use Perl

• Umm... (Score:1)

  by nothingmuch (5848)

  you do realize something has to "violate" encapsulation somewhere, namely the accessor code, right?
  
  Class::MOP::Instance is precisely the object that lets accessors get at an objects instance structure.
  
  • Re: (Score:2)

    by Ovid (2709)

    See my reply to Stevan, below.
• You are totally mistaken in your assumptions (Score:1)

  by Stevan (6065)

  There is no violation of encapsulation here actually, you should ask before you assume :)

  Class::MOP::Instance [cpan.org] is the meta object which represents the instance structure, it is the gateway through which all the access to the underlying instance structure is proxied (it also handles generating code for any inlined accessors as well). This puts a layer of abstraction over the instance structure so that the Moose user does not have to think about what kind of instance they are using, and therefore can chang
  • Re: (Score:2)

    by Ovid (2709)

    What did you think my assumptions were, Stevan? I wasn't assuming this would pass. I was merely hoping I could get away with it :)
    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Stevan (6065)

      From your title ("Encapsulation or Moose"), and your initial line ("This was not surprising, but also not what I wanted" ) it seemed to me that you were implying that Moose violated encapsulation. Which admitedly, if you go by the definition of encapsulation encoded in Devel::Encapsulation, it does. However, there is more than one way to do it :)

      Of course, my response is riddled with assumptions on my part, so if I am mistaken, please clarify it for me.

      - Stevan
  • Re: (Score:2)

    by Ovid (2709)

    The issue here isn't that I think that Class::MOP is doing something naughty. The issue is that I want the final test to fail:

    throws_ok { $point->x(8.3) }
        qr/\QAttribute (x) does not pass the type contraint (Int) with '8.3'/,
        'Setting an attribute to an invalid value should fail';
    
    $point->{x} = 8.3;
    is $point->x, 8.3, 'Whoops!  I broke it';
    • Assumptions abound! (Score:1)

      by Stevan (6065)

      The issue here isn't that I think that Class::MOP is doing something naughty.

      What exactly do you think it is doing wrong? It is following the Instance protocol, which states that only methods of (or generated by) Class::MOP::Instance should access the internals of the instance. Again, this violates the rather narrow defintion of encapsulation in Devel::Encapsulation, but it enforces (albeit with a much softer hand) encapsulation in a different way.

      The issue is that I want the final test to fail
      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Ovid (2709)

        I don't think Class::MOP is doing anything wrong. I'm sorry if it sounded like I was suggesting it! One thing about Moose I like is that it does make it very easy to respect encapsulation and I do agree that this is more of a user problem than a programming one. Sorry if my post came off the wrong way.
        • Re:Assumptions abound! (whoops) (Score:1)

          by Stevan (6065)

          I don't think Class::MOP is doing anything wrong.I'm sorry if it sounded like I was suggesting it!

          Sorry, my fault, you didn't suggest that. I mistakenly read "isn't" as "is", in your previous post. That will teach me to respond to posts while also half listening on a conference call with the $client :)

          Anyway, no worries, I just wanted to be sure you understood the reason why you got that error, and that encapsulation is not actually being violated.

          - Stevan