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 }
Of course, there would need to be some way of simultaneously preventing the
automagic creation of accessors. That might be manual:
class Foo {
my $.bar;
my $.baz;
method bar is private {}
method baz is private {}
...
}
or per-attribute:
class Foo {
my $.bar is accessorless;
my $.baz is accessorless;
...
}
or (my favorite) global:
class Foo {
no accessors;
my $.bar;
my $.baz;
...
}
Damian
> I suppose there could be some magic like:
>
> class Foo is accessedby('get_','','r')
> is accessedby('set_','','rw') { ... }
>
> To declare that Foo has accessors with prefix "get_" and no suffix for
> read-only acces and prefix "set_" and no suffix for read/write access.
>
> But, I'm not sure how valuable this would be....
