On Wed, 3 Oct 2012, Rafael Schloming wrote:

I believe the convention I'm following is actually the norm (for a good 
reason). The get/set_foo
pattern is used for passive slots, i.e. it's a strong signal that if you call 
set_foo with a given
value then get_foo will return that same value until set_foo is called again. 
Whereas
dynamic/computed/derived values (something where it would never make sense to 
have a setter) are
generally not prefixed by get. Some examples in Java would be things like 
Collection.size(),
Object.hashCode(), Map.values(). I think this is a pretty valuable convention 
as it is a signal that


I agree that's a common convention in java. It's not "the norm": counterexamples are Thread.getState(), Integer.getInteger(s), File.getFreeSpace().

In any case, it's arguably a good convention. It has one particular practical problem, more collisions. This problem is exhibited right now in pn_link_drained. What does that do? It *looks like* it is a dynamic predicate, but it isn't. If in the future you want to add such a predicate, you'll have a collision. _get_ keeps things cleanly separated. (In the case of pn_link_drained, I think that just needs a better name.)

I'm pleased we're discussing this. Can we discuss it (and all the other things worth discussing, imo) before we set down changes in the code?

Justin

Reply via email to