c++ 23更新了这个问题的最佳答案，因为推导出了这个:

struct s {
    auto && f(this auto && self) {
        // all the common code goes here
    }
};

单个函数模板可作为普通成员函数调用，并为您推导正确的引用类型。没有错误的类型转换，没有为一个概念上的东西编写多个函数。

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。

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。

如果你不喜欢const强制转换，我使用这个c++ 17版本的模板静态帮助器函数，由另一个答案建议，并带有可选的SFINAE测试。

#include <type_traits>

#define REQUIRES(...)         class = std::enable_if_t<(__VA_ARGS__)>
#define REQUIRES_CV_OF(A,B)   REQUIRES( std::is_same_v< std::remove_cv_t< A >, B > )

class Foobar {
private:
    int something;

    template<class FOOBAR, REQUIRES_CV_OF(FOOBAR, Foobar)>
    static auto& _getSomething(FOOBAR& self, int index) {
        // big, non-trivial chunk of code...
        return self.something;
    }

public:
    auto& getSomething(int index)       { return _getSomething(*this, index); }
    auto& getSomething(int index) const { return _getSomething(*this, index); }
};

完整版:https://godbolt.org/z/mMK4r3

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;
}