Typed Getters and Setters in Resource

[matryer]

Add some common type getters and setters in Resource.

Examples include:

• GetTime(key)
• SetTime(key, time)
• GetNumber(key)
• SetNumber(key, float64)
• GetBool(key)
• SetBool(key, bool)
• GetString(key)
• SetString(key, string)

[tylerstillwater]

The Sets are unnecessary because of interface{}. The Gets would be helpful, though.

On Jan 21, 2013, at 9:22 AM, matryer notifications@github.com wrote:

Add some common type getters and setters in Resource.

Examples include:

• GetTime(key) • SetTime(key, time) • GetNumber(key) • SetNumber(key, float64) • GetBool(key) • SetBool(key, bool) • GetString(key) • SetString(key, string) — Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

[matryer]

I think the sets are worth including, they ensure type safety in code.

Imagine this:

resource.Set("ishappy", 50)
resource.GetBool("ishappy")

[matryer]

... of course, that's their fault. But SetBool("ishappy", 50) wouldn't even compile.

[tylerstillwater]

That's a programmer error and it will panic when it tries to do a type conversion.

Your example could just as easily be:

resource.SetInt("ishappy",50) resource.GetBool("ishappy")

On Jan 21, 2013, at 9:25 AM, matryer notifications@github.com wrote:

I think the sets are worth including, they ensure type safety in code.

Imagine this:

resource.Set("ishappy", 50) resource.GetBool("ishappy")

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

[matryer]

OK well let's do the getters first and we can always add setters later if there's apatite

[tylerstillwater]

Sounds good

On Jan 21, 2013, at 9:29 AM, matryer notifications@github.com wrote:

OK well let's do the getters first and we can always add setters later if there's apatite

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.