From: paul <pjvleeuwen@...>
Date: 2006-12-03T22:55:08+09:00
Subject: Re: Simple and stuppid bug (can anyone find it?)

:) thanks all for the educating responses. Martin, I really liked you
suggestion.

Let me explain the reason why I did want to chain assignments:
I have a class that has a lot of attributes that can be written at
creation of an instance. To save my typing the whole lot I made a
constructor getting all those attributes. Though, I expect a lot more
attributes in the near future. Since the attributes are not mandatory
for creating the instance using the constructor-method seemed a little
rigid.
My second idea was to use attr_writer to set all the properties, but
chaining seemed saving me some lines (these assignments aren't that
exciting after all).

Is there any moral/principal reason to write:
  A.a = "AA"
  A.b = "BB"
instead of:
  A.set_b("BB").set_a("AA")

?

Cheers,
Paul


Martin DeMello schreef:

> On 12/3/06, paul <pjvleeuwen@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > I thought it to be good programming style to make attribute assignment
> > chainable. When using the attr_writer an assignment returns te value
> > assigned which is not what I want, so I tried to do-it-myself.
>
> If you do want to do this, I'd suggest an attr_setter method, that
> generates both foo= and set_foo methods. Then you can chain via
>
> a.set_a(100).set_b(10)
> 
> which looks much better than the a.a=(100).b=(10)
> 
> martin