What I laid out was not meant to be the final word on salary adjustments. The point was this: Any time you use a mutator, it can be rewritten as a series of methods based on business rules instead of fiddilng with internals.
More importantly, and this is something everyone in this and related threads is missnig - Every single technique mentioned is valid. TMTOWTDI, for crying out loud. Maybe type-based validation is appropriate here and maybe it needs value-based validation there. Maybe a mixture of both plus other techniques is valid in this other place.
Maybe mutators are better used in area A and maybe business-rule-based methods are better in area B. My argument is that mutators can be wholly replaced with business-rule-based methods. I'm not saying that you should do that in every case - that would be cargo-cult stupidity.
Being right, does not endow the right to be rude; politeness costs nothing.
Being unknowing, is not the same as being stupid.
Expressing a contrary opinion, whether to the individual or the group, is more often a sign of deeper thought than of cantankerous belligerence.
Do not mistake your goals as the only goals; your opinion as the only opinion; your confidence as correctness. Saying you know better is not the same as explaining you know better.
In reply to Re^19: Assignable Subroutines
by dragonchild
in thread Assignable Subroutines
by dragonchild
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |