const again

[Janice Caron]

On 12/6/07, Walter Bright <newshound1 at digitalmars.com> wrote:
> A special syntax for class types means that one has to know that type T
> is a class.

and

> If one has a tail-const struct, do you call the mutable member function
> or the const member function?

Got it.

I don't have a solution yet, but at least I know what to think about.

If we can't have mutable-ref-to-const-class at all, as you say, it's
not so bad. I'd say we can live without that. There are always other
ways to code things. But I'll keep thinking.

Thanks.