From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-09-20 19:37:43
"Ben Hutchings" <ben.hutchings_at_[hidden]> writes:
> Jonathan Turkanis <technews_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> "David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
>> > 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
> If you want to make an implicit conversion explicit, use
That's the right answer.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com