[boost] Re: Re: Logical constness of intrusive_ptr

From: Ed Brey (brey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-07-17 15:43:09

"Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]> wrote in message news:018501c22dac$ff373c30$1d00a8c0_at_pdimov2...
> >
> > I understand.  And the constness of intrusive_ptr_add_ref ultimately
> relies on the constness of the count object, when there is one.  If there
> are valid reasons to have the const object be either const or non-const, I
> suppose the choice sould be passed up to the user.
> 
> The choice _is_ left to the user. :-)

Yes, technically it is, but not in a convenient fashion, since he would need to create his own mutable counted_base.  Hence your smile, I presume.  I think that <T const> support is quite important, and so counted_base should have its count mutable (with associated changes to free functions), or there should be two counted_base-style classes provided.  What's your plan for gathering enough information to make a decision on how to proceed?