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.]

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;
}

是的，可以避免代码重复。你需要使用const成员函数来拥有逻辑，并让非const成员函数调用const成员函数，并将返回值重新转换为非const引用(或指针，如果函数返回指针):

class X
{
   std::vector<Z> vecZ;

public:
   const Z& z(size_t index) const
   {
      // same really-really-really long access 
      // and checking code as in OP
      // ...
      return vecZ[index];
   }

   Z& z(size_t index)
   {
      // One line. One ugly, ugly line - but just one line!
      return const_cast<Z&>( static_cast<const X&>(*this).z(index) );
   }

 #if 0 // A slightly less-ugly version
   Z& Z(size_t index)
   {
      // Two lines -- one cast. This is slightly less ugly but takes an extra line.
      const X& constMe = *this;
      return const_cast<Z&>( constMe.z(index) );
   }
 #endif
};

注意:重要的是，不要将逻辑放在非const函数中，并让const函数调用非const函数——这可能会导致未定义的行为。原因是常量类实例被转换为非常量实例。非const成员函数可能会意外地修改类，c++标准状态将导致未定义的行为。

使用预处理器是作弊吗?

struct A {

    #define GETTER_CORE_CODE       \
    /* line 1 of getter code */    \
    /* line 2 of getter code */    \
    /* .....etc............. */    \
    /* line n of getter code */       

    // ^ NOTE: line continuation char '\' on all lines but the last

   B& get() {
        GETTER_CORE_CODE
   }

   const B& get() const {
        GETTER_CORE_CODE
   }

   #undef GETTER_CORE_CODE

};

它不像模板或类型转换那么花哨，但它确实使您的意图(“这两个函数是相同的”)非常明确。

对于那些(像我一样)

使用c++ 17 想要添加最少的样板文件/重复和 不介意使用宏(在等待元类时…)，

下面是另一种说法:

#include <utility>
#include <type_traits>

template <typename T> struct NonConst;
template <typename T> struct NonConst<T const&> {using type = T&;};
template <typename T> struct NonConst<T const*> {using type = T*;};

#define NON_CONST(func)                                                     \
    template <typename... T> auto func(T&&... a)                            \
        -> typename NonConst<decltype(func(std::forward<T>(a)...))>::type   \
    {                                                                       \
        return const_cast<decltype(func(std::forward<T>(a)...))>(           \
            std::as_const(*this).func(std::forward<T>(a)...));              \
    }

它基本上是@Pait， @DavidStone和@sh1的答案的混合(编辑:和@cdhowie的改进)。它向表中添加的是，你只需要额外的一行代码，它只是简单地命名函数(但没有参数或返回类型重复):

class X
{
    const Z& get(size_t index) const { ... }
    NON_CONST(get)
};

注意:gcc在8.1之前编译失败，clang-5及以上版本以及MSVC-19都很高兴(根据编译器资源管理器)。

这篇DDJ文章展示了一种不需要使用const_cast就可以使用模板专门化的方法。对于这样一个简单的函数，它确实是不需要的。

Boost::any_cast(在某一时刻，它不再使用)使用const版本的const_cast调用非const版本以避免重复。你不能把const语义强加在非const版本上，所以你必须非常小心。

最后，一些代码复制是可以的，只要这两个代码段直接在彼此之上。