From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-03-25 14:43:15
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
Your doubts are well founded...
> Here are my reasons supporting getters:
> - The getter is overall suppressed, thus removing a level of
> - Err, what else?
> Most of the work of converting getters to constant members was
> already done in the Subversion repository, but there still are some
> methods that were not converted. Before switching these, I'd like to
> reach a conclusion whether this is the way to go or not.
The standard library uses 'getters' to describe almost all class interfaces I
can think of. So I'd go back the original approach.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk