>> If you have a better alternative, without duplicating the code, >> I'll be happy to learn. > > I really don't like this dropping of const either, but I do see the problem. > I'd nearly rather see two copies of the function than start dropping the const > in such a way.
I don't think duplicating the code is a good option. > Also, I'd see having the function itself be a wrapper around a > macro as a better alternative too, assuming such a construction is possible. Sorry, I'm not sure to understand. Could you please elaborate? Regards, Olivier
