From: Doug Gregor (gregod_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-04-30 23:02:08
On Monday 30 April 2001 05:34, you wrote:
> i have a question about the just uploaded function
> Callback/function-04-29.zip by Doug Gregor (great stuff btw):
> is it possible to make the operator () methods const? or is/was there a
> good reason for making them non-const?
> (saves me lots of mutable's if they're const;-)
I see two options for making it const, each with its semantic problems:
1) Just make function::operator() const, but constness won't be passed
through to underlying function objects, so we're dealing with a semantic grey
2) Have both a const and a non-const version, and pass an "is_const" flag so
that function objects will be invoked as const or non-const and the constness
will be passed through. However, this requires a const version of operator()
to be defined for any function object regardless of whether it is used or not.
I don't really like #1 because it's inheritently unsafe: if one calls a const
function, one expects no modifications. However, mutables, global variables,
and free functions all break this constness guarantee already, so would it be
so bad if constness was lost?
I don't really like #2 because it requires const operator() on functors,
which may not be reasonable for some function objects. Requiring the user to
define extra members that won't/can't be used seems to go against the
intention of C++: don't make the user pay for what s/he doesn't use.
So here's your answer: I dislike both solutions, and could not come up with
another one very easily. I'm leaning toward #1 because guaranteeing constness
is impossible given the ability to link to free functions. Any input would be
very, very helpful, and either solution is reasonably easy to implement.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk