Re: Total Newbie Backward Compat Question

Ben Bacarisse <ben.use...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> It seemed that you objected to one kind of setter
> because it broke referential transparency.  All setters break
> referential transparency (unless there is another meaning of the term
> that has passed me by) so would you not object to any "setter" method?
> If not, why was breaking referential transparency bad in this one
> specific case and not in others?

OK, I see the confusion. The Command-Query Separation Principle says
that queries, i.e., functions that return object state, should not
break referential transparency. The reason I object in this case is
because the method in question is a query *and* a setter, not just
because it is a setter.

If it were just a command or just a query, I'd have no problem with
it, but it's both.