Ghost getters/setters logic

[rjacas]

When calling a getter of a Ghost, thus creating such method, the Ghost Perspective ignore that the method is a getter, that is, it does not creates a corresponding variable. Same goes for setters.

Is such behavior desirable?

[etanter]

How would you be sure it is a getter?

[rjacas]

Apologies, due to a filter i just noticed this thread.

I'm guessing that there is no correct answer here. I would call a method
getter/setter if it complies with the getName()/setName() structure. Since
the Ghost is meant to be used, later on, for testing, there is no damage in
creating unnecesary members during testing, the user could perfectly erase
them later. I am inclined to believe that there are far more hits than false
positives with this aproach.

2013/5/6 Éric Tanter notifications@github.com

How would you be sure it is a getter?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/5#issuecomment-17520106
.

lets reign all together

[etanter]

Ok - this could be a configurable feature ("introduce field with getter/setter ghost method").

[rjacas]

I agree, a configurable feature sounds good.

2013/5/15 Éric Tanter notifications@github.com

Ok - this could be a configurable feature ("introduce field with
getter/setter ghost method").

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/5#issuecomment-17960566
.

lets reign all together