Re: Tool for inlining useless getter/setter call
Jack wrote:
Owen Jacobson a ?crit :
On Feb 11, 9:25 am, Jack <mls...@poqsd.com> wrote:
Hi,
is there a tool to inline "useless" getter call:
* simple getter (return field;) or setter (this.field = arg)
* called in the class that contain the field
* getter/setter is not overloaded, and does not overlead (in the
current code)
I would like to inline these call automatically in all my java code.
Sun's Hotspot JVM (and presumably any other JITing JVM) is capable of
inlining these at runtime and will do so automatically unless JIT is
explicitly disabled.
Thanks, but i would like to remove them from the java [sic] source code. The
reason is that these accessors hide "what is going on", and i [sic] don't
appreciate that.
As the doctor said, "So don't do that."
Me, I find that accessors and mutators /express/ what's going on. I don't
even begin to remotely understand how anyone could imagine that they hide
what's going on. You see "getFoo()", you know right away that the expression
gets 'foo'. Maybe if one weren't too familiar with the idiom, but that
problem corrects itself with some experience.
In C# code where the properties look more like members, that hides what's
going on, to my eye. You can't tell from a property access expression whether
it's using a direct member or a property, so you don't know if there's any
kind of protection or you're using the value "raw". Much more opaque than the
Java idiom, which self-documents in the expression which is which.
Keeping setter who checking the argument is ok, but simple assignement
setters, or simple return getters are really useless, when called from
the class which define them.
In NetBeans it's easy enough to change the source code - the editor's
search-and-replace facility will let me change every instance of getFoo() to
foo, and setFoo( x ) to this.foo = x (the latter needing regex to rearrange
things easily). This still leaves the question of why accessors and mutators
are used in the same class to begin with if you didn't want them.
--
Lew