Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!wuarchive!m.cs.uiuc.edu!ibma0.cs.uiuc.edu!cs.uiuc.edu!voss
From: voss@cs.uiuc.edu (Bill Voss)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.smalltalk
Subject: Re: Access methods - New feature ?
Message-ID: <VOSS.91Apr23201829@laslo.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 24 Apr 91 01:18:29 GMT
References: <1991Apr21.221149.8057@vuse.vanderbilt.edu>
	<VOSS.91Apr22113638@laslo.cs.uiuc.edu>
	<VOSS.91Apr22183834@laslo.cs.uiuc.edu>
	<1991Apr23.010026.25098@ccs.carleton.ca>
	<VOSS.91Apr23194435@laslo.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: news@ibma0.cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: Typed Smalltalk Group, Dept of Comp Sci, Univ of IL in Urbana.
Lines: 31
In-Reply-To: voss@cs.uiuc.edu's message of 23 Apr 91 19:44:35


	For some reason GNUS/nntpd keeps dropping the tail of my posting
	with the message "writing to process: no more processes, nntpd"
	So here is that final section, ONE MORE TIME.
-Bill
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
	The next obvious question is "What do you do instead?"
	;-) So glad you asked. ;-)

	It is my contention that instead of using something like

			x1 <- point x.
			y1 <- point y.
			anObject myThingX: x1 Y: y1.
	or in one line
			anObject myThingX: (point x) Y: (point y).

	in those cases where you legitimately need to know x and y,
	outside of Point, you should instead write a Point method:

		doMyThingOn: anObject

			^anObject myThingX: x Y: y.

	I consider this CLEANER, more READABLE, more MAINTAINABLE, and
	much harder to abuse than a straight ACCESS technique.

	The fact that it usually involves both less programmer typing, 
	and fewer runtime message sends is a nice bonus.

-Bill Voss <voss@cs.uiuc.edu>