getter和setters样式 [英] getters and setters style

问题描述

我总是倾向于使用函数重载给你同样的名字为getter

  int rate（）{return _rate; } 
 void rate（int value）{_rate = value; } 
 
 //而不是
 int getRate（）{return _rate; } 
 void setRate（int value）{_rate = value; } 
 
 //主要是因为它允许我写出更干净的
 total（period（）* rate（））; 
 //而不是
 setTotal（getPeriod（）* getRate（））; 
  

自然我是正确的，但我想知道图书馆作家是否有什么好的理由？

解决方案

我更喜欢get / set版本，因为它更清楚什么是发生了。如果我看到rate（）和rate（10），我怎么知道rate（10）不是简单地使用10在计算中返回率？我不，所以现在我不得不开始搜索找出发生了什么。单个函数名应该做一件事，而不是两个相反的事情。

另外，正如其他人所指出的，有些人喜欢省略get '，即

  int Rate（）; 
 void SetRate（int value）; 
  

这个约定也很清楚，我不会有任何问题。 >

(Leaving aside the question of should you have them at all.)

I have always preferred to just use function overloading to give you the same name for both getter and setters.

int rate() { return _rate; }      
void rate(int value) { _rate = value; }

// instead of     
int getRate() { return _rate; }      
void setRate(int value) { _rate = value; }

// mainly because it allows me to write the much cleaner     
total( period() * rate() );    
// instead of      
setTotal( getPeriod() * getRate() );

Naturally I am correct, but i wondered if the library writers had any good reason ?

解决方案

I would prefer the get/set versions because it is more clear as to what is going on. If I saw rate() and rate(10), how do I know that rate(10) isn't simply using 10 in the calculation to return the rate? I don't, so now I have to start searching to figure out what is going on. A single function name should do one thing, not two opposing things.

Also, as others have pointed out, some prefer to omit the 'get' and leave the 'set', i.e.,

int Rate( );
void SetRate( int value );

That convention is pretty clear as well, I wouldn't have any problem reading that.

这篇关于getter和setters样式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！