Update - there must have been some stray classes lying around. Actually,
only _= works. Also, we got some useful info from Chris Conrad:
Basically for any declaration:
var x
the scala compiler creates a (private[this] x_) along with a getter (def x
= x_) and setter (def x_=(v) {x_=v}) - although the x_ is inaccessible to
code
So the def xyz_= and def xyz effectively create a synthetic var.
We can actually go with public vals or vars - there is not much point in
defining a custom getter/setter as that is redundant.
For example:
- start with "val x"
- over time, we determine that it needs to be mutable - change it to "var x"
- if you need something more custom (e.g., enforce constraints on the
values that you can assign) then we can add the custom setter
private[this] var underyling: T = ...
def x = underlying
def x_=(update: T) { if (constraint satisfied) {underlying = update}
else {throw new Exception} }
All of the above changes will be binary compatible since under the covers,
reads/assignments are all through getter/setter methods.
Joel
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 4:58 PM, Joel Koshy <jjkosh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Interesting - so according to that article, the _ is not operator
> overloading, rather it is a whitespace symbol: xyz_= means a method named
> "xyz =".
>
> However, that explanation appears to be incomplete, because all of these
> seem to work and I don't understand why:
> def xyz_=(x: Int) {underlying = x}
> def xyz_(x: Int) {underlying = x}
> def xyz_abc(x: Int) {underlying = x}
>
> o.xyz = ...; // works with all of the above
>
> If we are going with this convention, then it would be good to fully
> understand how it works. Also, if we need to access setters from Java we
> would need to provide an explicit setter.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Joel
>
> On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 2:29 PM, Jay Kreps <jay.kr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Yes, that's my understanding. This blog gives a reasonable overview:
>> http://www.dustinmartin.net/2009/10/getters-and-setters-in-scala/
>>
>> Kind of sad that a year or so in we are just figuring this out, but I
>> guess
>> better late then never. :-)
>>
>> -Jay
>>
>> On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Joel Koshy <jjkosh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Personally, I like options 3 and 4. (Option 4 more than 3, but I'm not
>> sure
>> > I follow it correctly - and I did not know that shorthand for
>> overloading!
>> > So is this right:)
>> >
>> > class GetSetXYZ {
>> > private var underlying = 10
>> > def xyz = underlying
>> > def xyz_=(x: Int) {underlying = x}
>> > }
>> >
>> > val o = new GetSetXYZ
>> > println(o.xyz) // 10
>> > o.xyz=5
>> > println(o.xyz) // 5
>> >
>> > On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Jay Kreps <jay.kr...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Oh no, you are no using xyz_() you are overriding =. So you define
>> > > xyz_=(x:Int)
>> > > but to call it you do
>> > > o.xyz = 5
>> > > The reason this is nice is because you can start with a simple
>> > > var xyz
>> > > and not need any getter/setter. Then later when you need to change the
>> > > behavior of the get you make
>> > > def xyz = ...
>> > > and none of the calling code changes. Later still you decide you need
>> to
>> > > override the setter you do
>> > > def xyz_=(x: Int)...
>> > > and that overrides o.xyz=5, again without changing the calling code.
>> > >
>> > > Basically the point is that scala generates these getters and setters
>> no
>> > > matter what so you might as well use the official scala mechanism.
>> > >
>> > > Since I am only semi-scala literate any of the above may be wrong.
>> > >
>> > > -Jay
>> > >
>> > > On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 9:42 AM, Jun Rao <jun...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > I think separating out the getter and setter makes the
>> implementation
>> > > > cleaner. I am not sure how intuitive it is to use xyz_() as the
>> setter,
>> > > > although it is concise.
>> > > >
>> > > > Thanks,
>> > > >
>> > > > Jun
>> > > >
>> > > > On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 9:13 PM, Jay Kreps <jay.kr...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > We are a little inconsistent in our use of setters and getters. I
>> > think
>> > > > for
>> > > > > the most part well-written code shouldn't have too many setters
>> and
>> > > > getters
>> > > > > (especially setters) since they expose internal details of the
>> > object.
>> > > > But
>> > > > > sometimes you need them. I see three common conventions:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > 1. Java-style getXyz() and/or setXyz() method
>> > > > > 2. xyz() plus semantically named setter that describes what it
>> > does.
>> > > > > 3. In some newer code I see xyz(x: Option[Int])
>> > > > >
>> > > > > There is also a forth option. My understanding of the proper scala
>> > > idiom
>> > > > > was actually that scala automatically created get and set methods
>> for
>> > > > you,
>> > > > > and the appropriate thing to do is to override these. This is
>> > described
>> > > > > here:
>> > > > http://www.codecommit.com/blog/scala/scala-for-java-refugees-part-2
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Essentially you can start with just
>> > > > >
>> > > > > val xyz = ...
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Then later if you want to override the getter you would do
>> > > > >
>> > > > > private val x = ...
>> > > > >
>> > > > > // getter
>> > > > >
>> > > > > def xyz = if(check_something) x else throw new
>> IllegalStateException
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Then if you also want to add a setter you do
>> > > > >
>> > > > > private val x = ...
>> > > > >
>> > > > > def xyz = if(check_something) x else throw new
>> IllegalStateException
>> > > > > def xyz_=(x: Int) {xyz = x}
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Let's pick one of these and refactor towards it as we see code
>> that
>> > > > doesn't
>> > > > > match. My vote would be for option 4.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > -Jay
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
>
