--0015174beb841ff16e046d682ad9
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

> Anyway, "WAY too much overhead" makes no sense. Too much for what? What
> percentage slower does your entire application run with this code? (My
> guess: <1%). So if this code does what you want, and you like the way it
> looks - i.e. it's easy to maintain and pleasing to work with - then
> that's usually worth it.

Alright, I admit, that wasn't very differentiated from my side...
What I meant to say was:
It SEEMS/FEELS to me like useless overhead (however small) to construct a
new array
for a setter when all you have to do is type one  ore, BUT I haven't
benchmarked
that and I don't intend to ;-). But that's just my POV.

If you like that method better -- noones keeping you from using it. And I
admit,
for DSLs it is pretty nice. I'd use it there.

> Nothing  bject.new
> def name(value  othing)
>    @name  alue unless value Nothing
>    @name
> end

Or Daniel's method.

But for any normal class that does not provide DSL semantics, I'd still go
with normal
getters and setters. I just don't see the point of reducing the amount of my
typing by
a single when on the other hand I have to either construct a whole array
each time
or introduce a new neutral element.

To mee that just doesn't feel right, I guess...

--0015174beb841ff16e046d682ad9--