]> Gerd Stolpmann wrote: > No, you cannot restrict the type of classes by signatures. > The only way I know to protect a method is to define an opaque > type that is hidden by the signature, e.g. > > sample.ml: > > type protector = unit > > class a = > object > method m () = ... > ... > end > > sample.mli: > > type protector > > class a : > object > method m : protector -> XXX > ... > end > > You cannot call m from other modules because you cannot create values > for the type "protector". > > Gerd Effective, definitely, but practical? Is this not supposed to be a feature of any general purpose object oriented language? Anyway, for the meantime I'll keep the method public, and make sure I don't use it anywhere except where it makes sense, and I'll wait for some more insight from the developers. Thank you very much, Gerd. Alex ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners