• Announcements

    • khawk

      Download the Game Design and Indie Game Marketing Freebook   07/19/17

      GameDev.net and CRC Press have teamed up to bring a free ebook of content curated from top titles published by CRC Press. The freebook, Practices of Game Design & Indie Game Marketing, includes chapters from The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, and An Architectural Approach to Level Design. The GameDev.net FreeBook is relevant to game designers, developers, and those interested in learning more about the challenges in game development. We know game development can be a tough discipline and business, so we picked several chapters from CRC Press titles that we thought would be of interest to you, the GameDev.net audience, in your journey to design, develop, and market your next game. The free ebook is available through CRC Press by clicking here. The Curated Books The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, Second Edition, by Jesse Schell Presents 100+ sets of questions, or different lenses, for viewing a game’s design, encompassing diverse fields such as psychology, architecture, music, film, software engineering, theme park design, mathematics, anthropology, and more. Written by one of the world's top game designers, this book describes the deepest and most fundamental principles of game design, demonstrating how tactics used in board, card, and athletic games also work in video games. It provides practical instruction on creating world-class games that will be played again and again. View it here. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, by Joel Dreskin Marketing is an essential but too frequently overlooked or minimized component of the release plan for indie games. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing provides you with the tools needed to build visibility and sell your indie games. With special focus on those developers with small budgets and limited staff and resources, this book is packed with tangible recommendations and techniques that you can put to use immediately. As a seasoned professional of the indie game arena, author Joel Dreskin gives you insight into practical, real-world experiences of marketing numerous successful games and also provides stories of the failures. View it here. An Architectural Approach to Level Design This is one of the first books to integrate architectural and spatial design theory with the field of level design. The book presents architectural techniques and theories for level designers to use in their own work. It connects architecture and level design in different ways that address the practical elements of how designers construct space and the experiential elements of how and why humans interact with this space. Throughout the text, readers learn skills for spatial layout, evoking emotion through gamespaces, and creating better levels through architectural theory. View it here. Learn more and download the ebook by clicking here. Did you know? GameDev.net and CRC Press also recently teamed up to bring GDNet+ Members up to a 20% discount on all CRC Press books. Learn more about this and other benefits here.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Mr Awesome

C++ Mutators

9 posts in this topic

I'm not sure if I'm using the right word here, but I think a mutator is a method that changes the caller rather than returning a modified copy. In ruby, an exclamation point is the standard way to denote that a method is a mutator. Is there any similar way to do this in C++? Of course I could invent my own way, but I was wondering if there was a standard way to do this or if anyone had a good idea.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You just give it a name that tells you what it does.

struct Whatever
{
void ChangeSomeValue(int i); //This is probably a mutator
int ReturnSomeValue(); //This is probably an accessor
};

CM
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The term "destructive function" would be more accurate. "Mutator" usually means something else (a method which sets the value of a field to it's argument).

Anyway, I would use references:

#include <iostream>
void f(int& i) {
i = 1;
}

int main() {
int i = 42;
std::cout << i << std::endl; // Prints 1.
return 0;
}


Although, personally, I would avoid modifying arguments where possible.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A mutator in C++ is any member function which is not declared as const. There's nothing special about the calling syntax, though.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Roboguy
The term "destructive function" would be more accurate. "Mutator" usually means something else (a method which sets the value of a field to it's argument).

Anyway, I would use references:

#include <iostream>
void f(int& i) {
i = 1;
}

int main() {
int i = 42;
std::cout << i << std::endl; // Prints 1.
return 0;
}


Although, personally, I would avoid modifying arguments where possible.


You forgot the call :)
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by raz0r
Quote:
Original post by Roboguy
The term "destructive function" would be more accurate. "Mutator" usually means something else (a method which sets the value of a field to it's argument).

Anyway, I would use references:

#include <iostream>
void f(int& i) {
i = 1;
}

int main() {
int i = 42;
std::cout << i << std::endl; // Prints 1.
return 0;
}


Although, personally, I would avoid modifying arguments where possible.


You forgot the call :)


Bah, good point.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Sneftel
A mutator in C++ is any member function which is not declared as const. There's nothing special about the calling syntax, though.

Right, I'm merely talking about naming conventions here. Also, I'm talking about situations where the intent is ambiguous, not simply getters and setters. Here's an example:


class Vector2D
{
// Does this method normalize the caller and return it
// or return a normalized copy?
Vector2D normalize();
}



With a ton of other methods like this, it would be nice to know which ones change the caller and which do not. Also, you may want one that does and does not, which would require different names to avoid ambiguity. As I said earlier, in ruby, you could name the caller-changing one normalize!() to distinguish, which is very helpful.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, there's quite a few clues available. First, mutators should always have a name which is an imperative statement. "Normalize!" is an order to the object. The most common convention I've seen is to have "Normalize" be a mutator, and "Normalized" return a normalized version of the unchanged vector. Secondly, as I said, mutators are non-const. On a modern IDE, this will show up when you hover over the method invocation or look in the browse window. Lastly, mutators should, in my opinion, always return void. If there's some side effect information which is produced, it should be returned by reference.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
for existing code all you can really do is check if the name hints at something and if it is a void func(one arg),

for my code i usally just use the java nameing convention, though sometimes only use lowercase so i can type faster


class Point
{
int x,y;
public:

void setX(int X){
x=X;
}
int getX(){
return x;
}
void setY(int Y){
y=Y;
}
int getY(){
return y;
}

};



0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Mr Awesome
With a ton of other methods like this, it would be nice to know which ones change the caller and which do not. Also, you may want one that does and does not, which would require different names to avoid ambiguity. As I said earlier, in ruby, you could name the caller-changing one normalize!() to distinguish, which is very helpful.

Returning a *copy* of the result indicates, to me, that the function returns a normalized vector. Simultaneously changing the original vector is useles, so I would not anticipate this behavior. You only ever need one or the other.

Intelligent names and parameters, const-correctness, and a little common sense will basically tell you everything you need to know.

CM
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0