Re^3: Is ": lvalue" attribute usefull or something to avoid?

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.

Comment on Re^3: Is ": lvalue" attribute usefull or something to avoid?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^4: Is ": lvalue" attribute usefull or something to avoid?
by tobyink (Canon) on Feb 12, 2014 at 15:05 UTC

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.)


No such thing as a small change
	PerlMonks