Re: Strange behaviour??

[randy@Eng.Sun.COM (Randy Smith)]

The following (condensed) conversation...

	From: mcr@Sandelman.OCUnix.On.Ca (Michael Richardson)
	} From the reference manual,
	} section 5.4 (page II-17):
	} 
	}     "A private slot is accessible if both the sending method holder
	}     and the private slot holder are ancestors of the receiver."

	  I recall reading this. 
	  I didn't quite understand it at the time though...
	  In essense, I had understood that private slots meant that the
	sending method holder had to BE the receiver...
	 
	} The above-cited definition of privacy is somewhat abstract, I agree.
 	...
	  I'll take another look.

..suggests to me that the current privacy thing is kind of complicated and hard to understand.  I do appreciate the cleverness of the current scheme, which seems appropriate in some sense.  But it sure would be nice if there were an easier-to-grok story ...maybe with subjective objects such things would fall out naturally?...