On Monday, July 09, 2012 11:53:05 H. S. Teoh wrote: > I'm wondering if it makes any sense to have _also_ have non-const > versions of things like toString, for objects that want to implement > caching. So in contexts where const is not important, you can have > caching, network access, whatever you want, but for core language stuff > that needs to assume const, everything will still work (just a little > slower).
That works as long as the const version still works. As soon as you _need_ to mutate in order to do opEquals, opCmp, toString, or toHash (as can happen with lazy loading schemes), it doesn't work. Basic caching should work with that though. - Jonathan M Davis