From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-03-25 16:13:47
Julio M. Merino Vidal wrote:
> [ I'm not sure this really belongs to this list (as opposed to some C+
> + generic list), but as it is related to some comments I received a
> while ago from this list, I'm posting it here. ]
> Back when I presented Boost.Process 0.1 past year, I used getters for
> all class members that had to be exposed to the library user.
> However, some reviewers commented that it was "ugly" to provide
> getters that just returned a member's value. I tried to change most
> of those instances to constant members that could be queried
> directly, but I still have doubts whether that was the correct way to
> Here are my reasons supporting getters: snip...
Getters are far superior to const members for all the reasons you cited,
plus this one: often data does not reside as a member of an object but
must be created at run-time when requested. This last is a perfectly
logical reason for getters, and for the 'property' notion in general.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk