in reply to Re^3: Accessor methods again.
in thread Accessor methods again.

I read the other OO articles linked in this thread about not using accessors. In my opinion there are many benefits of using an OO approach to some parts of a program and not for others. I'd rather abuse OO and have a bastardized OO/procedural program that works and is done in a reasonable amount of time than spend spend years coming up with some other paradigm just so I can get away from using accessors.

I did give a clear example of where I thought using some accessors was okay, and I was hoping for a response from you suggesting an alternate way of solving the problem. Any chance of this?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^5: Accessor methods again.
by Moron (Curate) on Jun 07, 2006 at 13:01 UTC
    Sorry not have replied sooner - I am not very regularly on this site and have a busy time in general.

    My latest approach is to reduce this to just three methods, a define method that recursively sets anything anywhere in a multilevel hash or hash of arrays or any combination to which there is a blessed reference to the top; a recursive get method that is insensitive to reference types and similarly a prune method that deletes anywhere in the tree. But I am still checking whether the prune method needs to collect its own garbage or whether 'delete' is recursive before I would publish examples.

    -M

    Free your mind