Naming convension for getters and setters in C++

When writing getter and setter methods in standard C++ there are three main approaches for naming.

1. Pure C++ method based on the references.

class Foo {
  Value field_;
public:
  Value& field() { return field_; }
  const Value& field() const { return field_; }
};

Usage:

Foo foo;
foo.field() = field_instance;
field_instance = foo.field();

Pros: brevity, closeness to the property notation and possibility of using in a cascade assignment (foo1.field() = foo2.field() = 2;).

Cons: using the function call on the left looks unusual.

2. Java way

class Foo {
  Value field_;
public:
  void setField(const Value& value) { field_ = value; }
  const Value& getField() const { return field_; }
};

Usage:

Foo foo;
foo.setField(field_instance);
field_instance = foo.getField();

Pros: clarity and obviousness.

Cons: wordiness due to get and set prefixes.

3. Objective-C way

class Foo {
  Value field_;
public:
  void setField(const Value& value) { field_ = value; }
  const Value& field() const { return field_; }
};

Usage:

Foo foo;
foo.setField(field_instance);
field_instance = foo.field();

Pros: brevity (no useless get prefix) and clarify.

Cons: haven’t found so far.

All three have rights to live but from the style perspective it’s good to be consistent and use only one style across one project.

Comments