比Meyers说得啰嗦一点，但我可能会这样做:

class X {

    private:

    // This method MUST NOT be called except from boilerplate accessors.
    Z &_getZ(size_t index) const {
        return something;
    }

    // boilerplate accessors
    public:
    Z &getZ(size_t index)             { return _getZ(index); }
    const Z &getZ(size_t index) const { return _getZ(index); }
};

私有方法有一个不受欢迎的属性，它为const实例返回一个非const的Z&，这就是为什么它是私有的。私有方法可能会破坏外部接口的不变量(在这种情况下，所需的不变量是“一个const对象不能通过引用它所拥有的对象来修改”)。

Note that the comments are part of the pattern - _getZ's interface specifies that it is never valid to call it (aside from the accessors, obviously): there's no conceivable benefit to doing so anyway, because it's 1 more character to type and won't result in smaller or faster code. Calling the method is equivalent to calling one of the accessors with a const_cast, and you wouldn't want to do that either. If you're worried about making errors obvious (and that's a fair goal), then call it const_cast_getZ instead of _getZ.

顺便说一下，我很欣赏梅耶斯的解决方案。我对此没有哲学上的异议。不过，就我个人而言，我更喜欢一点点受控的重复，以及只能在某些严格控制的情况下调用的私有方法，而不是看起来像线噪声的方法。选择你的毒药并坚持下去。

[Edit: Kevin has rightly pointed out that _getZ might want to call a further method (say generateZ) which is const-specialised in the same way getZ is. In this case, _getZ would see a const Z& and have to const_cast it before return. That's still safe, since the boilerplate accessor polices everything, but it's not outstandingly obvious that it's safe. Furthermore, if you do that and then later change generateZ to always return const, then you also need to change getZ to always return const, but the compiler won't tell you that you do.

That latter point about the compiler is also true of Meyers's recommended pattern, but the first point about a non-obvious const_cast isn't. So on balance I think that if _getZ turns out to need a const_cast for its return value, then this pattern loses a lot of its value over Meyers's. Since it also suffers disadvantages compared to Meyers's, I think I would switch to his in that situation. Refactoring from one to the other is easy -- it doesn't affect any other valid code in the class, since only invalid code and the boilerplate calls _getZ.]

有关详细说明，请参阅《Effective c++》第23页第3项“尽可能使用const”中的标题“避免const和非const成员函数中的重复”，由Scott Meyers 3d编辑，ISBN-13: 9780321334879。

以下是Meyers的解决方案(简化版):

struct C {
  const char & get() const {
    return c;
  }
  char & get() {
    return const_cast<char &>(static_cast<const C &>(*this).get());
  }
  char c;
};

这两个类型转换和函数调用可能很难看，但在非const方法中是正确的，因为这意味着对象一开始就不是const对象。(Meyers对此进行了深入的讨论。)

很好的问题和答案。我有另一个解决方案，不使用类型转换:

class X {

private:

    std::vector<Z> v;

    template<typename InstanceType>
    static auto get(InstanceType& instance, std::size_t i) -> decltype(instance.get(i)) {
        // massive amounts of code for validating index
        // the instance variable has to be used to access class members
        return instance.v[i];
    }

public:

    const Z& get(std::size_t i) const {
        return get(*this, i);
    }

    Z& get(std::size_t i) {
        return get(*this, i);
    }

};

但是，它需要一个静态成员，并且需要使用其中的实例变量。

我没有考虑到这个解决方案的所有可能(负面)影响。如果有，请告诉我。

我提出了一个宏，自动生成const/非const函数对。

class A
{
    int x;    
  public:
    MAYBE_CONST(
        CV int &GetX() CV {return x;}
        CV int &GetY() CV {return y;}
    )

    //   Equivalent to:
    // int &GetX() {return x;}
    // int &GetY() {return y;}
    // const int &GetX() const {return x;}
    // const int &GetY() const {return y;}
};

有关实现，请参阅答案的末尾。

MAYBE_CONST的参数被复制。在第一份副本中，CV被替换为空白;在第二个副本中，它被替换为const。

CV在宏参数中出现的次数没有限制。

不过有一点小小的不便。如果CV出现在括号内，这对括号必须以CV_IN作为前缀:

// Doesn't work
MAYBE_CONST( CV int &foo(CV int &); )

// Works, expands to
//         int &foo(      int &);
//   const int &foo(const int &);
MAYBE_CONST( CV int &foo CV_IN(CV int &); )

实现:

#define MAYBE_CONST(...) IMPL_CV_maybe_const( (IMPL_CV_null,__VA_ARGS__)() )
#define CV )(IMPL_CV_identity,
#define CV_IN(...) )(IMPL_CV_p_open,)(IMPL_CV_null,__VA_ARGS__)(IMPL_CV_p_close,)(IMPL_CV_null,

#define IMPL_CV_null(...)
#define IMPL_CV_identity(...) __VA_ARGS__
#define IMPL_CV_p_open(...) (
#define IMPL_CV_p_close(...) )

#define IMPL_CV_maybe_const(seq) IMPL_CV_a seq IMPL_CV_const_a seq

#define IMPL_CV_body(cv, m, ...) m(cv) __VA_ARGS__

#define IMPL_CV_a(...) __VA_OPT__(IMPL_CV_body(,__VA_ARGS__) IMPL_CV_b)
#define IMPL_CV_b(...) __VA_OPT__(IMPL_CV_body(,__VA_ARGS__) IMPL_CV_a)

#define IMPL_CV_const_a(...) __VA_OPT__(IMPL_CV_body(const,__VA_ARGS__) IMPL_CV_const_b)
#define IMPL_CV_const_b(...) __VA_OPT__(IMPL_CV_body(const,__VA_ARGS__) IMPL_CV_const_a)

pre - c++ 20实现，不支持CV_IN:

#define MAYBE_CONST(...) IMPL_MC( ((__VA_ARGS__)) )
#define CV ))((

#define IMPL_MC(seq) \
    IMPL_MC_end(IMPL_MC_a seq) \
    IMPL_MC_end(IMPL_MC_const_0 seq)

#define IMPL_MC_identity(...) __VA_ARGS__
#define IMPL_MC_end(...) IMPL_MC_end_(__VA_ARGS__)
#define IMPL_MC_end_(...) __VA_ARGS__##_end

#define IMPL_MC_a(elem) IMPL_MC_identity elem IMPL_MC_b
#define IMPL_MC_b(elem) IMPL_MC_identity elem IMPL_MC_a
#define IMPL_MC_a_end
#define IMPL_MC_b_end

#define IMPL_MC_const_0(elem)       IMPL_MC_identity elem IMPL_MC_const_a
#define IMPL_MC_const_a(elem) const IMPL_MC_identity elem IMPL_MC_const_b
#define IMPL_MC_const_b(elem) const IMPL_MC_identity elem IMPL_MC_const_a
#define IMPL_MC_const_a_end
#define IMPL_MC_const_b_end

通常，需要使用const版本和非const版本的成员函数是getter和setter。大多数时候它们都是一行程序，所以代码复制不是问题。

我这样做是为了一个朋友，他合理地证明了const_cast的使用…如果我不知道，我可能会这样做(不太优雅):

#include <iostream>

class MyClass
{

public:

    int getI()
    {
        std::cout << "non-const getter" << std::endl;
        return privateGetI<MyClass, int>(*this);
    }

    const int getI() const
    {
        std::cout << "const getter" << std::endl;
        return privateGetI<const MyClass, const int>(*this);
    }

private:

    template <class C, typename T>
    static T privateGetI(C c)
    {
        //do my stuff
        return c._i;
    }

    int _i;
};

int main()
{
    const MyClass myConstClass = MyClass();
    myConstClass.getI();

    MyClass myNonConstClass;
    myNonConstClass.getI();

    return 0;
}