[sf-perl] Fwd: Delivery Status Notification (Failure)
doomvox at gmail.com
Mon Sep 30 18:20:18 PDT 2013
I've always agreed with Rolsky: the getter form is far more common, so you
should optimize for that.
And I've always agreed with Conway that separate setters and getters were a
better idea than "mutators", where you use an undef argument to indicate
when you want to just do a get.
As far as I can tell, pretty much no one agrees with this, they much prefer
the "convenience" of the short form that does both functions... and they
tend to add additional methods in order to clear a field and set it to
undef (yup, that's convenient all right).
But then, where I work at present, most of the code just accesses the href
directly, which I gather is common at many places (e.g. Yahoo) and I
wouldn't swear that this is the wrong thing to do: there are decent
arguments against it, but they're not as strong as some people pretend.
For example: if you use accessors religiously, you then have the power to
write funny accessors that slip in magical behavior when someone tries to
do a simple get or set... but I find that when I do that, I tend to confuse
myself later: there's some odd code buried in a place where I normally
wouldn't look for it.
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 3:55 PM, Kevin Goess <cpan at goess.org> wrote:
> Back in 2005 Damien wrote his now-famous Perl Best Practices, and
> recommended separate get_ and set_ methods for accessors.
> I just now noticed a post by Dave Rolsky (himself no lightweight)
> he opines:
> Damian wants you to write get_name() and set_name(). I don’t think this
> ever took off. My personal preference is name() and set_name(), though
> that’s just as unpopular.
> I think the real recommendation should be to use read-only attributes as
> much as possible. Mutability adds complexity to your code. Avoid it
> whenever possible.
> In that context, I’d avoid the get_name() style. Very little Perl code I’ve
> seen uses that naming scheme. The naming of writers matters less if they’re
> rare, but readers will be common, and you should just use the style that
> everyone else uses.
> I've also rarely seen that naming scheme (and don't use it myself), but
> haven't done an exhaustive survey.
> Does anyone else have a sense on how widespread the take-up of that
> particular Best Practice has been?
> SanFrancisco-pm mailing list
> SanFrancisco-pm at pm.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the SanFrancisco-pm