Destructors, const structs, and opEquals

[Steven Schveighoffer]

On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 17:54:57 -0500, Don <nospam at nospam.com> wrote:

> I can't really escape the feeling that 'const' guarantees too little.
> It makes guarantees to the caller, but tells the callee *nothing*.

This is the basis of my argument that adding logical const would not  
compromise the guarantee of const, because it has no guarantees to begin  
with.

But what const *does* do well is give you a good guard-rail to prevent you  
 from making dumb mistakes.  Most people are not going to write code that  
exploits the lack of guarantees, so it's a reasonable constraint.

The huge value of const is to unify both mutable and immutable parameters  
into one function.

-Steve