(Leaving aside the question of should you have them at all.)
I have always preferred to just use function overloading to give you the same name for both getter and setters.
int rate() { return _rate; }
void rate(int value) { _rate = value; }
// instead of
int getRate() { return _rate; }
void setRate(int value) { _rate = value; }
// mainly because it allows me to write the much cleaner
total( period() * rate() );
// instead of
setTotal( getPeriod() * getRate() );
Naturally I am correct, but i wondered if the library writers had any good reason ?
There are several levels to "Getting" and "Setting"
So Get/Set can be ascribed a useful meaning, and be part of a larger, consistent naming strategy.