Accessor Methods vs Jump to the code | String const vs String

[marcoesteves]

Hello guys,
I'm learning c++ and I'm trying to implement it on the correct way.
However, I found different approachs, and sometimes with opposite directions.

I'm using this "standard" class implemention, which is described on the c++ annotations .

    #include <string>

    class Person
    {
        std::string d_name;         // name of person
        std::string d_address;      // address field
        std::string d_phone;        // telephone number
        size_t      d_mass;         // the mass in kg.

        public:                     // member functions
            void setName(std::string const &name);
            void setAddress(std::string const &address);
            void setPhone(std::string const &phone);
            void setMass(size_t mass);

            std::string const &name()    const;
            std::string const &address() const;
            std::string const &phone()   const;
            size_t mass()                const;
    };

Of course, that I'm using namespace std , but I follow this "prescription".

What do you think about it? Is it worthing?
Should I use string const with a pointer or simply use the string type passing values instead of references?

Do I really need set_variables? Probably this turns everything more difficult when I'll try to handle a different type of constructor (like I describe in this post Constructors and Conditionals)

[laserlight]

What do you think about it? Is it worthing?

It looks okay, though you probably want to provide a default constructor that does something more reasonable than just default construct everything, or disable it. Oh, and then you might want to provide a constructor to initialise the variable member variables appropriately.

Should I use string const with a pointer or simply use the string type passing values instead of references?

Do not use pointers here. Using pass by const reference is fine.

Do I really need set_variables? Probably this turns everything more difficult when I'll try to handle a different type of constructor

You do not necessarily need a setter for each member variable (and in fact if all your setters do nothing more than return the member variable, then you don't gain much over just having public member variables). It depends on what exactly you are trying to model.