RE: [boost] Re: static_cast and const

From: Ben Hutchings (ben.hutchings_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-09-20 11:36:04

Jonathan Turkanis <technews_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> "David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> news:umzzl3pvk.fsf_at_boost-consulting.com...
> > Richard Hadsell <hadsell_at_[hidden]> writes:
> >
> > > Jonathan Turkanis wrote:
> > >
> > >>When I was writing it I initially typed 'const_cast', but then
> > >>thought to myself: why use my big guns if I don't have to?  ;-)
> > >>
> > > For clarity -- to tell the reader that you intended to modify the
> > > const-ness.
> >
> > static_cast is a bigger gun than const_cast.  At least const_cast
> > cant violate data layout, and unless there is actually a constant
> > object, won't result in undefined behavior.
> 
> Good point. I guess part of the reason I avoid const_cast whenever
> possible is that people look upon it suspiciously, even if it's only
> adding cv-qualification. Maybe people should be more suspicious of 
> static_cast.

If you want to make an implicit conversion explicit, use
boost::implicit_cast.