Is it generally acceptable to allow a Visitor to modify state of the Receiver, or should that be a Command pattern instead?
Share
Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.
Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.
Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.
Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.
Is it generally acceptable to allow a Visitor to modify state of the Receiver, or should that be a Command pattern instead?
The purpose of the visitor pattern is to allow new operations to be added to a class heirarchy without modification to that heirarchy. I’ve never seen anyone suggesting that only read-only operations are acceptable. The only limitation is that the added operations should only use the public interface of the class heirarchy.