Wouldn't that increase the class size by one pointer value?

 

One could alternatively provide a function instead

 

const int& readOnlyValue() { return value; }

 

That would also survive a trivial copy.
 

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Oskars Putans via Std-Proposals <std-proposals@lists.isocpp.org>
Gesendet: Mo 16.12.2024 11:11
Betreff: Re: [std-proposals] New access specifiers
An: std-proposals@lists.isocpp.org;
CC: Oskars Putans <o.putaans@gmail.com>;

What if you used

 

class Foo {

private:

  int value;

public:

  const int& readOnlyValue = value;

};

 

as a way of exposing a const version?

 

It might not work in all use cases as it does remove std::is_trivially_assignable trait from

the class, but this gets rid of an explicit getter and reduces boilerplate. If you want to support assignment, you need to write your own overloads. This method is slightly shady, however, as other developers might make

the assumption that this value won't change. I would rather use getters for this, but this is one alternative you can consider. Realistically, as a proposal to core cpp, there's a very low likelihood that this would make the cut. 

-- 
 Std-Proposals mailing list
 Std-Proposals@lists.isocpp.org
 https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals
 

--
Std-Proposals mailing list
Std-Proposals@lists.isocpp.org
https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals