On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 11:55, Steve Purkis wrote;
> Hmm, that's very similar in spirit to the 'classic' form.
>
> Will generated accessors be overridable? I can see how 'given' would
> be useful, but what if I wanted to say this:
>
> $grunt.name( "Patton" )
> .rank( "General" )
> .add_medal( "Purple heart" );
I just don't understand this. What practical problem does this
arrangement solve? I think it's highly counterintuitive and wasteful
of useful spaces for return values.
This is 10 times clearer:
$grunt.set(name => "Patton",
rank => "General");
$grunt.add_medal("Purple heart");
No confusion, no scope for something going wrong when someone doesn't
return the original object in an accessor.
Also, I really think that methods which set values of an attribute,
rather than performing some kind of index lookup, ie
my $attribute = $class->attribute("cheese");
It's fairly clear that you're fetching a value; in this case, "Foo" is
giving more information to the accessor. However, what does this do?
$class->attribute("price");
Does it set, or get (and ignore)?
Either of these are good IMHO:
$class->set_attribute("value");
$class->attribute = "value";
In both cases, it is 100% clear that the `$class' object it having its
`attribute' member updated.
Do have a look at the accessors generated by Class::Tangram objects,
I've put a lot of thought into the way code looks when you use the
default accessors. I know that the interface to the module itself is
due for a fairly major overhaul, but try to look past that :).
--
Sam Vilain, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"This is an object-oriented system.
If we change anything, the users object."
