On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 03:26:01AM +0100, sebb wrote: > On 9 October 2011 18:16, Gilles Sadowski <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> This is slightly different from the original suggestion; IIRC that did > >> not include using getters. > > > > I put getters because you asked them. But, indeed, there is no difference > > with direct accessing the arrays since the getters do not return a copy: it > > is possible to modify the "original" array. > > Those are *not* the getters I was referring to. > > I intended the getter to return an array element, not the array, so as > to protect the array contents.
Don't you think that it will make the access much slower? > As you point out, there's absolutely no point having the getter otherwise. > > The current implementation is not particularly secure against > malicious or accidental tampering. The only tampering could come from a bug in classes in the same package. OR do I miss something? > That is why I left the arrays in the same source file originally, as > it allows the arrays to be automatically protected, without needing a > getter. Yes I understand the argument. Mine is that this data should not be stored there. Gilles --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
