Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
No such thing as a small change

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?

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

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others chilling in the Monastery: (2)
As of 2023-03-30 05:04 GMT
Find Nodes?
    Voting Booth?
    Which type of climate do you prefer to live in?

    Results (73 votes). Check out past polls.