What's the convention in other objects? I'm fine with either approach
(though I lean toward what Nate is suggesting); as with most style
things, I'm more concerned with consistency than anything else. I'd
be OK with this if it's part of a trend toward doing accessors in this
style globally (in which case this convention should be added to the
style page on the wiki).
Steve
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 11:02 AM, nathan binkert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, Packet and Request have lots of functions called getFoo and
> setFoo. That sort of style has always annoyed me because it requires
> a lot of extra typing and space. e.g.
>
> /// Accessor function for the destination index of the packet.
> short getDest() const { assert(destValid); return dest; }
> /// Accessor function to set the destination index of the packet.
> void setDest(short _dest) { dest = _dest; destValid = true; }
>
> Would there be major objections to changing this to:
>
> /// Accessor function for the destination index of the packet.
> short dest() const { assert(destValid); return _dest; }
> /// Accessor function to set the destination index of the packet.
> void dest(short d) { _dest = d; destValid = true; }
>
> You can tell if it is a get or a set by how it is called. If people
> hate this, we could keep the setDest() version and rename getDest to
> dest().
>
> I can see one major objection to this change being the impact that it
> could have on people porting their own code forward to newer versions
> of M5 after this change. That said, if we're going to be doing any
> major changes to the memory system, now is the time to make this sort
> of change.
>
> Nate
> _______________________________________________
> m5-dev mailing list
> m5-dev@m5sim.org
> http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev
>
_______________________________________________
m5-dev mailing list
m5-dev@m5sim.org
http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev
