chromatic |Perl 6| wrote:
It shouldn't be.
So you are saying that in the example of

   class C {
      has $.a;
      method a ($self:)
         return $self.a;
      } # end C

   class D is C {
      method foo ($self:)
         # ...
         $x = $self.a;
         # ...
      } # end D

that the variable-notation access in foo will call the explicit accessor method C::a? I suppose the use of $self.a in method a would be an infinite loop, and must be $self!a to work.

In that case, why allow the variable-name form at all?
Why keep the variable syntax?

Uniform access principle. See also "Why Java programmers fetishize their IDEs, reason #482: autogeneration of metric boat-loads of accessors/mutators at just the click of a button."

That seems to be saying that using the method-call form is preferred, as it abstracts whether it is a real hard attribute or not. Since my question was why keep the variable-name form, I think we are not understanding each other.

I'm getting a picture of 3 forms of access:  Really direct, direct but
asking the class to access it rather than knowing how storage works, and
indirect that may involve your own code to do other things besides just
get/set the attribute.  But I think the middle one can be handled
invisibly by the compiler -- it's no different from a tied hash.

That really depends on how much external syntax you want to change if you change the internal representation of an object. For me, that's approximately none.
I don't understand that sentence at all. Again, "invisibly by the compiler" sounds like what you want.

Reply via email to