Is defining get/set methods for every field overkill?

thebluepandabear therealbluepandabear at protonmail.com
Sat Nov 19 03:05:49 UTC 2022


On Saturday, 19 November 2022 at 03:04:41 UTC, thebluepandabear 
wrote:
> On Saturday, 19 November 2022 at 00:25:57 UTC, Gavin Ray wrote:
>> On Thursday, 17 November 2022 at 09:52:11 UTC, Dukc wrote:
>>
>>> D has far less need for getters/setters than Java or C++. The 
>>> reason is [Uniform Function Call 
>>> Syntax](https://ddili.org/ders/d.en/ufcs.html). This means 
>>> that a member of a `struct` or `class` can start out as a 
>>> normal field and be later converted to getter/setter if 
>>> needed, without breaking calling code.
>>
>> This is a great point that I actually had never considered. If 
>> you need to swap out the implementation details later, you 
>> haven't actually locked yourself in to exposing the raw member 
>> because you swap it with a getter function/property of the 
>> same name. Huh. I love D.
>
> Interesting point. If that's the case, I'd say getters/setters 
> are mostly just code bloat.

*in most circumstances where no special behavior is needed btw


More information about the Digitalmars-d-learn mailing list