From: James Coglan <jcoglan@...>
Date: 2009-06-17T23:04:24+09:00
Subject: Re: Why is attr_accessor also mutator?

--001636c5b47e93f0be046c8bc46d
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

2009/6/17 bjorn borg <borgagassi@yahoo.com>

>
> Sorry for the "nitpicky question" but I'm new to Ruby and was wondering why
> attr_accessor was used to implicitly define accessor AND a mutator when the
> name attr_accessor itself has nothing alluding to mutation (i.e.
> attr_accessor_mutator).



It's just a shorthand for attr_reader and attr_writer. Yes it could use a
better name I suppose, I guess brevity won out. If you only want a strict
accessor, use attr_reader.

--
James Coglan
http://jcoglan.com

--001636c5b47e93f0be046c8bc46d--