I tend to agree accessor functions are technically superior, I was just pointing out that it's different from most (all?) of the rest of the API. I have no objection to leaving the functions, only with the doc-comments not explaining properly what the functions do in isolation.

The functions are simple setter and getter functions so the doc comment says what they are doing already. The setter and getter function do not implement the logic behind the config setting. That is split over several other functions. Explaining the config setting is IMHO a different thing and should maybe be placed in/or above the struct definition which is the only distinct place for it.

—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.