From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-01-03 09:37:32
"Thorsten Ottosen" <nesotto_at_[hidden]> writes:
> "David B. Held" <dheld_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
>> "Thorsten Ottosen" <nesotto_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
>> > [...]
>> > Having propagation of constness makes a lot of sense and
>> > would certainly make the smart pointers a lot smarter.
>> At first, I thought so too. But then I thought about what raw pointers
>> do, and I decided that it was better to mimic the built-ins. If you
>> always propagate constness, then you can't have a const ptr to a
>> non-const object. Maybe that doesn't bother you, but perhaps there
>> is a scenario in which you want to be able to modify the pointee in
>> a function, but you don't want to accidentally reset() or release() the
>> pointer in that function. Propagation of constness eliminates this
> Why? Can't you cast the constness away?
A const_cast is an open door to undefined behavior. The language is
designed to make most casts unneccessary by providing a type system
which separates the constness of an object from the constness of
objects *reachable* from that object. That's why char const* and
char*const are different types.
> I really don't understand why correctness should not be the default
> and then let those who want it do the hacks?
It's the system which requires const_cast that is the hack. The
language is correct and consistent as it stands.
It would only make sense in C++ to make a pointee's mutability depend
on the mutability of the pointer if we were going to think of the
pointee as being part of the pointer. For that application, we have
boost::optional. Pointers should probable remain pointer-like. In
other words, they simply refer to other objects but do not contain
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk