Because of the way I picture it in my mind. An object is a big box with many little boxes in it. Each of the little boxes is a member of the class and holds a value. The setX method puts a new value into the box labeled x, so obviously the old value needs to get out, right? This is what a setter returns in my mind
It should be noted that this is the behaviour of many functions, such as set_new_handler, SetWindowLong(Ptr) and SelectObject.
All the buzzt!
CornedBee
"There is not now, nor has there ever been, nor will there ever be, any programming language in which it is the least bit difficult to write bad code."
- Flon's Law
You can't use microsoft's behaviour as a logical argument
I see the set functions as an assignment, what does assignment return, the new value.
I see your point but I guess thats what good documentation is for
I'm not saying it's logical, I'm just saying it's existing practice and thus might be the expectation of programmers.You can't use microsoft's behaviour as a logical argument
That said, you're right, good documentation is needed. But how often do you have this luxury?
All the buzzt!
"There is not now, nor has there ever been, nor will there ever be, any programming language in which it is the least bit difficult to write bad code."
- Flon's Law
Always, thats what comments are for.
You could always have it return void, to save a (very neglible) CPU cycle or two and eliminate any ambiguity
>>You can't use microsoft's behaviour as a logical argument
I wonder what Microsoft employees' re-employability prospects are
Just Google It. √
(\ /)
( . .)
c(")(") This is bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your signature to help him gain world domination.
