Hi --

On Tue, 13 Aug 2002, Gavin Sinclair wrote:

> The syntax (for "setter methods") "object.field = value" implies
> simplicity.  If you need to jump through various hoops every time a
> field is written, you probably want a method that implies it does
> something serious.  Saying something simple while doing something
> complicated will likely make code hard to read.  A minor point,
> perhaps, but one which, if followed, could again take the sting out
> of the writer-method-withoud-explicit-self ambiguity.

That's an interesting way to look at it, though I'm not sure it scales
very well.  I'm thinking of things like hash-like set and fetch
methods that operate directly (but transparently) on databases, which
I think can be very convenient and not obscure except to the extent
that they're designed to black-box-ify the file I/O.

I definitely do agree with one part or implication of your point,
namely that #field=() methods should set something.  I know that
sounds obvious, but I think part of what feels shaky to people might
be that there's a disconnect between the presence of assignment syntax
and the question of what's actually taking place.


David

-- 
David Alan Black
home: dblack / candle.superlink.net
work: blackdav / shu.edu
Web:  http://pirate.shu.edu/~blackdav