruby-esque way
in my opinion is to just make them all public and document them
appropriately. There is the exception of method_missing's behavior
however.

> I prefer 2) but until the end of class it's not easy to know if a method i=
s
> public or private/protected. So i'm thinking about use a special nomenclat=
ure
> for private methods, for example:
>
> def _private_1
>
> Is there any "standar" for this? I've seen lost of ethods called "__xxxx__=
"
> or "_xxxxx" but not sure the reason of that name.

An initial underscore or double underscore basically indicates
"special/avoid overwrite" --meaning it's meant to reduce the
likelihood that someone else might define a method/attribute of the
same name. The most common occurrence is __send__.

T.

Ryan Davis

4/25/2008 1:24:00 AM

0


On Apr 24, 2008, at 16:49 , I=F1aki Baz Castillo wrote:

> I prefer 2) but until the end of class it's not easy to know if a =20
> method is
> public or private/protected. So i'm thinking about use a special =20
> nomenclature
> for private methods, for example:
>
> def _private_1
>
>
> Is there any "standar" for this? I've seen lost of ethods called =20
> "__xxxx__"
> or "_xxxxx" but not sure the reason of that name.

I don't ever use private or protected, but I do use that naming =20
convention to convey the notion. Don't use double-underscore, that's =20
basically considered reserved.


def _think_twice_before_calling
...
end

Arlen Cuss

4/25/2008 12:03:00 PM

0
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Iñaki Baz Castillo

4/25/2008 12:45:00 PM

0

MjAwOC80LzI1LCBBcmxlbiBDdXNzIDxjZWx0aWNAc2Fpcnl4Lm9yZz46Cgo+ICBBbHNvLCBub3Rl
IHlvdSBjYW4gYWx3YXlzIHVzZSBgc2VuZCcgdG8gZ2V0IGFyb3VuZCBwcm90ZWN0aW9uOgoKSSd2
ZSByZWFkIHNvbWV3aGVyZSB0aGF0IFJ1YnkgMS45IGRvZXNuJ3QgYWxsb3cgaXQuCgoKLS0gCknD
sWFraSBCYXogQ2FzdGlsbG8KPGliY0BhbGlheC5uZXQ+Cg==

Arlen Cuss

4/25/2008 1:24:00 PM

0
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Florian Gilcher

4/25/2008 1:56:00 PM

0

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


On Apr 25, 2008, at 2:03 PM, Arlen Cuss wrote:
>>>
> Abstracting the API is a good point, but perhaps they should be
> disconnected
> in a manner other than using private/protected methods...
>
> Cheers,
> Arlen


Actually, I see private and protected as hint of intension. Even in
Java, you can circumvent them.

The method is private => it's for internal use - so don't cry if it
gets changed in some minor version, you should not rely on it anyway.
So if you really, really have to use __send__, know the consequences.

Regards,
Florian Gilcher
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin)

iEYEARECAAYFAkgR4rsACgkQJA/zY0IIRZYwpgCbB0QxAxv1sT7d4KP/gbWKqyvL
IFIAn2zmRT2OWz9cY/7PWJokRsUu4lbh
=1jKc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Xavier Noria

4/25/2008 2:19:00 PM

0

On Apr 25, 2008, at 16:09 , David A. Black wrote:

> Unfortunately (in my opinion), I believe that's been reverted, so that
> #send will be what it always has been and a new method, #public_send,
> will be send that only works on public methods.

The Ruby Programming Language says so on page 274.

Avdi Grimm

4/25/2008 2:38:00 PM

0

On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 9:24 PM, Ryan Davis <ryand-ruby@zenspider.com> wrote:
> I don't ever use private or protected, but I do use that naming convention
> to convey the notion. Don't use double-underscore, that's basically
> considered reserved.
>
>
> def _think_twice_before_calling
> ...
> end

Good lord, one of the [smaller] reasons I enjoy coding Ruby over
Python is avoiding that kind of ugliness. May I ask *why* you would
prefer that over real private/protected?

--
Avdi

Home: http:...
Developer Blog: http:.../devblog/
Twitter: http://twitte...
Journal: http://avdi.livej...

Ryan Davis

5/1/2008 7:05:00 PM

0


On Apr 25, 2008, at 07:38 , Avdi Grimm wrote:

> Good lord, one of the [smaller] reasons I enjoy coding Ruby over
> Python is avoiding that kind of ugliness. May I ask *why* you would
> prefer that over real private/protected?

1) makes testing easier / cleaner.

2) there IS no real private/protected. Just try to keep me out if I
want in.