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。

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。

我认为Scott Meyers的解决方案可以在c++ 11中通过使用tempate helper函数进行改进。这使得意图更加明显，并且可以被许多其他getter重用。

template <typename T>
struct NonConst {typedef T type;};
template <typename T>
struct NonConst<T const> {typedef T type;}; //by value
template <typename T>
struct NonConst<T const&> {typedef T& type;}; //by reference
template <typename T>
struct NonConst<T const*> {typedef T* type;}; //by pointer
template <typename T>
struct NonConst<T const&&> {typedef T&& type;}; //by rvalue-reference

template<typename TConstReturn, class TObj, typename... TArgs>
typename NonConst<TConstReturn>::type likeConstVersion(
   TObj const* obj,
   TConstReturn (TObj::* memFun)(TArgs...) const,
   TArgs&&... args) {
      return const_cast<typename NonConst<TConstReturn>::type>(
         (obj->*memFun)(std::forward<TArgs>(args)...));
}

可以通过以下方式使用此helper函数。

struct T {
   int arr[100];

   int const& getElement(size_t i) const{
      return arr[i];
   }

   int& getElement(size_t i) {
      return likeConstVersion(this, &T::getElement, i);
   }
};

第一个参数总是this指针。第二个是指向要调用的成员函数的指针。在此之后，可以传递任意数量的附加参数，以便将它们转发给函数。 这需要c++ 11，因为有可变模板。

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。)

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;
}