Think "has-a" relationshipsEvery property is a "has-a" relationiship. A circle "has-an" area. An employee "has-a" salary.
It's the wholesale application of this design even where it makes no sense and costs a lot more than it buys that I disagree with.Since I didn't endorse the wholesale application of that design, I have no idea why you're disagreeing with it to me.
An "Area" class? What in heaven's name for?I never suggested that an Area class was, specifically, a good idea. I'm sure you've seen examples before that are not pulled from real world usage.
In other words, it really seems you are saying something likeOf course, I've said nothing of the kind. If you would concern yourself with what I say, rather than what it seems like I'm saying something like, we might both be significantly less annoyed.
if you want to retract most of your original node [...] I will agree with you.It's not at all clear that you're familiar with the original node. I can't retract most of "what it seems like I'm saying something like." I could only retract something I said. I explained that the usual implementation of accessors is not OO design, and that's why they rankle. I demonstrated what an OO approach would be. You haven't disagreed with any of that.
In reply to Re^6: The Accessor Heresy
by Roy Johnson
in thread The Accessor Heresy
by Roy Johnson
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |