Re: (placepo) Properties

[Shark8 <onewingedshark@gmail.com>]

On Dec 5, 9:15 am, "Martin Krischik" <krisc...@users.sourceforge.net>
wrote:
> Am 02.12.2010, 00:24 Uhr, schrieb Georg Bauhaus  
> <rm-host.bauh...@maps.futureapps.de>:
>
> > I don't see how "automatic" get/set subprograms offer
> > software engineering advantage, even when they are terse
> > and semi-implicit and purport to avoid repetitive clutter.
>
> Actually they don't. Not if you can't replace the automated get/set with a  
> user defined function. Especially for set this is important as set should  
> check the value and notify observers of the change. I see far to many  
> mutators which neglect this. And get should protect the value from outside  
> changes by by either returning the value as constant or by coping the  
> value. But especially in Java I often wonder why accessors and mutators  
> are used at all.
>
> For example in Scala where accessors and mutators are automaticly  
> generated (without get and set prefix as Scala is functional [1]) this has  
> come back to haunt the language as it becomes very complicated to create  
> rich accessors and mutators.
>
> Ok, one thing is left: properties can be overridden. For example a  
> abstract property can be defined in an interface.
>
> Martin
>
> [1] Which makes me wonder: The set and get prefix are not needed in Ada or  
> Java - so why not do without them?
> --
> Martin Krischik
> mailto://krisc...@users.sourceforge.nethttps://sourceforge.net/users/krischik

I agree that setters SHOULD ensure that the values they change [to]
are valid; that was the main purpose of them!