On Sat, Aug 18, 2007 at 04:12:36PM +0200, Alfredo Braunstein wrote: > Andre Poenitz wrote: > > > On Sat, Aug 18, 2007 at 12:54:56PM +0200, Alfredo Braunstein wrote: > >> Abdelrazak Younes wrote: > >> > >> > Alfredo Braunstein wrote: > >> >> This the same concept as the previous post for CursorSlices. > >> > > >> > I personally agree with the two patches. > >> > >> Thanks! I'll apply on monday if there are no objections. > >> > >> btw, we should implement good const semantics for CursorSlice, > >> DocIterator and Cursor, it's really missing. > > > > Do we really need it? It probably means some code duplication, and so > > Mmmm, I don't think it implies much code duplication, probably a few > well-placed casts would suffice. But I'd have to try ;-) Note that the fake > constness of DocIterator spans around 80 lines of duplicated code in > current trunk. > > > far the old 'fake' constness you just remove sort-of-worked. > > There are at least two problems with the fake constness IMO: > > - you can inadvertently bypass it (like when you 'fake-cast' to non-const in > the example CursorSlice b = a;). With no cast at all. > > - it f** up goot const semantics for the iterators themselves: now you > cannot send a pair of DocIterator const & to a method that has just to > change a font: the method has to copy (!) the DocIterators to access the > data.
Okokok ;-) Andre'
