> If my behavior has, say, 5 properties I want to access, I'd be tempted
> to write an all-round handler like:
>
> on getProperty me, prop
> return value(prop)
> end
>
> which could be accessed with:
>
> theValueI_need = sendSprite(whateverSprite, #getProperty,
> "propertyName")
>
> However, this would seem to be a rash and dangerous balance
> on the edge
> of broken encapsulation. 'Cuz, I need to know the property
> name. It just
> seems to me that if I know the handler name, then I'm not ridiculously
> far from knowing the property name.
>
> The alternative would be to write 5 almost identical handlers that
> specifically return property values.
>
> Is that pure OOP?
I was sort of uncertain on this point as well, and settled on solution which
is a combination of accessing a particular object property and creating x
unique, although nearly identical, handlers.
I use accessor handlers which a pseudeo property name as input. A case structure
determines what object property is associated with the pseudo property and
returns (or sets) the given property value. Should the need ever arise to
change an object's property names, it can be done without hunting down all
of the calls to the accessor handlers.
on mGetProp me, whatProp
-->returns a property value
case whatProp of
#pIsFinished: myReturnVal = pIsFinished
#pAnswer: myReturnVal = pAnswer
otherwise: alert ("property not found: oMC_top.mGetProp: "&& whatProp)
end case
return myReturnVal
end
my .02
Chris
[To remove yourself from this list, or to change to digest mode, go to
http://www.penworks.com/LUJ/lingo-l.cgi To post messages to the list,
email [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Problems, email [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Lingo-L is for learning and helping with programming Lingo. Thanks!]
