Boost logo

Boost :

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
> ill-formed.

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, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at