Le 26/02/2012 13:17, Jonathan M Davis a écrit :
On Sunday, February 26, 2012 13:02:14 deadalnix wrote:
Thinking more about this, I did notice that I almost never do a const
and a non const version of the same function when coding (either the
functionality require const or it doesn't, so the const and non const
version will do something very different, which is confusing).
Is it common ? If it is, it open the door to limiting override
possibilities when it come to const.non const, with the advantage of
being able to infer const in way more place than it is actually. I could
expand about that.
It's common for some stuff. A classic example would be iterators (or ranges).
If you have a const reference or pointer to a container, then the iterator (or
range) that you get out of it must give you const access to the elements,
whereas a non-const reference or pointer to a container should be able to give
you an iterator or range with mutable access to the elements.
Can't inout help us for such an issue ?
