> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gavin Sinclair [mailto:gsinclair / gmail.com]
> Sent: 06 November 2009 23:56
> To: ruby-talk ML
> Subject: Re: encapsulation issue
> 
> On Nov 7, 12:50 ¨Âí¬ ÊáíåÆòåîãè ¼Êáíåó®Æòå®®®Àîáôõòáìíïôéïî®ãïí¾
> wrote:
> >
> > Is there any way of providing read only access to an array? [...]
> >
> >
> > a = A.new
> > a.addDependency("foo")
> > a.dependencies << "bar" # encapsulation subverted
> 
> Ask yourself if it's really necessary to implement #dependencies.
> (The answer may be 'yes'; I'm just saying don't assume it is.)
> 
> For instance, you could provide access to the dependencies like this
> 
>   class A
>     # initialise and add_dependency as before
> 
>     include Enumerable
>     def each(&block); @dependencies.each(&block); end
> 
>     def [](n)
>       @dependencies[n]     # possibly .dup this
>     end
>   end
> 
>   a = A.new
>   a.add_dependency "foo"
>   a.each do ... end
>   a.map { ... }
>   a.grep(...)
>   a[5]
> 
> I've often found, when wrapping a basic data type, that I don't need
> access to the 'guts' of that type; I only need to do a certain set of
> things, so I implement them and leave it at that.
> 
> --
> Gavin Sinclair

Thanks for that. I think I may go that way.