> perhaps private accessors could go into a different category?
Oh yeah, one could do that. (sorry, i'm in a goofy mood ;)
It turns out that I nearly always implement them for my code. So I do
agree that it is a good policy, in general.
Such a rewrite would likely (inevitably?) introduce some bugs. It
would marginally slow down some of the code.
I am not involved in any core code, so I will bow out of this thread.
-Cam
PS: what is your debugging situation? You want to find out what all
code may be modifying an object?
On May 14, 2009, at 1:13 PM, Steve Wirts wrote:
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 1:10 PM, Cameron Sanders <[email protected]
> wrote:
That is not always the best policy. If you provide public accessors
for your private model elements (representation), the next thing you
know people start using them! And then your model interfaces is
constrained.
? or am i just talking trash ?
On May 14, 2009, at 12:55 PM, Steve Wirts wrote:
> Hi Folks,
>
> Would it be inappropriate to request that an effort be made at some
> point to try to provide accessors for all instance/class instance
> variables, and try to get rid of inappropriate direct variable
> accessing where possible?
>
> The "chasing variables" function is handy but seems more cumbersome
> than just putting a halt in a setter.
>
> I know this would be a lot of work but maybe it could be automated.
>
> Just tell me to shut up and go away if I'm being a nuisance.
Oh, and please stick around... to draw attention away from my pesky
questions.
>
>
> Steve :)
-cam
_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
