This question already has answers here:
Closed 12 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
Public Data members vs Getters, Setters
In what cases should public fields be used, instead of properties or getter and setter methods (where there is no support for properties)? Where exactly is their use recommended, and why, or, if it is not, why are they still allowed as a language feature? After all, they break the Object-Oriented principle of encapsulation where getters and setters are allowed and encouraged.
If you have a constant that needs to be public, you might as well make it a public field instead of creating a getter property for it.
Apart from that, I don't see a need, as far as good OOP principles are concerned.
They are there and allowed because sometimes you need the flexibility.
That's hard to tell, but in my opinion public fields are only valid when using structs.
struct Simple
{
public int Position;
public bool Exists;
public double LastValue;
};
But different people have different thoughts about:
http://kristofverbiest.blogspot.com/2007/02/public-fields-and-properties-are-not.html
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ericgu/archive/2007/02/01/properties-vs-public-fields-redux.aspx
http://www.markhneedham.com/blog/2009/02/04/c-public-fields-vs-automatic-properties/
If your compiler does not optimize getter and setter invocations, the access to your properties might be more expensive than reading and writing fields (call stack). That might be relevant if you perform many, many invocations.
But, to be honest, I know no language where this is true. At least in both .NET and Java this is optimized well.
From a design point of view I know no case where using fields is recommended...
Cheers
Matthias
Let's first look at the question why we need accessors (getters/setters)? You need them to be able to override the behaviour when assigning a new value/reading a value. You might want to add caching or return a calculated value instead of a property.
Your question can now be formed as do I always want this behaviour? I can think of cases where this is not useful at all: structures (what were structs in C). Passing a parameter object or a class wrapping multiple values to be inserted into a Collection are cases where one actually does not need accessors: The object is merely a container for variables.
There is one single reason(*) why to use get instead of public field: lazy evaluation. I.e. the value you want may be stored in a database, or may be long to compute, and don't want your program to initialize it at startup, but only when needed.
There is one single reason(*) why to use set instead of public field: other fields modifications. I.e. you change the value of other fields when you the value of the target field changes.
Forcing to use get and set on every field is in contradiction with the YAGNI principle.
If you want to expose the value of a field from an object, then expose it! It is completely pointless to create an object with four independent fields and mandating that all of them uses get/set or properties access.
*: Other reasons such as possible data type change are pointless. In fact, wherever you use a = o.get_value() instead of a = o.value, if you change the type returned by get_value() you have to change at every use, just as if you would have changed the type of value.
The main reason is nothing to do with OOP encapsulation (though people often say it is), and everything to do with versioning.
Indeed from the OOP position one could argue that fields are better than "blind" properties, as a lack of encapsulation is clearer than something that pretends to encapsulation and then blows it away. If encapsulation is important, then it should be good to see when it isn't there.
A property called Foo will not be treated the same from the outside as a public field called Foo. In some languages this is explicit (the language doesn't directly support properties, so you've got a getFoo and a setFoo) and in some it is implicit (C# and VB.NET directly support properties, but they are not binary-compatible with fields and code compiled to use a field will break if it's changed to a property, and vice-versa).
If your Foo just does a "blind" set and write of an underlying field, then there is currently no encapsulation advantage to this over exposing the field.
However, if there is a later requirement to take advantage of encapsulation to prevent invalid values (you should always prevent invalid values, but maybe you didn't realise some where invalid when you first wrote the class, or maybe "valid" has changed with a scope change), to wrap memoised evaluation, to trigger other changes in the object, to trigger an on-change event, to prevent expensive needless equivalent sets, and so on, then you can't make that change without breaking running code.
If the class is internal to the component in question, this isn't a concern, and I'd say use fields if fields read sensibly under the general YAGNI principle. However, YAGNI doesn't play quite so well across component boundaries (if I did need my component to work today, I certainly am probably going to need that it works tomorrow after you've changed your component that mine depends on), so it can make sense to pre-emptively use properties.
Related
What is the purpose of Kotlin's implicit calling of getter/setter functions for properties when you try to access them? Isn't the point of getter and setters already that you can easily call them if you intend to use them? Kotlin's version basically just introduces an additional complexity with the 'field' identifier and introduces weirdness like the following, where an object may not behave like its interface intended:
interface Counter {
var count: Int
fun increment() {
count = count + 1
}
}
class WeirdCounter: Counter {
override var count: Int = 0
get() = field
set(value) {println("ignore the value")}
}
Just trying to understand the intent behind this.
The way Kotlin implements properties using getters and setters is basically what's common practice — and best practice — in many other languages.
‘Bare’ fields, as in Java, are simple, clear, and easy to use; but bare fields have problems:
They expose an implementation detail (the field, and especially its type), preventing it from being changed in future.
They don't allow the class to control its own state.
Of course, these aren't a problem for simple value classes. But for more complex classes, they can be a real problem.
For example, you may want to change the way a class stores its state (e.g. replacing a long with a BigDecimal), but if that class is part of a popular library's public interface then thousands of users would get pretty annoyed.
Or suppose it would be really convenient if you could ensure that a String property was always stored in lower-case without leading or trailing whitespace. But with a ‘bare’ property there's no way to enforce that.
So the usual pattern is to have a field that's private, and only accessible from within the class itself (which you control); and provide accessor methods.
That gives you full control. You can change the internal representation, as long as you update the accessor methods to convert to/from the new form as needed. And your setter can do any normalisation, formatting, or whatever to enforce any restrictions on the state.
However, in languages like Java, that's more awkward and long-winded than a simple field: accessor methods turn a one-line field into seven lines (excluding blank lines, and excluding doc comments, so that's probably more like turning 3 lines into 21). And while calling a getter method is only a few characters longer (with get and ()) than referencing a field, calling a setter is a lot less intuitive than a simple assignment.
The result is that either developers do the right thing and fill their classes with boilerplate (with all the implications for maintainability and risk of error), or they don't bother and risk the problems above.
Kotlin, though, gives the best of both worlds: a simple property looks just like a field, both when defining and when accessing it. So you get the lean, concise, clear code. But it's implemented with a private backing field (if needed) and accessor method(s)s, so you get all the advantages of those too. And if you ever need to add validation or change the representation or log all access or whatever, you have the option of replacing the default accessors with your own implementations.
Your WeirdCounter example is odd, but not as scary (or as likely) as you might think. In an object-oriented language, a class is master of its own state, and other classes generally don't and shouldn't know about its internals. (That way, they're insulated from changes to those internals.) If a class needs to do something counter-intuitive in a setter, that's only a concern if it breaks the class's contract — but that would be a bug, and should become obvious in tests, if not elsewhere.
In practice, the ability for classes to control access to their state is more important than the risk of a class using that to do something stupid or malicious (that would be fairly easy to spot).
I have a class which represents a set of numbers. The constructor takes three arguments: startValue, endValue and stepSize.
The class is responsible for holding a list containing all values between start and end value taking the stepSize into consideration.
Example: startValue: 3, endValue: 1, stepSize = -1, Collection = { 3,2,1 }
I am currently creating the collection and some info strings about the object in the constructor. The public members are read only info strings and the collection.
My constructor does three things at the moment:
Checks the arguments; this could throw an exception from the constructor
Fills values into the collection
Generates the information strings
I can see that my constructor does real work but how can I fix this, or, should I fix this? If I move the "methods" out of the constructor it is like having init function and leaving me with an not fully initialized object. Is the existence of my object doubtful? Or is it not that bad to have some work done in the constructor because it is still possible to test the constructor because no object references are created.
For me it looks wrong but it seems that I just can't find a solution. I also have taken a builder into account but I am not sure if that's right because you can't choose between different types of creations. However single unit tests would have less responsibility.
I am writing my code in C# but I would prefer a general solution, that's why the text contains no code.
EDIT: Thanks for editing my poor text (: I changed the title back because it represents my opinion and the edited title did not. I am not asking if real work is a flaw or not. For me, it is. Take a look at this reference.
http://misko.hevery.com/code-reviewers-guide/flaw-constructor-does-real-work/
The blog states the problems quite well. Still I can't find a solution.
Concepts that urge you to keep your constructors light weight:
Inversion of control (Dependency Injection)
Single responsibility principle (as applied to the constructor rather than a class)
Lazy initialization
Testing
K.I.S.S.
D.R.Y.
Links to arguments of why:
How much work should be done in a constructor?
What (not) to do in a constructor
Should a C++ constructor do real work?
http://misko.hevery.com/code-reviewers-guide/flaw-constructor-does-real-work/
If you check the arguments in the constructor that validation code can't be shared if those arguments come in from any other source (setter, constructor, parameter object)
If you fill values into the collection or generate the information strings in the constructor that code can't be shared with other constructors you may need to add later.
In addition to not being able to be shared there is also being delayed until really needed (lazy init). There is also overriding thru inheritance that offers more options with many methods that just do one thing rather then one do everything constructor.
Your constructor only needs to put your class into a usable state. It does NOT have to be fully initialized. But it is perfectly free to use other methods to do the real work. That just doesn't take advantage of the "lazy init" idea. Sometimes you need it, sometimes you don't.
Just keep in mind anything that the constructor does or calls is being shoved down the users / testers throat.
EDIT:
You still haven't accepted an answer and I've had some sleep so I'll take a stab at a design. A good design is flexible so I'm going to assume it's OK that I'm not sure what the information strings are, or whether our object is required to represent a set of numbers by being a collection (and so provides iterators, size(), add(), remove(), etc) or is merely backed by a collection and provides some narrow specialized access to those numbers (such as being immutable).
This little guy is the Parameter Object pattern
/** Throws exception if sign of endValue - startValue != stepSize */
ListDefinition(T startValue, T endValue, T stepSize);
T can be int or long or short or char. Have fun but be consistent.
/** An interface, independent from any one collection implementation */
ListFactory(ListDefinition ld){
/** Make as many as you like */
List<T> build();
}
If we don't need to narrow access to the collection, we're done. If we do, wrap it in a facade before exposing it.
/** Provides read access only. Immutable if List l kept private. */
ImmutableFacade(List l);
Oh wait, requirements change, forgot about 'information strings'. :)
/** Build list of info strings */
InformationStrings(String infoFilePath) {
List<String> read();
}
Have no idea if this is what you had in mind but if you want the power to count line numbers by twos you now have it. :)
/** Assuming information strings have a 1 to 1 relationship with our numbers */
MapFactory(List l, List infoStrings){
/** Make as many as you like */
Map<T, String> build();
}
So, yes I'd use the builder pattern to wire all that together. Or you could try to use one object to do all that. Up to you. But I think you'll find few of these constructors doing much of anything.
EDIT2
I know this answer's already been accepted but I've realized there's room for improvement and I can't resist. The ListDefinition above works by exposing it's contents with getters, ick. There is a "Tell, don't ask" design principle that is being violated here for no good reason.
ListDefinition(T startValue, T endValue, T stepSize) {
List<T> buildList(List<T> l);
}
This let's us build any kind of list implementation and have it initialized according to the definition. Now we don't need ListFactory. buildList is something I call a shunt. It returns the same reference it accepted after having done something with it. It simply allows you to skip giving the new ArrayList a name. Making a list now looks like this:
ListDefinition<int> ld = new ListDefinition<int>(3, 1, -1);
List<int> l = new ImmutableFacade<int>( ld.buildList( new ArrayList<int>() ) );
Which works fine. Bit hard to read. So why not add a static factory method:
List<int> l = ImmutableRangeOfNumbers.over(3, 1, -1);
This doesn't accept dependency injections but it's built on classes that do. It's effectively a dependency injection container. This makes it a nice shorthand for popular combinations and configurations of the underlying classes. You don't have to make one for every combination. The point of doing this with many classes is now you can put together whatever combination you need.
Well, that's my 2 cents. I'm gonna find something else to obsess on. Feedback welcome.
As far as cohesion is concerned, there's no "real work", only work that's in line (or not) with the class/method's responsibility.
A constructor's responsibility is to create an instance of a class. And a valid instance for that matter. I'm a big fan of keeping the validation part as intrinsic as possible, so that you can see the invariants every time you look at the class. In other words, that the class "contains its own definition".
However, there are cases when an object is a complex assemblage of multiple other objects, with conditional logic, non-trivial validation or other creation sub-tasks involved. This is when I'd delegate the object creation to another class (Factory or Builder pattern) and restrain the accessibility scope of the constructor, but I think twice before doing it.
In your case, I see no conditionals (except argument checking), no composition or inspection of complex objects. The work done by your constructor is cohesive with the class because it essentially only populates its internals. While you may (and should) of course extract atomic, well identified construction steps into private methods inside the same class, I don't see the need for a separate builder class.
The constructor is a special member function, in a way that it constructor, but after all - it is a member function. As such, it is allowed to do things.
Consider for example c++ std::fstream. It opens a file in the constructor. Can throw an exception, but doesn't have to.
As long as you can test the class, it is all good.
It's true, a constructur should do minimum of work oriented to a single aim - successful creaation of the valid object. Whatever it takes is ok. But not more.
In your example, creating this collection in the constructor is perfectly valid, as object of your class represent a set of numbers (your words). If an object is set of numbers, you should clearly create it in the constructor! On the contrary - the constructur does not perform what it is made for - a fresh, valid object construction.
These info strings call my attention. What is their purpose? What exactly do you do? This sounds like something periferic, something that can be left for later and exposed through a method, like
String getInfo()
or similar.
If you want to use Microsoft's .NET Framework was an example here, it is perfectly valid both semantically and in terms of common practice, for a constructor to do some real work.
An example of where Microsoft does this is in their implementation of System.IO.FileStream. This class performs string processing on path names, opens new file handles, opens threads, binds all sorts of things, and invokes many system functions. The constructor is actually, in effect, about 1,200 lines of code.
I believe your example, where you are creating a list, is absolutely fine and valid. I would just make sure that you fail as often as possible. Say if you the minimum size higher than the maximum size, you could get stuck in an infinite loop with a poorly written loop condition, thus exhausting all available memory.
The takeaway is "it depends" and you should use your best judgement. If all you wanted was a second opinion, then I say you're fine.
It's not a good practice to do "real work" in the constructor: you can initialize class members, but you shouldn't call other methods or do more "heavy lifting" in the constructor.
If you need to do some initialization which requires a big amount of code running, a good practice will be to do it in an init() method which will be called after the object was constructed.
The reasoning for not doing heavy lifting inside the constructor is: in case something bad happens, and fails silently, you'll end up having a messed up object and it'll be a nightmare to debug and realize where the issues are coming from.
In the case you describe above I would only do the assignments in the constructor and then, in two separate methods, I would implement the validations and generate the string-information.
Implementing it this way also conforms with SRP: "Single Responsibility Principle" which suggests that any method/function should do one thing, and one thing only.
I'm a little unclear as to how far to take the idea in making all members within a class private and make public methods to handle mutations. Primitive types are not the issue, it's encapsulated object that I am unclear about. The benefit of making object members private is the ability to hide methods that do not apply to the context of class being built. The downside is that you have to provide public methods to pass parameters to the underlying object (more methods, more work). On the otherside, if you want to have all methods and properties exposed for the underlying object, couldn't you just make the object public? What are the dangers in having objects exposed this way?
For example, I would find it useful to have everything from a vector, or Array List, exposed. The only downside I can think of is that public members could potentially assigned a type that its not via implicit casting (or something to that affect). Would a volitile designation reduce the potential for problems?
Just a side note: I understand that true enapsulation implies that members are private.
What are the dangers in having objects exposed this way?
Changing the type of those objects would require changing the interface to the class. With private objects + public getters/setters, you'd only have to modify the code in the getters and setters, assuming you want to keep the things being returned the same.
Note that this is why properties are useful in languages such as Python, which technically doesn't have private class members, only obscured ones at most.
The problem with making instance variables public is that you can never change your mind later, and make them private, without breaking existing code that relies on directly public access to those instance vars. Some examples:
You decide to later make your class thread-safe by synchronizing all access to instance vars, or maybe by using a ThreadLocal to create a new copy of the value for each thread. Can't do it if any thread can directly access the variables.
Using your example of a vector or array list - at some point, you realize that there is a security flaw in your code because those classes are mutable, so somebody else can replace the contents of the list. If this were only available via an accessor method, you could easily solve the problem by making an immutable copy of the list upon request, but you can't do that with a public variable.
You realize later that one of your instance vars is redundant and can be derived based on other variables. Once again, easy if you're using accessors, impossible with public variables.
I think that it boils down to a practical point - if you know that you're the only one who will be using this code, and it pains you to write accessors (every IDE will do it for you automatically), and you don't mind changing your own code later if you decide to break the API, then go for it. But if other people will be using your class, or if you would like to make it easier to refactor later for your own use, stick with accessors.
Object oriented design is just a guideline. Think about it from the perspective of the person who will be using your class. Balance OOD with making it intuitive and easy to use.
You could run into issues depending on the language you are using and how it treats return statements or assignment operators. In some cases it may give you a reference, or values in other cases.
For example, say you have a PrimeCalculator class that figures out prime numbers, then you have another class that does something with those prime numbers.
public PrimeCalculator calculatorObject = new PrimeCalculator();
Vector<int> primeNumbers = calculatorObject.PrimeNumbersVector;
/* do something complicated here */
primeNumbers.clear(); // free up some memory
When you use this stuff later, possibly in another class, you don't want the overhead of calculating the numbers again so you use the same calculatorObject.
Vector<int> primes = calculatorObject.PrimeNumbersVector;
int tenthPrime = primes.elementAt(9);
It may not exactly be clear at this point whether primes and primeNumbers reference the same Vector. If they do, trying to get the tenth prime from primes would throw an error.
You can do it this way if you're careful and understand what exactly is happening in your situation, but you have a smaller margin of error using functions to return a value rather than assigning the variable directly.
Well you can check the post :
first this
then this
This should solve your confusion . It solved mine ! Thanks to Nicol Bolas.
Also read the comments below the accepted answer (also notice the link given in the second last comment by me ( in the first post) )
Also visit the wikipedia post
I often see two conflicting strategies for method interfaces, loosely summarized as follows:
// Form 1: Pass in an object.
double calculateTaxesOwed(TaxForm f) { ... }
// Form 2: Pass in the fields you'll use.
double calculateTaxesOwed(double taxRate, double income) { ... }
// use of form 1:
TaxForm f = ...
double payment = calculateTaxesOwed(f);
// use of form 2:
TaxForm f = ...
double payment = calculateTaxesOwed(f.getTaxRate(), f.getIncome());
I've seen advocates for the second form, particularly in dynamic languages where it may be harder to evaluate what fields are being used.
However, I much prefer the first form: it's shorter, there is less room for error, and if the definition of the object changes later you won't necessarily need to update method signatures, perhaps just change how you work with the object inside the method.
Is there a compelling general case for either form? Are there clear examples of when you should use the second form over the first? Are there SOLID or other OOP principles I can point to to justify my decision to use one form over the other? Do any of the above answers change if you're using a dynamic language?
In all honesty it depends on the method in question.
If the method makes sense without the object, then the second form is easier to re-use and removes a coupling between the two classes.
If the method relies on the object then fair enough pass the object.
There is probably a good argument for a third form where you pass an interface designed to work with that method. Gives you the clarity of the first form with the flexibility of the second.
It depends on the intention of your method.
If the method is designed to work specifically with that object and only that object, pass the object. It makes for a nice encapsulation.
But, if the method is more general purpose, you will probably want to pass the parameters individually. That way, the method is more likely to be reused when the information is coming from another source (i.e. different types of objects or other derived data).
I strongly recommend the second solution - calculateTaxesOwed() calculates some data, hence needs some numerical input. The method has absolutly nothing to do with the user interface and should in turn not consum a form as input, because you want your business logic separated from your user interface.
The method performing the calculation should (usualy) not even belong to the same modul as the user interface. In this case you get a circular dependency because the user interface requires the business logic and the business logic requires the user interface form - a very strong indication that something is wrong (but could be still solved using interface based programming).
UPDATE
If the tax form is not a user interface form, things change a bit. In this case I suggest to expose the value using a instance method GetOwedTaxes() or instance property OwedTaxes of the TaxForm class but I would not use a static method. If the calculation can be reused elsewhere, one could still create a static helper method consuming the values, not the form, and call this helper method from within the instance method or property.
I don't think it really matters. You open yourself to side effects if you pass in the Object as it might be mutated. This might however be what you want. To mitigate this (and to aid testing) you are probably better passing the interface rather than the concrete type. The benefit is that you don't need to change the method signature if you want to access another field of the Object.
Passing all the parameters makes it clearer what the type needs, and might make it easier to test (though if you use the interface this is less of a benefit). But you will have more refactoring.
Judge each situation on its merits and pick the least painful.
Passing just the arguments can be easier to unit test, as you don't need to mock up entire objects full of data just to test functionality that is essentially just static calculation. If there are just two fields being used, of the object's many, I'd lean towards just passing those fields, all else being equal.
That said, when you end up with six, seven or more fields, it's time to consider passing either the whole object or a subset of the fields in a "payload" class (or struct/dictionary, depending on the language's style). Long method signatures are usually confusing.
The other option is to make it a class method, so you don't have to pass anything. It's less convenient to test, but worth considering when your method is only ever used on a TaxForm object's data.
I realize that this is largely an artifact of the example used and so it may not apply in many real-world cases, but, if the function is tied so strongly to a specific class, then shouldn't it be:
double payment = f.calculateTaxesOwed;
It seems more appropriate to me that a tax document would carry the responsibility itself for calculating the relevant taxes rather than having that responsibility fall onto a utility function, particularly given that different tax forms tend to use different tax tables or calculation methods.
One advantage of the first form is
Abstraction - programming to an interface rather than implementation. It makes the maintainance of your code easier in the long run becuase you may change the implementation of TaxForm without affecting the client code as long as the interface of TaxForm does not change.
This is the same as the "Introduce Parameter Object" from Martin Fowler's book on refactoring. Fowler suggests that you perform this refactoring if there are a group of parameters that tend to be passed together.
If you believe in the Law of Demeter, then you would favor passing exactly what is needed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Demeter
http://www.c2.com/cgi/wiki?LawOfDemeter
Separation of UI and Data to be manipulated
In your case, you are missing an intermediate class, say, TaxInfo, representing the entity to be taxed. The reason is that UI (the form) and business logic (how tax rate is calculated) are on two different "change tracks", one changes with presentation technology ("the web", "The web 2.0", "WPF", ...), the other changes with legalese. Define a clear interface between them.
General discussion, using an example:
Consider a function to create a bitmap for a business card. Is the purpose of the function
(1) // Formats a business card title from first name and last name
OR
(2) // Formats a businnes card title from a Person record
The first option is more generic, with a weaker coupling, which is generally preferrable. However, In many cases less robust against change requests - e.g. consider "case 2017: add persons Initial to business card".
Changing the implementation (adding person.Initial) is usually easier and faster than changing the interface.
The choice is ultimately what type of changes you expect: is it more likely that more information from a Personrecord is required, or is it more likely that you want to create business card titles for other data structures than Person?
If that is "undecided", anfd you can't opf for purpose (1) or (2) I'd rather go with (2), for syntactic cleanliness.
If I was made to choose one of the two, I'd always go with the second one - what if you find that you (for whatever reason) need to caculate the taxes owed, but you dont have an instance of TaxForm?
This is a fairly trivial example, however I've seen cases where a method doing a relatively simple task had complex inputs which were difficult to create, making the method far more difficult to use than it should have been. (The author simply hadn't considered that other people might want to use that method!)
Personally, to make the code more readable, I would probbaly have both:
double calculateTaxesOwed(TaxForm f)
{
return calculateTaxesOwed(f.getTaxRate(), f.getIncome());
}
double calculateTaxesOwed(double taxRate, double income) { ... }
My rule of thumb is to wherever possible have a method that takes exactly the input it needs - its very easy to write wrapper methods.
Personally, I'll go with #2 since it's much more clear of what it is that the method need. Passing the TaxForm (if it is what I think it is, like a Windows Form) is sort of smelly and make me cringe a little (>_<).
I'd use the first variation only if you are passing a DTO specific to the calculation, like IncomeTaxCalculationInfo object which will contain the TaxRate and Income and whatever else needed to calculate the final result in the method, but never something like a Windows / Web Form.
Let's say you have a Person object and it has a method on it, promote(), that transforms it into a Captain object. What do you call this type of method/interaction?
It also feels like an inversion of:
myCaptain = new Captain(myPerson);
Edit: Thanks to all the replies. The reason I'm coming across this pattern (in Perl, but relevant anywhere) is purely for convenience. Without knowing any implementation deals, you could say the Captain class "has a" Person (I realize this may not be the best example, but be assured it isn't a subclass).
Implementation I assumed:
// this definition only matches example A
Person.promote() {
return new Captain(this)
}
personable = new Person;
// A. this is what i'm actually coding
myCaptain = personable.promote();
// B. this is what my original post was implying
personable.promote(); // is magically now a captain?
So, literally, it's just a convenience method for the construction of a Captain. I was merely wondering if this pattern has been seen in the wild and if it had a name. And I guess yeah, it doesn't really change the class so much as it returns a different one. But it theoretically could, since I don't really care about the original.
Ken++, I like how you point out a use case. Sometimes it really would be awesome to change something in place, in say, a memory sensitive environment.
A method of an object shouldn't change its class. You should either have a member which returns a new instance:
myCaptain = myPerson->ToCaptain();
Or use a constructor, as in your example:
myCaptain = new Captain(myPerson);
I would call it a conversion, or even a cast, depending on how you use the object. If you have a value object:
Person person;
You can use the constructor method to implicitly cast:
Captain captain = person;
(This is assuming C++.)
A simpler solution might be making rank a property of person. I don't know your data structure or requirements, but if you need to something that is trying to break the basics of a language its likely that there is a better way to do it.
You might want to consider the "State Pattern", also sometimes called the "Objects for States" pattern. It is defined in the book Design Patterns, but you could easily find a lot about it on Google.
A characteristic of the pattern is that "the object will appear to change its class."
Here are some links:
Objects for States
Pattern: State
Everybody seems to be assuming a C++/Java-like object system, possibly because of the syntax used in the question, but it is quite possible to change the class of an instance at runtime in other languages.
Lisp's CLOS allows changing the class of an instance at any time, and it's a well-defined and efficient transformation. (The terminology and structure is slightly different: methods don't "belong" to classes in CLOS.)
I've never heard a name for this specific type of transformation, though. The function which does this is simply called change-class.
Richard Gabriel seems to call it the "change-class protocol", after Kiczales' AMOP, which formalized as "protocols" many of the internals of CLOS for metaprogramming.
People wonder why you'd want to do this; I see two big advantages over simply creating a new instance:
faster: changing class can be as simple as updating a pointer, and updating any slots that differ; if the classes are very similar, this can be done with no new memory allocations
simpler: if a dozen places already have a reference to the old object, creating a new instance won't change what they point to; if you need to update each one yourself, that could add a lot of complexity for what should be a simple operation (2 words, in Lisp)
That's not to say it's always the right answer, but it's nice to have the ability to do this when you want it. "Change an instance's class" and "make a new instance that's similar to that one" are very different operations, and I like being able to say exactly what I mean.
The first interesting part would be to know: why do you want/need an object changes its class at runtime?
There are various options:
You want it to respond differently to some methods for a given state of the application.
You might want it to have new functionality that the original class don't have.
Others...
Statically typed languages such as Java and C# don't allow this to happen, because the type of the object should be know at compile time.
Other programming languages such as Python and Ruby may allow this ( I don't know for sure, but I know they can add methods at runtime )
For the first option, the answer given by Charlie Flowers is correct, using the state patterns would allow a class behave differently but the object will have the same interface.
For the second option, you would need to change the object type anyway and assign it to a new reference with the extra functionality. So you will need to create another distinct object and you'll end up with two different objects.