1. The above implementation was clearly intended to include a getter, since a class with only a private field and no way to access it doesn't make sense... 2.

1. The above implementation was clearly intended to include a getter, since a class with only a private field and no way to access it doesn't make sense... 2. Using getters for properties is "idiomatic" Java, or at least it was last I used Java a few years ago... 3. More importantly, here we're comparing equivalent code in different languages and the lisp code specified a reader so I think it's only fair that the Java version should have the equivalent getter.