Re: [boost] why is operator() not const in random number generators?

From: Matthias Troyer (troyer_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-04-14 14:16:31

On Monday, April 14, 2003, at 08:22 PM, Thorsten Ottosen wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> I guess the headline says it all. Wouldn't it be better
> with some mutable data?

I see it this way: the semantics of operator() is to actually change 
the state of the generator, and thus it should not be const.

  I use mutable only when I need to change some internal private 
variables that do not have any influence on the appearance of the 
object to the user, i.e. if the semantics are that the function call 
does not change the state.

Matthias