Re^3: Class::Accessor and Damian's PBP

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: Class::Accessor and Damian's PBP by nothingmuch (Priest) on Feb 22, 2006 at 21:06 UTC
uh, override the `set` method? -nuffin zz zZ Z Z #!perl	[reply] [d/l]
Re^5: Class::Accessor and Damian's PBP by Roy Johnson (Monsignor) on Feb 23, 2006 at 17:40 UTC
That's exactly equivalent to overriding the STORE method for a tied variable. Advantage: none. Caution: Contents may have been coded under pressure.	[reply]
Re^6: Class::Accessor and Damian's PBP by nothingmuch (Priest) on Feb 24, 2006 at 00:00 UTC
Except you have to create a convoluted mess of tying a variable and returning it in a way that is both hard to read and hard to maintain, at the dubious benefit of having sugar that is not socially acceptable ANYWAY in perl today. What is the point of your discussion? Are you proposing to revise the currently unversally accepted style? Because Perl 6 is already doing that and it will look like you want it to look, except it won't be insane. If you are trying to fix the accessor code smell (Which is moot in my opinion - accessors are necessary for storing data in a data oriented culture like perl whether the smalltalk heads like it or not) by abusing weird perl features is IMHO not going to give you any less code smell, but actually more (IntentionNotAlgorithm, KeepItSimpleStupid, YouAren'tGonnaNeedIt, FeatureCreep). Punchline: you're proposing to simplify by making it more complex. That's wrong. I think that this is MentalMasturbation. -nuffin zz zZ Z Z #!perl	[reply]
Re^7: Class::Accessor and Damian's PBP by Roy Johnson (Monsignor) on Feb 24, 2006 at 12:40 UTC
Re^8: Class::Accessor and Damian's PBP by nothingmuch (Priest) on Feb 24, 2006 at 13:34 UTC
Some notes below your chosen depth have not been shown here


Keep It Simple, Stupid
	PerlMonks