From kdevelop-devel  Tue Mar 09 21:15:54 2004
From: Sascha Herrmann <starfox899 () web ! de>
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2004 21:15:54 +0000
To: kdevelop-devel
Subject: Re: Someone mentioned accessor methods?
Message-Id: <404E340A.3000809 () web ! de>
X-MARC-Message: https://marc.info/?l=kdevelop-devel&m=107886709010442

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 ;-)

_______________________________________________
Kdevelop-devel mailing list
Kdevelop-devel@barney.cs.uni-potsdam.de
http://barney.cs.uni-potsdam.de/mailman/listinfo/kdevelop-devel