On Fri, 2002-05-10 at 00:27, Damian Conway wrote: > Aaron Sherman wrote: > > > > What if I want my methods to be called C<.get_bar()> and C<.set_bar()>, > > > since a certain Perl OO specialist suggests this approach is best for > > > avoiding ambiguity in one's API? > > > > Then you can declare them as such: > > > > sub get_bar() { .bar } > > sub get_baz() { .baz } > > sub set_baz($newbaz) { .baz = $newbaz } > > > Close. They'd probably be implemented like this: > > method get_bar() { $.bar } > method get_baz() { $.baz } > method set_baz($newbaz) { $.baz = $newbaz }
Wouldn't those be the same? ".bar" is the auto-created accessor for "$.bar", so they should do the same thing, no? And in the case of ".baz", I'm assuming that a public member will be given an "is rw" accessor, so that ".baz = $newbaz" will work the same as "$.baz = $newbaz". Granted, I use "sub" instead of "method"... that's going to take some getting used to, but I suppose it makes sense.