Comments on: Get it? Set it? Good!! http://www.rubygeek.com/2006/01/04/get-it-set-it-good/ Ruby, PHP, Python and Perl Tue, 06 Jan 2009 05:47:25 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Nola http://www.rubygeek.com/2006/01/04/get-it-set-it-good/#comment-10 Nola Tue, 31 Jan 2006 03:40:00 +0000 http://www.rubygeek.com/?p=25#comment-10 I see what you mean Lucidix. I hadn't actually tested that code, just hammered it out an an example. Using Null is good, I've been using it the past few days instead of "" :) thanks for commenting! I see what you mean Lucidix. I hadn’t actually tested that code, just hammered it out an an example. Using Null is good, I’ve been using it the past few days instead of “” :) thanks for commenting!

]]> By: Lucidix http://www.rubygeek.com/2006/01/04/get-it-set-it-good/#comment-9 Lucidix Mon, 30 Jan 2006 21:14:00 +0000 http://www.rubygeek.com/?p=25#comment-9 I think you may have a bug in your Card::name() function. ------8name = $name; ------8name(''); to clear the name. it would return the value of name instead. Instead, I'd have the $name parameter be NULL if omitted and check for is_null(). It's a little bit more specific, but again, you won't be able to do: $card->name(NULL); If you're mapping classes to database tables, it would be hard to make the distinction between empty strings and NULL if that's something your business logic pays attention to. I think you may have a bug in your Card::name() function.

——8name = $name;

——8name(”); to clear the name. it would return the value of name instead. Instead, I’d have the $name parameter be NULL if omitted and check for is_null(). It’s a little bit more specific, but again, you won’t be able to do: $card->name(NULL); If you’re mapping classes to database tables, it would be hard to make the distinction between empty strings and NULL if that’s something your business logic pays attention to.

]]> By: Randal L. Schwartz http://www.rubygeek.com/2006/01/04/get-it-set-it-good/#comment-8 Randal L. Schwartz Thu, 05 Jan 2006 08:36:00 +0000 http://www.rubygeek.com/?p=25#comment-8 I've seen coherent arguments for getters that double as setters vs having separate getters and setters. My thought is that I prefer separate names, because I've wanted to grep my source code for all setters, for example, and having a separate name is handier for that. Also it avoids the problem of a read-only getter silently ignoring an attempt to set something, which is a very real problem. I’ve seen coherent arguments for getters that double as setters vs having separate getters and setters.

My thought is that I prefer separate names, because I’ve wanted to grep my source code for all setters, for example, and having a separate name is handier for that. Also it avoids the problem of a read-only getter silently ignoring an attempt to set something, which is a very real problem.

]]>