Re: Total Newbie Backward Compat Question

"Daniel T." <daniel_t@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:

> 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.

You had already made that point a few line earlier.  It was your
bringing up referential transparency that surprised me (and was the
only reason I posted).

-- 
Ben.