Re: Re: Re: Why get() and set() accessor methods are evil

You are right, as Java also has primitive types.

But on the other hand, in this case, I can choose to return, for example, an ArrayList of Integer. This is much less a problem to languages that have stronger OO support.

Update:

Thanks BUU for the extension, tie was actually something I thought of. The idea of tie, actually holds some characteristics that OO interface provides.

Comment on Re: Re: Re: Why get() and set() accessor methods are evil

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Why get() and set() accessor methods are evil by BUU (Prior) on Nov 25, 2003 at 18:43 UTC
So why couldn't/wouldn't you do the exact same in perl? You could even do it transparently via tie, or you could do it overtly by creating the object. Seems fairly simple to me at least. `package ArrayList; my $i; sub new{shift;return bless{[@_]=>shift};} sub iterate{return $_[0]->[$i++]}` [download] And so on and so forth.	[reply] [d/l]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why get() and set() accessor methods are evil by hardburn (Abbot) on Nov 25, 2003 at 18:57 UTC
One reason you wouldn't want to is that is Perl's context-sensitivity. By using ArrayList, which would be implemented as a scalar holding a referance, you're now putting things in scalar context that really should be in list context. BTW--Check out the Class::Iterator module for doing this. ---- I wanted to explore how Perl's closures can be manipulated, and ended up creating an object system by accident. -- Schemer `: () { :\|:& };:` Note: All code is untested, unless otherwise stated	[reply] [d/l]


Pathologically Eclectic Rubbish Lister
	PerlMonks