Conventions for accessor methods (getters and setters) in C++

user_428828 0
Viewed 84583

Several questions about accessor methods in C++ have been asked on SO, but none was able satisfy my curiosity on the issue.

I try to avoid accessors whenever possible, because, like Stroustrup and other famous programmers, I consider a class with many of them a sign of bad OO. In C++, I can in most cases add more responsibility to a class or use the friend keyword to avoid them. Yet in some cases, you really need access to specific class members.

There are several possibilities:

1. Don't use accessors at all

We can just make the respective member variables public. This is a no-go in Java, but seems to be OK with the C++ community. However, I'm a bit worried about cases were an explicit copy or a read-only (const) reference to an object should be returned, is that exaggerated?

2. Use Java-style get/set methods

I'm not sure if it's from Java at all, but I mean this:

int getAmount(); // Returns the amount
void setAmount(int amount); // Sets the amount

3. Use objective C-style get/set methods

This is a bit weird, but apparently increasingly common:

int amount(); // Returns the amount
void amount(int amount); // Sets the amount

In order for that to work, you will have to find a different name for your member variable. Some people append an underscore, others prepend "m_". I don't like either.

Which style do you use and why?

accessor setter getter c++
10 Answers

variation on #3, i'm told this could be 'fluent' style

class foo {
  private: int bar;
  private: int narf;
  public: foo & bar(int);
  public: int bar();
  public: foo & narf(int);
  public: int narf();
};

//multi set (get is as expected)
foo f; f.bar(2).narf(3);
user_139854810
Related