set/get methods in C++

Java programmers and API seems to favor explicit set/get methods.

however I got the impression C+开发者_如何转开发+ community frowns upon such practice. If it is so,is there a particular reason (besides more lines of code) why this is so?

on the other hand, why does Java community choose to use methods rather than direct access?

Thank you

A well designed class should ideally not have too many gets and sets. In my opinion, too many gets and sets are basically an indication of the fact that someone else (and potentially many of them) need my data to achieve their purpose. In that case, why does that data belong to me in the first place? This violates the basic principle of encapsulation (data + operations in one logical unit).

So, while there is no technical restriction and (in fact abundance of) 'set' and 'get' methods, I would say that you should pause and reinspect your design if you want too many of those 'get' and 'set' in your class interface used by too many other entities in your system.

There are occasions when getters/setters are appropriate but an abundance of getters/setters typically indicate that your design fails to achieve any higher level of abstraction.

Typically it's better (in regards to encapsulation) to exhibit higher level operations for your objects that does not make the implementation obvious to the user.

Some other possible reasons why it's not as common in C++ as in Java:

• The Standard Library does not use it.
• Bjarne Stroustrup expresses his dislike towards it (last paragraph):

  I particularly dislike classes with a lot of get and set functions. That is often an indication that it shouldn't have been a class in the first place. It's just a data structure. And if it really is a data structure, make it a data structure.

The usual argument against get/set methods is that if you have both and they're just trivial return x; and x = y; then you haven't actually encapsulated anything at all; you may as well just make the member public which saves a whole lot of boilerplate code.

Obviously there are cases where they still make sense; if you need to do something special in them, or you need to use inheritance or, particularly, interfaces.

There is the advantage that if you implement getters/setters you can change their implementation later without having to alter code that uses them. I suppose the frowning on it you refer to is kind of a YAGNI thing that if there's no expectation of ever altering the functions that way, then there's little benefit to having them. In many cases you can just deal with the case of altering the implementation later anyway.

I wasn't aware that the C++ community frowned on them any more or less than the Java community; my impression is that they're rather less common in languages like Python, for example.

I think the reason the C++ community frowns on getters and setters is that C++ offers far better alternatives. For example:

template <class T>
class DefaultPredicate
{
public:
  static bool CheckSetter (T value)
  {
    return true;
  }
  static void CheckGetter (T value)
  {
  }
};

template <class T, class Predicate = DefaultPredicate <T>>
class Property
{
public:
  operator T ()
  {
    Predicate::CheckGetter (m_storage);
    return m_storage;
  }
  Property <T, Predicate> &operator = (T rhs)
  {
    if (Predicate::CheckSetter (rhs))
    {
      m_storage = rhs;
    }
    return *this;
  }
private:
  T m_storage;
};

which can then be used like this:

class Test
{
public:
  Property <int> TestData;
  Property <int> MoreTestData;
};

int main ()
{
  Test
    test;

  test.TestData = 42;
  test.MoreTestData = 24;
  int value = test.TestData;
  bool check = test.TestData == test.MoreTestData;
}

Notice that I added a predicate parameter to the property class. With this, we can get creative, for example, a property to hold an integer colour channel value:

class NoErrorHandler
{
public:
  static void SignalError (const char *const error)
  {
  }
};

class LogError
{
public:
  static void SignalError (const char *const error)
  {
    std::cout << error << std::endl;
  }
};

class Exception
{
public:
  Exception (const char *const message) :
    m_message (message)
  {
  }

  operator const char *const ()
  {
    return m_message;
  }

private:
  const char
    *const m_message;
};

class ThrowError
{
public:
  static void SignalError (const char *const error)
  {
    throw new Exception (error);
  }
};

template <class ErrorHandler = NoErrorHandler>
class RGBValuePredicate : public DefaultPredicate <int>
{
public:
  static bool CheckSetter (int rhs)
  {
    bool
      setter_ok = true;

    if (rhs < 0 || rhs > 255)
    {
      ErrorHandler::SignalError ("RGB value out of range.");
      setter_ok = false;
    }

    return setter_ok;
  }
};

and it can be used like this:

class Test
{
public:
  Property <int, RGBValuePredicate <> > RGBValue1;
  Property <int, RGBValuePredicate <LogError> > RGBValue2;
  Property <int, RGBValuePredicate <ThrowError> > RGBValue3;
};

int main ()
{
  Test
    test;

  try
  {
    test.RGBValue1 = 4;
    test.RGBValue2 = 5;
    test.RGBValue3 = 6;
    test.RGBValue1 = 400;
    test.RGBValue2 = 500;
    test.RGBValue3 = -6;
  }
  catch (Exception *error)
  {
    std::cout << "Exception: " << *error << std::endl;
  }
}

Notice that I made the handling of bad values a template parameter as well.

Using this as a starting point, it can be extended in many different ways.

For example, allow the storage of the property to be different to the public type of the value - so the RGBValue above could use an unsigned char for storage but an int interface.

Another example is to change the predicate so that it can alter the setter value. In the RGBValue above this could be used to clamp values to the range 0 to 255 rather than generate an error.

Properties as a general language concept technically predate C++, e.g. in Smalltalk, but they weren't ever part of the standard. Getters and setters were a concept used in C++ when it was used for development of UI's, but truth be told, it's an expensive proposition to develop UI's in what is effectively a systems language. The general problem with getters and setters in C++ was that, since they weren't a standard, everybody had a different standard.

And in systems languages, where efficiency concerns are high, then it's just easier to make the variable itself public, although there's a lot of literature that frowns mightily on that practice. Often, you simply see richer exchanges of information between C++ object instances than simple items.

You'll probably get a lot of viewpoints in response to this question, but in general, C++ was meant to be C that did objects, making OOP accessable to developers that didn't know objects. It was hard enough to get virtuals and templates into the language, and I think that it's been kind of stagnant for a while.

Java differs because in the beginning, with what Java brought in areas like garbage collection, it was easier to promote the philosophy of robust encapsulation, i.e. external entities should keep their grubby little paws off of internal elements of a class.

I admit this is pretty much opinion - at this time I use C++ for highly optimized stuff like 3D graphics pipelines - I already have to manage all my object memory, so I'd take a dim view of fundamentally useless code that just serves to wrap storage access up in additional functions - that said, the basic performance capabilies of runtimes like the MSFT .net ILM make that a position that can be difficult to defend at times

Purely my 2c

There's nothing unusual about having explicit set/get methods in C++. I've seen it in plenty of C++, it can be very useful to not allow direct access to data members.

Check out this question for an explanation of why Java tends to prefer them and the reasons for C++ are the same. In short: it allows you to change the way data members are accessed without forcing client code (code that uses your code) to recompile. It also allows you to enforce a specific policy for how to access data and what to do when that data is accessed.

By mandating the use of set/get methods, one can implement useful side-effects in the getter/setter (for example, when the argument to get/set is an object).

I am surprised nobody has mentioned Java introspection and beans yet.

Using get.../set... naming convention combined with introspection allows all sorts of clever trickery with utility classes.

I personally feel that the "public" keyword should have been enough to trigger the bean magic but I am not Ray Gosling.

My take on this is that in C++ is a rather pointless exercise. You are adding at least six lines of code to test and maintain which perform no purpose and will for the most part be ignored by the compiler. It doesnt really protect your class from misuse and abuse unless you add a lot more coding.

I don't think the C++ community frowned on using getters and setters. They are almost always a good idea.

It has to do with the basics of object oriented programming - hiding the internals of an object from its users. The users of an object should not need to know (nor should they care) about the internals of an object.

It also gives you control over what is done whenever a user of your object tries to read/write to it. In effect, you expose an interface to the object's users. They have to use that interface and you control what happens when methods in that interface are called - the getters and setters would be part of the interface.

It just makes things easier when debugging. A typical scenario is when your object lands up in a weird state and you're debugging to find out how it got there. All you do is set breakpoints in your getters and setters and assuming all else is fine, you're able to see how your object gets to the weird state. If your object's users are all directly accessing its members, figuring out when your object's state changes becomes a lot harder (though not impossible)

I would argue that C++ needs getters/setters more than Java.

In Java, if you start with naked field access, and later you changed your mind, you want getter/setter instead, it is extremely easy to find all the usages of the field, and refactor them into getter/setter.

in C++, this is not that easy. The language is too complex, IDEs simply can't reliably do that.

so In C++, you better get it right the first time. In Java, you can be more adventurous.

There were gets/sets long before java. There are many reasons to use them, especially, if you have to recalculate sth. wenn a value changes. So the first big advantage is, that you can watch to value changes. But imho its bad to ALWAYS implement get and set-often a get is enough. Another point is, that class changes will directly affect your customers. You cant change member names without forcing to refactor the clients code with public members. Lets say, you have an object with a lenght and you change this member name...uh. With a getter, you just change you side of the code and the client can sleep well. Adding gets/Sets for members that should be hidden is of course nonsense.