Moritz in the spec (>>), Damian (>): >> After lengthy IRC discussion, we concluded that it's a good idea to provide >> some form of introspection that doesn't bother about perceived privacy >> borders, provided that the implementation makes it feasible. > > Wow, that's the first time I've ever been sorry not to be on IRC! > > Talk about snatching (directly accessible) defeat from the jaws of > (encapsulated) victory. :-(
For what it's worth, we had exactly this discussion a couple of days ago on IRC. I represented your views above, Damian. <http://irclog.perlgeek.de/perl6/2010-09-22#i_2852991> To summarize, I consider myself having lost that debate. I even demonstrate the complete unviability of my views (that privacy has any kind of footing in Perl 6) with the below one-liner. <masak> rakudo: class X { has $!foo; has $!bar; has $!baz }; say eval(X.new( foo => 1, bar => 2, baz => 3).perl.subst("X.new(", "\{ ").subst(/\)$/, " }")).perl <p6eval> rakudo 8156be: OUTPUT«{"foo" => 1, "bar" => 2, "baz" => 3}» As long as C<.perl> works the way it does, there can be no real privacy. And thus C<.get_value> and C<.set_value> are just convenient access points for the same behaviour. > Could we at least specify that .get_value() and .set_value() can only > be called if the calling scope declares a C<use MONKEY_TYPING;> > so that violations of good OO practice are explicitly marked in a > consistent and easily searched-for manner? I'm still undecided on whether or not I think C<use MONKEY_TYPING;> is the right way to enable this kind of privacy breakage. Maybe nothing is needed, since the C<^> in C<$obj.^attributes> (or the C<HOW>) already says "warning! meta!". // Carl
