develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from March 2011

RE: Revising Perl's OO docs - a new OO tutorial

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
Jan Dubois
Date:
March 7, 2011 15:56
Subject:
RE: Revising Perl's OO docs - a new OO tutorial
Message ID:
01d101cbdd23$3a59f940$af0debc0$@activestate.com
On Mon, 07 Mar 2011, Chris Prather wrote:
> 
> In my opinion you're moving from dangerous to useless at best. I feel
> that the *semantics* of this syntax are confusing. They confuse method
> dispatch with assignment*.

I disagree.  The semantics of setting attributes/properties are the
same as assignment:

* setting the attribute multiple times to the same value is not supposed
  to have any additional effect beyond what the first assignment did

* the attribute is supposed to return the value it was last set to

Attribute setters/getters are *not* supposed to be generic methods; they
are syntactic sugar for assigning and querying values.

And many languages (VB, C#, JavaScript, of the top of my head) all use
assignment syntax for property manipulation.

The fact that under the hood they all perform a method dispatch is an
implementation detail that doesn't have to be exposed to the user.

> To me it's a dangerously short step from
> $obj->attr = $x; to $obj->{attr} = $x; where you drop the
> encapsulation entirely. 

This is simply not correct.  You cannot know what the assignment is going
to do, as $obj may be tied (implementation detail, you don't have to know),
so everything is as encapsulated as the class author wants.

> Suggesting that encapsulation is a bad thing, or even an undesirable
> thing is the "horrible idea". Especially for the beginners that the
> advantages of a $obj->attr = $x syntax would primarily benefit.

Nobody suggested that encapsulation is a bad thing, so I call strawman here.

Cheers,
-Jan



Thread Previous | Thread Next


nntp.perl.org: Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at ask@perl.org | Group listing | About