Logical const

[Peter Alexander]

On 28/11/10 4:37 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> The library solution to logical constness would gravitate around a union
> with a const (or immutable) and a regular field of the same type:
>
> union {
> T before;
> const T after;
> }
>
>
> Andrei

I must be missing something. Surely, when inside a const method, you 
still can't modify a union, whether you access a const member of the 
union or not?

Could you elaborate?