Re: [boost] [type_traits][function_types] Discard param const qualification, bug or feature?

Subject: Re: [boost] [type_traits][function_types] Discard param const qualification, bug or feature?
From: Jonathan Wakely (jwakely.boost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-09-30 17:20:40

On 30 September 2013 21:53, Mostafa wrote:
>>
>> Why do you choose a different "efficient type" for an 'int' parameter
>> vs a 'const int' parameter?
>>
>
> You're most likely reading this message out of context. If you start with
> Sergey's response it'll probably make more sense.

No, I've read the whole thread.

It sounds like your code to generate signatures has a bug and doesn't
model the rules of C++.

I repeat: Why would you choose a different "efficient type" for an
'int' parameter vs a 'const int' parameter?

I would say if you're doing that then you're doing something wrong, so
should fix it to remove top-level const, because that's what C++ does
and because it's probably the right thing to do anyway.