At 7:52 AM -0400 6/18/05, John Siracusa wrote:
> That actually looks more "private" to me.  Let's line 'em up again:
> 
>        PUBLIC      PRIVATE
>      ----------  ----------
>      ./method()  .:method()
>      .@method()  .:method()
>      .>method()  .:method()
>      .:method()  .>method()
>      .:method()  .::method()
> 
> I'm just trying to get some more suggestions out there "on paper," because
> it seemed to me that the old thread jumped from ^ to ./ with less
> exploration than I'd like.

As I recall, it was decided for a broad scope that public and private 
item invocation syntax was exactly the same but with the 
consideration that all private items have a ':' as the first 
character in their otherwise alphanumeric names (the ':' looks like 
part of an operator but it isn't).

That seems to be getting ignored in this discussion, and I *like* 
that ':' public vs private consistency, so here's an alteration to 
your table:

       PUBLIC      PRIVATE
     ----------  ----------
     ./method()  ./:method()
     .@method()  .@:method()
     .> method()  .>:method()

This looks way more consistent and predictable to me.

-- Darren Duncan