in reply to Re: •Re: Why get() and set() accessor methods are evil
in thread Why get() and set() accessor methods are evil

Granted, a.b = 12; is much nicer looking than a.set_b(12); or a.set_b = 12
(Other post: If it's supposed to be an assignment it should look like an assignment, and setting a property or attribute is an assignment no matter how it's mediated under the hood.)

FYI, in case you didn't know about it already, Attribute::Property makes a->b = 12 work in Perl 5. From its synopsis:

my $object = SomeClass->new(digits => '123'); $object->nondigits = "abc"; $object->digits = "123"; $object->anyvalue = "abc123\n"; $object->anyvalue('archaic style still works'); my $john = Person->new(name => 'John Doe', age => 19); $john->age++; printf "%s is now %d years old", $john->name, $john->age;

When modifying a value using an accessor method (which we dubbed 'archaic style'), things get ugly:

Old: $john->age($john->age + 1); $john->name->(do { (my $n = $john->name) =~ s/Doe/Smith/; $n }); New: $john->age++; $john->name =~ s/Doe/Smith/;
Having these things1 built-in in Perl 6 will make me happy.

Juerd # { site => '', plp_site => '', do_not_use => 'spamtrap' }

1 The things that are called 'properties' in Perl 5 jargon2, but 'attributes' in Perl 6 jargon. Perl 5's 'attributes' are 'traits' in Perl 6. (IIRC)
2 But not officially. They're often called 'attributes', but we should discourage that, because 'attributes' are already something else. Attributes are relatively new, though, so we can't blame writers of older documentation.