Re: [boost] [Fit] formal review ends 20th March.

Subject: Re: [boost] [Fit] formal review ends 20th March.
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-03-21 17:53:32

On 3/21/2016 2:04 PM, Paul Fultz II wrote:
>
>
> On Sunday, March 20, 2016 at 9:07:53 PM UTC-5, Gavin Lambert wrote:
... snipped
>> I think it's still true that mutable functions are useful
>> in more cases -- despite being vulnerable to surprise copies and
>> thread-safety issues.
>>
>> (Having said that, this may be because boost::bind is used in most cases
>> where const function objects would otherwise be used, so that custom
>> function objects are typically only created where they need to be
>> mutable; the code does not yet make extensive use of lambdas.  But I
>> don't think my experience is unique.)
>>
>
> I would like to note, that the const requirement only applies to function
> objects. You can pass member function pointers to member functions that are
> mutable.

You probably meant to say "You can pass member function pointers for 
mutable member functions". I would also strongly suggest you use the 
terms 'const' and 'non-const' when referring to member functions rather 
than 'const' and 'mutable' in your documentation. The reason I believe 
this is less confusing is because 'mutable' is a C++ keyword and as a 
keyword means something entirely different from how you are using it in 
your documentation. So I think what you really meant to say above would 
be better expressed as "You can pass member function pointers for 
non-const member functions".