A provocative naming idea for "setter" methods

[Diego Fernandez]

Brian thanks for your reply!

Again, the sender of the message won't see that meta-data until it
> infers the correct type. This also gets a little too close to
> breaking encapsulation, to have to know too much at compile-time to
> understand what will happen at run-time. Putting the information
> that "this sets something" vs. "this acts on the arguments with this
> verb" is not breaking encapsulation, it's revealing information that
> makes code clearer.


Suppose this one implementation of this:

MyNumberView>>model: aNumber
textWidget text: (numberFormatter format: aNumber)

MyNumberView>>model
[ numberParser parse: textWidget text ] when: NumberParsingException do:
[:signal |
ModelCreationException signalChainedWith: signal
]

You can say, ok this "model:" method is not a mutator per sé because it
doesn't change directly any instance variable of MyNumberView (yes I know in
Slate are slots, and I'm changing the instance of textWidget).
Then I have another implementation of "MyNumberView" that keeps the value of
model in an instance variable:
OtherImplementationOfNumberView>>model: aNumber
model := aNumber.
OtherImplementationOfNumberView>>model
^model

Should I use the setter syntax for both?
(Sorry if my question is too stupid.. maybe it's because I'm a Slate
beginner)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /archives/slate/attachments/20050922/154d3838/attachment.htm