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。

要添加到jwfearn和kevin提供的解决方案，下面是函数返回shared_ptr时对应的解决方案:

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

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。

我建议使用私有helper静态函数模板，如下所示:

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

    // ReturnType is explicitly 'Z&' or 'const Z&'
    // ThisType is deduced to be 'X' or 'const X'
    template <typename ReturnType, typename ThisType>
    static ReturnType Z_impl(ThisType& self, size_t index)
    {
        // massive amounts of code for validating index
        ReturnType ret = self.vecZ[index];
        // even more code for determining, blah, blah...
        return ret;
    }

public:
    Z& Z(size_t index)
    {
        return Z_impl<Z&>(*this, index);
    }
    const Z& Z(size_t index) const
    {
        return Z_impl<const Z&>(*this, index);
    }
};

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.]

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。