On Wednesday, May 02, 2012 11:58:41 Mehrdad wrote: > Er, I guess I didn't say what I actually meant to say, my bad. x_x > > What I meant that you're assuming that derived classes won't need mutable > state in an const method that they overrode.
If a const function needs mutable member variables or non-const member functions, then it cannot exist. And so if a derived class requires that, then it cannot exist. Putting const on a member function puts certain requirements on it (the same goes for nothrow, pure, and @safe), and any derived class must meet those requirements with its overridden version. It's part of the function's signature just like the return type is. - Jonathan M Davis
