const debacle
Bill Baxter
dnewsgroup at billbaxter.com
Sat Mar 22 13:18:41 PDT 2008
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> "Janice Caron" wrote
> I have been thinking about this a lot, and I think actually in the grand
> scheme of things, this is not a blocker, as even though the compiler does
> not guarantee constness for the non-const version, one can document that a
> function is const (and even test this by compiling a const version in a
> unittest). However, it is a hole in the const scheme, which should probably
> be fixed at some point.
So the solution to your problem is to use "documentation" const? The
good thing about that is that it works for D1.0 too! :-)
--bb
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list