Is your question that it seems to be an arbitrary rule, or do you have a case where it would be helpful to have a separate name? The point of _= is that it should act like a var which is read/write.
-------------------------------------
Micha<
micha-1@...> wrote:
Hi,
one can define getters and setters without an associated field. But why does the
setter has to have the same name as the getter?
This compiles and works:
class X { private var v = 0; def get = v; def get_= (i:Int) { v = i } }
This compiles and gives a runtime error:
class X { private var v = 0; def get = v; def put_= (i:Int) { v = i } }
val k = new X
k: X = X@679e3bdd
scala> k.put = 3
<console>:6: error: value put is not a member of X
k.put = 3
which seems not true to me :-)
thanks for answering,
Michael
