Someone mentioned accessor methods?
Sascha Herrmann
starfox899 at web.de
Tue Mar 9 22:17:03 UTC 2004
Steven T. Hatton wrote:
> Also, C++ers tend to simply use the name of the member field as the name of
> the retrieval (getter) method. Agreed?
>
> What about passing a reference verses passing a value; to the mutator
> (setter)?; as the return value?
>
> What about constness?
>
> Does someone have a paradigm for this they would like to share?
Hi,
i wont claim to set up a paradigm but in my eyes that should look like:
class test {
public:
test();
~test();
// get...
const double& getSize() const;
// set... (for "big" structures or whenever copying takes to long)
void setSize(const double& newValue);
// maybe better for standard types
void setSize(const double newValue);
protected:
double m_Size;
};
setters should be void because modern error handling should be done with
exceptions (that`s what i think!). To improve things further we should
create a template for get/setters so anybody can choose his favorite style.
bye sascha
PS: i am away untill sunday, so do not expect any answers from me next
days ;-)
More information about the KDevelop-devel
mailing list