From: Thorsten Ottosen (nesotto_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-01-03 08:00:05
> "Thorsten Ottosen" <nesotto_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> > [...]
> > I really don't understand why correctness should
> > not be the default and then let those who want it do the hacks?
> But const-correctness *is* the default, as long as you do it
[I hope I'm not misunderstanding how your pointer work]
:-) it depends on one's definition of const-correctness. I'm talking about
*propagation of constness* within const member functions, not unconditional
This is the only meaning of const-correctness that I have seen.
The fact that this is not supported by commonly used smart-pointers is like
reducing all talk about
const-correctness to a joke, unless there are other secret reasons for doing
it that way. If they exist,
I would like to hear them.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk