From: Thorsten Ottosen (nesotto_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-01-05 00:05:45
"Dan W." <danw_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> I just don't agree that, not
> having such semantics in existing smart pointers constitutes a violation
> of constness correctness, or that allowing const functions to call
> non-const, non-member functions does;
> for that amounts to saying that
> the working definition of const-correctness in the language is
AFAIK the language does not on its own have a definition of
I've never seen it mentioned in the standard. What is good is that the
language allows us
to pursue const-correctness *if* we want to.
> For someone to claim that, she'd have to prove that there
> is some self-contradiction in it, which I don't think is the case.
The contradiction lies in those who argue const-correctness is good, yet
don't want it in
one of the most important places. That's inconsistency.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk