Agreed - if there are no objections, I can add this to our coding
conventions page.
Joel
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 11:24 PM, Jay Kreps <jay.kr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Cool, so let's standardize on that approach then?
>
> -Jay
>
> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 4:09 PM, Joel Koshy <jjkosh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Update - there must have been some stray classes lying around. Actually,
> > only _= works. Also, we got some useful info from Chris Conrad:
> >
> > Basically for any declaration:
> > var x
> >
> > the scala compiler creates a (private[this] x_) along with a getter (def
> x
> > = x_) and setter (def x_=(v) {x_=v}) - although the x_ is inaccessible to
> > code
> >
> > So the def xyz_= and def xyz effectively create a synthetic var.
> >
> > We can actually go with public vals or vars - there is not much point in
> > defining a custom getter/setter as that is redundant.
> >
> > For example:
> > - start with "val x"
> > - over time, we determine that it needs to be mutable - change it to "var
> > x"
> > - if you need something more custom (e.g., enforce constraints on the
> > values that you can assign) then we can add the custom setter
> > private[this] var underyling: T = ...
> > def x = underlying
> > def x_=(update: T) { if (constraint satisfied) {underlying = update}
> > else {throw new Exception} }
> >
> > All of the above changes will be binary compatible since under the
> covers,
> > reads/assignments are all through getter/setter methods.
> >
> > Joel
> >
> > On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 4:58 PM, Joel Koshy <jjkosh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Interesting - so according to that article, the _ is not operator
> > > overloading, rather it is a whitespace symbol: xyz_= means a method
> named
> > > "xyz =".
> > >
> > > However, that explanation appears to be incomplete, because all of
> these
> > > seem to work and I don't understand why:
> > > def xyz_=(x: Int) {underlying = x}
> > > def xyz_(x: Int) {underlying = x}
> > > def xyz_abc(x: Int) {underlying = x}
> > >
> > > o.xyz = ...; // works with all of the above
> > >
> > > If we are going with this convention, then it would be good to fully
> > > understand how it works. Also, if we need to access setters from Java
> we
> > > would need to provide an explicit setter.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Joel
> > >
> > > On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 2:29 PM, Jay Kreps <jay.kr...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Yes, that's my understanding. This blog gives a reasonable overview:
> > >> http://www.dustinmartin.net/2009/10/getters-and-setters-in-scala/
> > >>
> > >> Kind of sad that a year or so in we are just figuring this out, but I
> > >> guess
> > >> better late then never. :-)
> > >>
> > >> -Jay
> > >>
> > >> On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Joel Koshy <jjkosh...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Personally, I like options 3 and 4. (Option 4 more than 3, but I'm
> not
> > >> sure
> > >> > I follow it correctly - and I did not know that shorthand for
> > >> overloading!
> > >> > So is this right:)
> > >> >
> > >> > class GetSetXYZ {
> > >> > private var underlying = 10
> > >> > def xyz = underlying
> > >> > def xyz_=(x: Int) {underlying = x}
> > >> > }
> > >> >
> > >> > val o = new GetSetXYZ
> > >> > println(o.xyz) // 10
> > >> > o.xyz=5
> > >> > println(o.xyz) // 5
> > >> >
> > >> > On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Jay Kreps <jay.kr...@gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > Oh no, you are no using xyz_() you are overriding =. So you define
> > >> > > xyz_=(x:Int)
> > >> > > but to call it you do
> > >> > > o.xyz = 5
> > >> > > The reason this is nice is because you can start with a simple
> > >> > > var xyz
> > >> > > and not need any getter/setter. Then later when you need to change
> > the
> > >> > > behavior of the get you make
> > >> > > def xyz = ...
> > >> > > and none of the calling code changes. Later still you decide you
> > need
> > >> to
> > >> > > override the setter you do
> > >> > > def xyz_=(x: Int)...
> > >> > > and that overrides o.xyz=5, again without changing the calling
> code.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Basically the point is that scala generates these getters and
> > setters
> > >> no
> > >> > > matter what so you might as well use the official scala mechanism.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Since I am only semi-scala literate any of the above may be wrong.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > -Jay
> > >> > >
> > >> > > On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 9:42 AM, Jun Rao <jun...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > I think separating out the getter and setter makes the
> > >> implementation
> > >> > > > cleaner. I am not sure how intuitive it is to use xyz_() as the
> > >> setter,
> > >> > > > although it is concise.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Thanks,
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Jun
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 9:13 PM, Jay Kreps <jay.kr...@gmail.com
> >
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > We are a little inconsistent in our use of setters and
> getters.
> > I
> > >> > think
> > >> > > > for
> > >> > > > > the most part well-written code shouldn't have too many
> setters
> > >> and
> > >> > > > getters
> > >> > > > > (especially setters) since they expose internal details of the
> > >> > object.
> > >> > > > But
> > >> > > > > sometimes you need them. I see three common conventions:
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > 1. Java-style getXyz() and/or setXyz() method
> > >> > > > > 2. xyz() plus semantically named setter that describes what
> it
> > >> > does.
> > >> > > > > 3. In some newer code I see xyz(x: Option[Int])
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > There is also a forth option. My understanding of the proper
> > scala
> > >> > > idiom
> > >> > > > > was actually that scala automatically created get and set
> > methods
> > >> for
> > >> > > > you,
> > >> > > > > and the appropriate thing to do is to override these. This is
> > >> > described
> > >> > > > > here:
> > >> > > >
> > http://www.codecommit.com/blog/scala/scala-for-java-refugees-part-2
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > Essentially you can start with just
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > val xyz = ...
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > Then later if you want to override the getter you would do
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > private val x = ...
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > // getter
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > def xyz = if(check_something) x else throw new
> > >> IllegalStateException
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > Then if you also want to add a setter you do
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > private val x = ...
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > def xyz = if(check_something) x else throw new
> > >> IllegalStateException
> > >> > > > > def xyz_=(x: Int) {xyz = x}
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > Let's pick one of these and refactor towards it as we see code
> > >> that
> > >> > > > doesn't
> > >> > > > > match. My vote would be for option 4.
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > -Jay
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
>
