> > Maybe the problem is a conceptual one. The 'idea' of an
> accessor method ties
> > you into the 'idea' that "here is my data -- do with it
> what you will".
>
> Yes! Spot on! Accessors (of the get or set variety) are
> problematic in that
> they tempt lazy encapsulation.
>
> That's not to say you can't use accessors without ending up
> with a sloppy
> design, just that it's easier for things to become 'leaky'
> when you do.
but, and here is the issue that the article borought up & that we have
not answered even for this simple example, withour accessors how do
the objects/behaviors communicate what they must? I still have not
heard anyone describe a way of having a slides behavior & a QTBehavior
that can do their jobs, and not communicate.
Al Hospers
CamberSoft, Inc.
al<at>cambersoft<dot>com
http://www.cambersoft.com
Shockwave and Director development, Lingo programming, CGI scripting.
A famous linguist once said:
"There is no language wherein a double
positive can form a negative."
YEAH, RIGHT
[To remove yourself from this list, or to change to digest mode, go to
http://www.penworks.com/LUJ/lingo-l.cgi To post messages to the list,
email [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Problems, email [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Lingo-L is for learning and helping with programming Lingo. Thanks!]
