On Wed, 3 Oct 2012, Justin wrote:

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?

I've updated the proposal again. I've also adjusted the Java naming to match the C naming in the main. Of course, they needn't work the same necessarily, but for instance, I figured that if we're going to distinguish between computed/derived and passive attributes in C, we ought to as well in Java.

Justin

Reply via email to