|Think about Loose Coupling|
Re^4: RFR: Inside-out classes - a Class::InsideOut primerby xdg (Monsignor)
|on Mar 16, 2007 at 15:30 UTC||Need Help??|
OI would guess that people who want private and read-only attributes are just used to "strict" languages.
I would agree more if you were talking about private vs. protected properties -- i.e. access controls from other classes.
(N.B. I avoid the term "attributes" since we also have attributes in Perl. I think it's unfortunate that some inside-out class generators talk about object "attributes" and then use attributes for methods as well.)
I think that generating accessors (and/or mutators) for every bit of state associated with an object is a mistake because it merges implementation and interface. That is the violation -- or really, repudiation -- of the principle of encapsulation. It's not about hiding data, it's about decoupling.
If you are the only one using your class, then it may not matter -- but if you share your code with others and if you want to promise some degree of API stability, then I think that making accessors for everything is a mistake. On the other hand, if you're comfortable declaring the difference between accessors you mean to be public and accessors you mean to be private in documentation and letting violators do so at their own risk, then I can see why this isn't a big deal for you.
Code written by xdg and posted on PerlMonks is public domain. It is provided as is with no warranties, express or implied, of any kind. Posted code may not have been tested. Use of posted code is at your own risk.