Why is attr_accessor also mutator?

ruby-talk
1

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).

2

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.

···

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).

--
James Coglan
http://jcoglan.com

3

bjorn borg <borgagassi@yahoo.com> writes:

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).

   Accessors = Readers ∪ Writers

···

--
__Pascal Bourguignon__

4

Hi --

···

On Wed, 17 Jun 2009, bjorn borg wrote:

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).

You can think of it as "access" in the sense of "read/write access",
as opposed to just one or the other (attr_reader/writer).

David

--
David A. Black / Ruby Power and Light, LLC
Ruby/Rails consulting & training: http://www.rubypal.com
Now available: The Well-Grounded Rubyist (http://manning.com/black2\)
"Ruby 1.9: What You Need To Know" Envycasts with David A. Black
http://www.envycasts.com