On 2/25/2019 3:05 PM, Olivier FAURE wrote:
On Monday, 25 February 2019 at 22:45:38 UTC, Olivier FAURE wrote:
For the same reason C++'s std::shared_pointer uses a non-const copy constructor.
Wait, no, I just checked, std::shared_pointer's copy constructor is const, even
though it changes shared data. Ugh, that's just wrong.
(I kind of agree with Walter's point; I totally assumed the constructor would be
non-const, since it mutates data it receives)
There's also no requirement that any arguments to constructors should be const.
Why should copy-constructors be different?
