Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Don't ask to ask, just ask
 
PerlMonks  

Re^4: Mutator chaining considered harmful

by Aristotle (Chancellor)
on Dec 30, 2004 at 04:08 UTC ( #418171=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re^3: Mutator chaining NOT considered harmful
in thread Mutator chaining considered harmful

Assuming you aren't writing all of your separate setter/getters manually, which means you're doing some of the typical method generation or AUTOLOAD monkeying, then the separate setter/getters don't buy you a whole lot. I concede that they can make mistakes apparent a little sooner. It's not at all hard to write a unified setter in such a fashion that it blows up just as quickly, though — actually it's trivial enough that I'll bet money on getting it right the first time. Mostly because it's not a point I needed to be made aware of either; I already do that all the time.

If you want me to ignore your chainable mutators, allow me to have a unified setter and I gleefully shall. :-)

If you're writing code that uses (rather than provides) mutator chaining though, and I'm going to be maintaining it later, then I shall keep arguing. My experience so far has been frustrating enough, I'd really rather avoid more of that. :-(

Makeshifts last the longest.


Comment on Re^4: Mutator chaining considered harmful

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://418171]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others exploiting the Monastery: (20)
As of 2015-07-06 20:33 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    The top three priorities of my open tasks are (in descending order of likelihood to be worked on) ...









    Results (83 votes), past polls