Are Get and Set Functions Popular with C++ Programmers

Are accessors (get and set functions) popular with C++ programmers?

I'd argue that providing accessors are more important in C++ than in C#.

C++ has no builtin support for properties. In C# you can change a public field to a property mostly without changing the user code. In C++ this is harder.

For less typing you can implement trivial setters/getters as inline methods:

class Foo
{
public:
    const std::string& bar() const { return _bar; } 
    void bar(const std::string& bar) { _bar = bar; } 
private:
    std::string _bar;
};

And don't forget that getters and setters are somewhat evil.

Getters and setters in pure C?

First of all, don't listen to anyone saying "there is no object-orientation in language x" because they have truly not understood that OO is a program design method, completely apart from language syntax.

Some languages have elegant ways to implement OO, some have not. Yet it is possible to write an object-oriented program in any language, for example in C. Similarly, your program will not automagically get a proper OO design just because you wrote it in Java, or because you used certain language keywords.

The way you implement private encapsulation in C is a bit more crude than in languages with OO support, but it does like this:

// module.h

void set_x (int n);
int get_x (void);

// module.c

static int x; // private variable

void set_x (int n)
{
  x = n;
}

int get_x (void)
{
  return x;
}

// main.c

#include "module.h"

int main (void)
{
  set_x(5);
  printf("%d", get_x());
}

Can call it "class" or "ADT" or "code module" as you prefer.

This is how every reasonable C program out there is written. And has been written for the past 30-40 years or so, as long as program design has existed. If you say there are no setters/getters in a C program, then that is because you have no experience of using C.

C++ getters/setters coding style

It tends to be a bad idea to make non-const fields public because it then becomes hard to force error checking constraints and/or add side-effects to value changes in the future.

In your case, you have a const field, so the above issues are not a problem. The main downside of making it a public field is that you're locking down the underlying implementation. For example, if in the future you wanted to change the internal representation to a C-string or a Unicode string, or something else, then you'd break all the client code. With a getter, you could convert to the legacy representation for existing clients while providing the newer functionality to new users via a new getter.

I'd still suggest having a getter method like the one you have placed above. This will maximize your future flexibility.

Allen Holub wrote You should never use get/set functions, is he correct?

I don't have a problem with Holub telling you that you should generally avoid altering the state of an object but instead resort to integrated methods (execution of behaviors) to achieve this end. As Corletk points out, there is wisdom in thinking long and hard about the highest level of abstraction and not just programming thoughtlessly with getters/setters that just let you do an end-run around encapsulation.

However, I have a great deal of trouble with anyone who tells you that you should "never" use setters or should "never" access primitive types. Indeed, the effort required to maintain this level of purity in all cases can and will end up causing more complexity in your code than using appropriately implemented properties. You just have to have enough sense to know when you are skirting the rules for short-term gain at the expense of long-term pain.

Holub doesn't trust you to know the difference. I think that knowing the difference is what makes you a professional.

Conventions for accessor methods (getters and setters) in C++

From my perspective as sitting with 4 million lines of C++ code (and that's just one project) from a maintenance perspective I would say:

• It's ok to not use getters/setters if members are immutable (i.e. const) or simple with no dependencies (like a point class with members X and Y).

• If member is private only it's also ok to skip getters/setters. I also count members of internal pimpl-classes as private if the .cpp unit is smallish.

• If member is public or protected (protected is just as bad as public) and non-const, non-simple or has dependencies then use getters/setters.

As a maintenance guy my main reason for wanting to have getters/setters is because then I have a place to put break points / logging / something else.

I prefer the style of alternative 2. as that's more searchable (a key component in writing maintainable code).

What is the { get; set; } syntax in C#?

It's a so-called auto property, and is essentially a shorthand for the following (similar code will be generated by the compiler):

private string name;
public string Name
{
    get
    {
        return this.name;
    }
    set
    {
        this.name = value;
    }
}

Public Data members vs Getters, Setters

Neither. You should have methods that do things. If one of those things happens to correspond with a specific internal variable that's great but there should be nothing that telegraphs this to the users of your class.

Private data is private so you can replace the implementation whenever you wish (and can do full rebuilds but that's a different issue). Once you let the Genie out of the bottle you will find it impossible to push it back in.

EDIT: Following a comment I made to another answer.

My point here is that you are asking the wrong question. There is no best practice with regard to using getters/setters or having public members. There is only what is best for your specific object and how it models some specific real world thing (or imaginary thing perhaps in the case of game).

Personally getters/setters are the lesser of two evils. Because once you start making getters/setters, people stop designing objects with a critical eye toward what data should be visible and what data should not. With public members it is even worse because the tendency becomes to make everything public.

Instead, examine what the object does and what it means for something to be that object. Then create methods that provide a natural interface into that object. It that natural interface involves exposing some internal properties using getters and setters so be it. But the important part is that you thought about it ahead of time and created the getters/setters for a design justified reason.

How a function can set and get information from a struct in C

you invoke an UB because _name & _family are pointers that point to memory you don't own (because you haven't malloced it)

try changing it to

typedef struct Information{
  int _id;
  char _name[SOME_SIZE_1];
  char _family[SOME_SIZE_2];
}Information;`

Or, if you want to stay with pointers instead of arrays, you should malloc it before using the pointers, so in your set function, add 2 malloc statements:

void setInformation(Information* arg_struct){
  arg_struct->_name = malloc(SOME_SIZE_1);
  arg_struct->_family = malloc(SOME_SIZE_2);
  printf("What is your name? ");
  scanf("%s %s", arg_struct->_name, arg_struct->_family);
  printf("What is your id? ");
  scanf("%d", &arg_struct->_id);
}

but if you are allocating memory, don't forget to free it when you are done

---

Related Topics