On Thu, 2002-04-11 at 12:44, Luke Palmer wrote:
> > class myobj {
> > ...
> > int a,b,c;
> > myobj(int aa, int bb, int cc) :
> > a(aa), b(bb), c(cc) const {}
> > ...
> > };
>
> Ummm no. Straight from Bjarne: "You can't have a const constructor." You
> just do what you did without the const. A const myobj is essentially
> equivalent (with the exception of not being allowed to call methods not
> marked 'const', except the constructor) to:
I'm not much of a C++ fan, as you can tell. What he said, but my point
stands in a somewhat modified capacity....
Do we have a way to do this, or do we not do it, or do we adopt a silly
C++-like style?
