Is defining get/set methods for every field overkill?

[thebluepandabear]

On Saturday, 19 November 2022 at 03:52:41 UTC, thebluepandabear 
wrote:
> On Saturday, 19 November 2022 at 03:39:18 UTC, []() {}() wrote:
>> On Saturday, 19 November 2022 at 03:22:12 UTC, 
>> thebluepandabear wrote:
>>> On Saturday, 19 November 2022 at 03:19:53 UTC, []() {}() 
>>> 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.
>>>>> ..
>>>>
>>>> can you give an example please.
>>>>
>>>> i.e. before (class with public member) and after ( i.e. that 
>>>> public member converted to getter/setter).
>>>
>>> Did you read the link provided? There's examples there...
>>
>> it's say for member functions, not member variables.
>>
>> I read it, but I dont get the point was being made about how 
>> use ufcs to convert a public member variable of a class type 
>> into a getter and setter. Was there an example in the link 
>> that I missed?
>
> It's actually kind of hard to wrap my head around.
>
> I will try to give you an example as to how you could convert a 
> field into a getter/setter without breaking the interface 
> between the user of the library, though it does require code 
> refactoring on your end.
>
> Say you have the class Rect2D:
>
> ```
> class Rect2D {
>     int width;
>     int height;
> }
> ```
>
> The users of your class would use it like so:
>
> ```
> Rect2D rect = new Rect2D();
> rect.width = 5;
> rect.height = 5;
> ```
>
> Say you want to write 'SET' now whenever someone sets a 
> width/height value for the rect (as an example), and 'GET' when 
> someone gets the width/height value for the rect, what you 
> could do is do this:
>
> ```
> class Rect2D {
>     int rectWidth;
>     int rectHeight;
>
>     int width() {
>         writeln("GET");
>         return rectWidth;
>     }
>
>     void width(int rectWidth) {
>         writeln("SET");
>         this.rectWidth = rectWidth;
>     }
>
>     int height() {
>         writeln("GET");
>         return rectHeight;
>     }
>
>     void height(int rectHeight) {
>         writeln("SET");
>         this.rectHeight = rectHeight;
>     }
> }
> ```
>
> Honestly, it may not be a magic bullet, but still useful.

The only caveat (and I am a noob to D, so don't take any sort of 
advice from me seriously, please) seems to be that you just need 
to change the field name on your end.