You can get away with a type for the positive integers even if their ranges differ: it's a parametrizable type.
the nature of their unrelatedness is likely to cause the the maintenance programmer to modify the validation routine
That's just silly and backwards; the kind of tunnel vision resulting from your insistence on validating inside the accessor. If I want to store strings in a property formerly declared as an integer, I'll change the type declaration for the property, not the definition of an integer.
Makeshifts last the longest.
In reply to Re^20: Assignable Subroutines
by Aristotle
in thread Assignable Subroutines
by dragonchild
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |