Re: gtk2-perl / easily accessing objects properties

[Guillaume Cottenceau <gc mandrakesoft com>]

goran kirra net writes:

[...]

> > There is no semantic meaning in returning a value when doing a
> > set, neither the new nor the old value, in my opinion.
>
> Guillaume,
>
> you have not been lisping enough :-)

Possibly - though I do use functional style programming a lot :).

> I think, and that's the way it is implemented, 
> that SET should return the previous value.
> I might be useful and nice:
>
> {
>   # lock window size
>   my $oldvalue = $win->resizable(0);
>   .... (do stuff) ......
>   $win->resizable($oldvalue);
> }

I don't discuss the fact that it may be useful, in order to do
what you showed (though this use might be 0.1% of the set
usages), I was pointing out that there is no *semantic* meaning
in returning a value.

 
> and since you use:
>
> $value = $win->resizable;
>
> to GET it would be inconsistent not to return something
> when you do a SET with the same function.

I don't agree with pretending it's a matter of consistency. There
is no such 'consistency' in returing something in set, because
set and get and opposite functions.


Don't get me wrong though. I don't vote against "set" returning a
value. I just think, first, it's illogical, second, there is no
definitive argument to choose whether it should return the old or
the new value.


-- 
Guillaume Cottenceau - http://people.mandrakesoft.com/~gc/