+1

On 10/16/07, David Mitchell <david.mitchell at gmail.com> wrote:
> >         My next question, then, is couldn't this be as simple (from the user's
> > perspective) as placing methods in specific categories, for example:
> > strict private (for self only); private (for class and maybe sibling
> > access); protected (for ancestors)? Maybe that's too complicated, dunno.
>
> Try creating some categories for your own code. Then extend the
> SmallLint tools to give you feedback on usage.
>
> I'm personally very opposed to method access control (just from bad
> personal experience in Java). I've always found that calling a method
> that is in a private category from outside the object is enough of a
> code smell for me. No exceptions necessary.
>
>
> >
> >         My gut feeling is that there's tremendous potential benefit to this; that
> > greater encapsulation might help with the rot. But certainly Smalltalk is
> > old enough have had something like this done before, so maybe I'm mmissing
> > something.
> >
> >         ===Blake===
> >
> >
>
>