You're right. I didn't read over the OP's example carefully
enough. The
mutation is being done to a module-level variable in an inout
function, which
is completely legit. I thought that what the OP thought was
wrong was mutating
a module-level variable in a non-mutable function (and that's
perfectly fine as
long as it's not pure). What I missed (and you didn't) was the
fact that that
module-level variable was pointing to the contents of the
object which was
const. And that mutable pointer _is_ being obtained via the
constructor just
like in your example. And that is most definitely a compiler
bug - the same one
that your example shows.
- Jonathan M Davis
That was exactly my question.
