From: Eric Niebler (eric_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-07-24 13:16:00
Peter Dimov wrote:
> Eric Niebler wrote:
>> General design question here. This came up on the user's list, and it
>> made me question something I believed to be true. When writing a proxy
>> for, e.g., a std container, I see two options for handling const.
>> 0) Const-ness depends on the const-ness of the object being proxied:
>> 1) Const-ness depends on the proxy object itself:
> If the vector_proxy has an ordinary copy constructor, (0) is usually correct
> because (1) cannot be enforced.
> vector_proxy const a = ...;
> vector_proxy b = a;
That's a good point, and very relevant to the BOOST_FOREACH discussion
because BOOST_FOREACH must make a copy of the proxy.
> (1) typically only makes sense for types that are intended to be class
> members and propagate the constness of the member function to the proxied
> (referred to) object for some reason.
Right, that would seem to be a legitimate use.
> (1) can work for move-only types. I don't have experience with such proxies,
> so I can't tell. :-)
You mean when the proxy is move only? How does that solve the problem above?
vector_proxy const a = ...;
vector_proxy b = std::move(a);
I've probably misunderstood.
-- Eric Niebler Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com The Astoria Seminar ==> http://www.astoriaseminar.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk