getter-setter

For example, in the code below, what is the benefit of the getName function? class Node(object): def __init__(self, name): self.name = str(name) def getName(self): return self.name def __str__(self): return self.name There is no benefit. People coming to Python from other languages (e.g., Java) sometimes do this because they're used to it. In Python there is no point to creating these sorts of getters and setters that don't do anything but directly get and set the underlying variable. Properties allow you to transparently swap in logic if at a later time you need to do something more complex

In Java, for example, I can write getters on my own (generated by IDE) or use Annotations like @Getter in lombok - which was pretty simple. Kotlin however has getters and setters by default . But I can't understand how to use them. I want to make it, lets say - similar to Java: private val isEmpty: String get() = this.toString() //making this thing public rises an error: Getter visibility must be the same as property visibility. So how do getters work? Cortwave Getters and setters are auto-generated in Kotlin. If you write: val isEmpty: Boolean It is equal to the following Java code: private

if I have the following private member: private int xIndex; How should I name my getter/setter: getXindex() setXindex(int value) or getxIndex() setxIndex(int value) EDIT: or getXIndex() setXIndex(int value); ? Thomas Einwaller The correct answer is getxIndex() setxIndex(int value) if you want them to be used as properties according to section 8.8: Capitalization of inferred names of the JavaBeans API specification (e.g. access them via ${object.xIndex} in a JSP. Love In accordance with JavaBeans API specification from 1997 it should be as Thomas Einwaller describes. private int xIndex; public

Why is the following C# code not allowed: public abstract class BaseClass { public abstract int Bar { get;} } public class ConcreteClass : BaseClass { public override int Bar { get { return 0; } set {} } } CS0546 'ConcreteClass.Bar.set': cannot override because 'BaseClass.Bar' does not have an overridable set accessor Because the writer of Baseclass has explicitly declared that Bar has to be a read-only property. It doesn't make sense for derivations to break this contract and make it read-write. I'm with Microsoft on this one. Let's say I'm a new programmer who has been told to code against

I have been programming in C# for a while and now I want to brush up on my C++ skills. Having the class: class Foo { const std::string& name_; ... }; What would be the best approach (I only want to allow read access to the name_ field): use a getter method: inline const std::string& name() const { return name_; } make the field public since it's a constant Thanks. Mr Fooz It tends to be a bad idea to make non-const fields public because it then becomes hard to force error checking constraints and/or add side-effects to value changes in the future. In your case, you have a const field, so the