公共静态const变量是否破坏了封装意识形态？ [英] Does a public static const variable break the encapsulation ideology?

问题描述

我总是在为类中的值是否应该为 static 和 const 的决定而苦恼

I always seem to struggle with the decision of whether a value in a class which should be static and const should be public or private with a static public method for access.

class DeepThought
{
public:
    static const int TheAnswer = 42;
};

对比：

class DeepThought
{
public:
    static int GetTheAnswer() { return TheAnswer; }
private:
    static const int TheAnswer = 42;
};

我想要以第一种方式进行操作，但位于我内心深处即使它的值不变，也感觉它破坏了封装。第二种方法似乎似乎并没有真正在表中添加任何东西，并且不必要地使代码混乱。

I want to do it the first way, but somewhere deep inside me feels like it breaks encapsulation even though its a constant value. The second way just seems like it doesn't really add anything to the table though and needlessly clutters up the code.

所以我问，这两者之间有什么本质上的错误吗

So I ask, is there anything fundamentally wrong with either choice and if so, what?

推荐答案

从纯粹的理论意义上讲，第二种选择更为正确。在实际意义上，我同意您的观点-用getter函数包装常数值是没有用的，而且无论如何都会被编译器删除。

In a purely theoretical sense, the second option is the more correct. In the practical sense, I agree with you - wrapping the constant value with a getter function is useless and will be removed by the compiler anyway.

根据我的经验，有时

最后一点要注意的是，我们以前通常使用枚举：

And a final note - we used to use enums for this:

enum CONSTS
{
    TheAnswer = 42,
};

这篇关于公共静态const变量是否破坏了封装意识形态？的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！