# Re: Reflection brakes encapsulation

**URL:** <https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/re-reflection-brakes-encapsulation/96721>\
**Category:** Ruby\
**Created:** [July 1, 2006, 2:16am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/re-reflection-brakes-encapsulation/96721 "2006-07-01T02:16:59Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![BergerS\_Daniel](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/bc8723/32.png) [@BergerS\_Daniel](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/BergerS_Daniel)\
**Post date:** [July 1, 2006, 2:16am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/re-reflection-brakes-encapsulation/96721/1 "2006-07-01T02:16:59Z")

</div>

> -----Original Message-----  
> From: David P. [[mailto:removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid)]  
> Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 11:57 AM  
> To: ruby-talk ML  
> Subject: Re: Reflection brakes encapsulation
> 
> The same reflection issues are present in Java and C#. I  
> know of no language and/or runtime that completely enforces  
> protection of private methods.

Besides, how would we test our private methods if we couldn’t break the  
rules. 🙂

- Dan

This communication is the property of Qwest and may contain confidential  
or  
privileged information. Unauthorized use of this communication is  
strictly  
prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication  
in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and  
destroy  
all copies of the communication and any attachments.