It is possible to validate the values, it's just traditionally a pain in the arse, because it involves using something like Variable::Magic or returning a tied scalar.
I wrote LV to try to get around these issues, and it does indeed make writing lvalue subs pretty friendly. The primary drawback becomes speed - none of the implementations are as fast as a more traditionally written accessor.
use Moops; class Cow :rw { has name => (default => 'Ermintrude') }; say Cow->new->name
| [reply] |
It is possible to validate the values, it's just traditionally a pain in the arse, because it involves using something like Variable::Magic or returning a tied scalar.
Yes. I've done it using a tied scalars, but the penalties -- not just performance, but the obfuscation factor -- makes it a complete non-starter IMO.
none of the implementations are as fast as a more traditionally written accessor.
If the performance penalty was a few percent, the syntactic sugar might be viable; but when it is closer 200% or 300% for subroutines/methods that already have a high overhead to work-done ratio, it simply isn't worth it.
With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
| [reply] |
300%? In my experience it's often a lot more than that!
That said, our old friend Class::XSAccessor to the rescue! If you're writing OO code, want lvalue accessors, and don't give a crap about validating incoming data, then its lvalue accessors are likely to be much faster than any pure Perl accessor you could write. (Not quite as fast as Class::XSAccessors non-lvalue accessors though.)
use Moops; class Cow :rw { has name => (default => 'Ermintrude') }; say Cow->new->name
| [reply]
[d/l] |
