From: Rich Kilmer <rich@...>
Date: 2001-10-24T17:24:49+09:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:23156] Re: Bruce Eckel's opinion of Ruby



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Emiliano [mailto:emile@iris-advies.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 4:17 AM
> To: ruby-talk ML
> Subject: [ruby-talk:23155] Re: Bruce Eckel's opinion of Ruby
> 
> 
> Rich Kilmer wrote:
> 
> > > But it still wouldn't be the default behaviour. Having class-private
> > > data available publicly by default isn't correct in my book. You have
> > > to choose what to make part of your public interface. IMO, of course.
> > 
> > In the following I am not trying to be anti-Python...just 
> trying to set the record straight...
> > 
> > Regarding "private" class variables.
> > 
> > So...in Python you can use this:
> > 
> > obj.__dict__['attrName']=value
> > 
> > ...to get direct access to (get/set) the values of every 
> attribute on an object.
> 
> But reading this it is immediately clear to me you are violating the
> 'contract' the class provides.

And in Ruby:

obj.instance_eval("@attrName=value")

Would also be immediately clear :-)