C++: how to make getters and setters work with an empty constructor - c++

Question

First of all, I have only learned a little bit of Java before. It's been only a few days since I started getting friendly with C++ so please don't take this question so basic and please don't degrade my question.
I made a simple source code as follows:
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
class Car {
public:
void setBrand(string name);
void setPrice(double price);
string getBrand();
double getPrice();
Car();
Car(string name);
Car(string name, double price);
private:
string name;
double price;
};
Car::Car() {
}
Car::Car(string name) {
name = name;
}
Car::Car(string name, double price) {
name = name;
price = price;
}
void Car::setBrand(string name) {
name = name;
}
void Car::setPrice(double price) {
price = price;
}
string Car::getBrand(void) {
return name;
}
double Car::getPrice(void) {
return price;
}
int main() {
Car car;
car.setBrand("Nissan");
car.setPrice(30000);
cout << "Brand: " << car.getBrand() << endl;
cout << "Price: " << car.getPrice() << endl;
return 0;
}
I wanted to make a code that creates an empty instance of a class called Car, set the field values later and print them out on the console.
The code did not make any errors during the compile, but the result I see was totally different from what I expected. It didn't show the brand name and the price was looking even weird, as follows.
Brand:
Price: 6.95322e-310
Somebody help me out! Thank you very much indeed in advance.

Answer 1

The problem you have is that you override the member names with function parameters. You can use this-> to make it explicit or name the member differently.
For example:
void Car::setBrand(string name) {
this->name = name;
}
Or:
void Car::setBrand(string new_name) {
name = new_name;
}

Answer 2

In your constructor and setters, you make no differentiation between the local parameter and the class member.
name = name;
Both the function parameter and the class member are called name. Currently the compiler is assigning the parameter value to itself, and not affecting the class member at all. This is because the function parameter is in a more immediate scope.
Possible solutions:
Specify this when referring to the class member: this->name = name;.
Rename the function parameter: name = _name;.
For the constructor, use initializer lists:
Car::Car(string name, double price)
: name(name)
, price(price)
{ }

Answer 3

There's too much wrong with your code to describe it in prose, so let me present a fixed implementation, and I leave it to you to spot the difference:
#include <string>
class Car
{
private:
static constexpr double kNoPrice = -1.0;
static constexpr const char* kNoName = "[no name]";
public:
// Main constructor: constructs a car with the given name and price.
Car(std::string name, double price)
: name_(std::move(name))
, price_(price)
{}
// Convenience constructors:
Car() : Car(kNoName, kNoPrice) {}
Car(std::string name) : Car(std::move(name), kNoPrice) {}
// Accessors:
const std::string& getBrand() const { return name_; }
void setBrand(std::string name) { name_ = std::move(name); }
double getPrice() const { return price_; }
void setPrice(double price) { price_ = price; }
private:
std::string name;
double price;
};
Some random notes, in no particular order:
Use correct names. It's std::string, not string, mate or buddy. Never ever be abusing namespace std.
Include headers for external names that you need.
Reading uninitialized values is undefined behaviour, so none of your constructors should leave fields uninitialized (like price_).
Give private members consistent names (e.g. foo_ in my example).
Accessors should be const-correct.
Convenience constructors should delegate to one single work-horse constructor.
Pick sensible defaults for initial values of defaulted fields and make them discoverable.
Use move semantics when taking ownership of dynamically managed data (strings, dynamic containers, etc.).