## Welcome to the Treehouse Community

Want to collaborate on code errors? Have bugs you need feedback on? Looking for an extra set of eyes on your latest project? Get support with fellow developers, designers, and programmers of all backgrounds and skill levels here with the Treehouse Community! While you're at it, check out some resources Treehouse students have shared here.

### Looking to learn something new?

Treehouse offers a seven day free trial for new students. Get access to thousands of hours of content and join thousands of Treehouse students and alumni in the community today.

# Practice Getters and Setters in JavaScript: Create a setter method called radius inside the Circle class.

I have a question about the following code challenge:

"Challenge Task 1 of 2 Create a setter method called radius inside the Circle class. This method should store the value of the radius using a backing property, _radius. It should also set two additional properties on the Circle class, area, and circumference. These do not need to be backing properties. For the purposes of this challenge, use 3.14 to represent π. The formula for circumference is circumference = 2*π*radius, the formula for area is area = π*r^2. "

The more I read this challenge the more confused I get. Most exercises are clear and obvious but this one has been worded in such a confusing way that I don't understand what it is that you are asking.

I'm pretty sure that it's going to be something small and obvious, but at the moment i'm just not seeing it. I'll keep trying but maybe this challenge should be phrased differently.

Kind regards, Cc

Mother of frustration but I figured it out! This challenge should be described and formulated better.

```class Circle {

this.area = 3.14 * Math.pow(radius, 2);
}

}

const circ = new Circle();
```

this is also valid for area:

```  this.area = 3.14 * radius * radius;
```

Agree...

thanks so much! this worked perfectly, yes the description was a little disorienting to me too lol

Ow! Mother of frustration Feisty!! Hahahahah! I assume the reason why they put it this way is for us to refer line by line. Imagine if it were displayed differently, it can be anything. There are 1001 ways to do it. If you were to read carefully, it's like showing us how to do it in sequence. Like for example :

1). Create a setter method 2). Store value of the radius using backup property. 3). It should also set two additional properties on the Circle class, area, and circumference. (This can be anywhere inside the class Circle) but the key sentence is "These do not need a backing property" meaning its inside of the setter method not outside like how we do with constructor.

4). use 3.14 to represent π 5). The formula for circumference is circumference = 2*π*radius 6). the formula for area is area = π*r^2.

All we have to do now is, to produce the syntax and calculate the Math itself. Using the information in MDN.

To conclude everything, they want us to practice the syntax from creating a class, to getter and setter method.

Thank you so much! That makes perfect sense now! Something as simple as still adding this in front of the area and circumference. It was worded strangely to me as well, but they would be stored in the setter method without the backing property.

Good job figuring it out!

I might have to agree with you regarding the description. It could probably be explained in a more simple way.

Ha, glad to hear you agree. ^_^

Thank you! i couldn't figure it out but now i understand :)

Can someone please change the challenge description to make it clearer as previously requested. I found it confusing as well. Something a bit more verbose. For example, should we just assume r means radius in the area formula? It is spelled out 'radius' in every preceding line.

Maybe you are confuse with π = 3.14 pie, observe very well.

Why do we not need a constructor in this scenario? Are we allowed to just have getters and setters without constructors?

hi everyone! i've also just spent an hour staring at this challenge. Glad i am not alone! Should definitely be worded better!

```}