[Nitro] help with og!
dcorbin at machturtle.com
Sat Dec 3 21:59:00 EST 2005
On Saturday 03 December 2005 01:52 pm, zimba-tm wrote:
> > In an ideal world, it would be impossible to construct an invalid object.
> > Some objects have no concept of 'default' parameters. It just doesn't
> > make sense.
> I don't agree with you. In a real world, defect objects are created
> and it doens't necessarily matter until you can't detect that they
I'm not 100% sure I understand you, and of course you're entitled to your
view. But I think it is an important part of encapsulation for a given class
to to be the only one that knows what has to be done to be 'valid'. If I
have to do something after instantiating an object, than something else
presumable knows what has to be done.
> In an ideal world, ruby would provide the facilities to specify
> an attribute's type instead of using property.
Not in my ideal world. That would make things couple way too tightly. I
don't want static typing.
> So your classes are
> specifically built anyway. What difference between that and using
> 'default' parameters, except that the latter is at a language level ?
As I said above, encapsulation.
> Nitro-general mailing list
> Nitro-general at rubyforge.org
More information about the Nitro-general