getters and setters style

Question

(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 ?

Answer 1

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.

Answer 2

I have always preferred to omit the 'get' on my getters, as you do, with rate() instead of getRate(). But overloading for the setter does not seem like a very good idea to me, since the name rate doesn't convey that the object is being mutated. Consider:

total(period() * rate()); // awesome, very clear

rate(20); // Looks like it computes a rate, using '20'...but for what?  And why ignore the return value?